Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can I ask for my topic bans to be lifted? I have been careful not to participate in anything about categorisation and I havent edited any pages about living people. I did wrong seven years ago but I have seen the error of my ways, and the circumstances which led me to create sock puppets will not recur. I have been busy on Simple English and Wikimedia, and have edited a few English wikipedia articles. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what you mean by 'no longer on the page' - it is listed at WP:RESTRICT#Voluntary. That being said, the diff linked does not tell the whole story here. I'm not trying to give Rathfelder a hard time here, but I do think he would be well-advised to provide links to the various discussions that led to my indef, my unblock with restrictions, his subsequent CBAN, eventual unban with restrictions still in place, and also his temporary block in February for breaching editing restrictions. I would advise him to set it all out for people to review, rather than making them rely on memory / go digging. GirthSummit (blether)00:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019. Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.
I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportunity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it. I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits to those pages after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.
I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.
I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.
I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintained my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. "Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)" I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have editted, but I have not participated in any of those discussions. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary.Reply
These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I didnt understand that XfD was part of the ban. However they dont really relate to the stuff that got me in trouble in the first place. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation. But I have never done a lot work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I follishly made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article." I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have edited, but I have not participated in any of those discussions - and I wouldnt want to contribute to most of them even if I was allowed to. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary. These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation discussions. I have never done a lot of work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. What got me in trouble in the first place was a conflict in my personal life, and it seems very unlikely that such a situation will arise again. Can these bans now be lifted please? RathfelderRathfelder (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've restored the prior discussion (last week) as a subthread. I believe this is a better request, but am neutral on the ban as I don't have the on wiki time right now to evaluate the history. StarMississippi01:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
That wasn't rendering properly due to an improperly closed <ref> tag; I've fixed it.
If you didn't have extended confirmed rights you wouldn't have been able to make the edit at all – the "edit" button literally doesn't appear on pages you don't have the right to edit, and if you try to pass the &action=edit argument to the url it just shows the source with a warning that you are unable to edit due to the protection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. The editing related to Alex Scott-Samuel and the Socialist Health Association was really egregious (and I honestly wonder why we didn't impose a topic ban from that area), but none of it had anything to do with the completely separate restrictions that are being appealed here. I believe the one-account restriction is sufficient to prevent the a recurrence of the double !voting that led to the XfD and categorization bans, and as to that issue I think Rathfelder has learned his lesson at this point even the appeals haven't been a master class in persuasion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rathfelder, I've already given my opinion, but I'll ask this anyway since I think others might want to hear your answer: could you talk a bit about your using multiple accounts to !vote in CfD discussions? I know you said before that you had gotten too obsessive about categorisation and wanted to !vote twice in discussions that you thought were unfair or where you felt personally attacked. How do you plan to avoid ending up in that kind of situation again? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have found a new place to keep my obsessions with categorisation occupied. Wikimedia will keep me busy - I'm working through 100,000 unidentified logos there, and there are plenty more jobs to be done there so I am not planning to get into a lot of discussions about categorisation here, but I would like to be able to actually categorise articles. I still get lots of notices about deletion of categories I have created or edited, I am happy to ignore almost all of them, but I dont want to feel that I would get in trouble if I were to respond. Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Although I entirely accept that using sockpuppets in discussions was wrong I dont think my doing that made any substantial difference to anything, so I am not in the least tempted to do it again. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Sardonic comments like "Is this ban permanent? Its now more than 6 years since my foolish use of sockpuppets" and attempts to minimize his sockpuppetry in the comment just above this one tell me he has learned nothing. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I dont understand what more you want me to learn. I have learned that using sockpuppets is very foolish and I have stopped using them. My comment was not intended to be sardonic. Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In 2016, User:ACM7 was blocked for the repeated use of sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACM7/Archive, primarily editing Allen Meadors and its talk page with claims of inaccuracy in the article (as well as apparently being an impermissible shared account). The account was banned under the three strike sockpuppetry rule. The editor has made a request to review the ban, stating that going forward they will refrain from any direct editing of the Meadors article and that only a single person will operate the account. HouseBlaster has confirmed no recent socking and gave the green light as far as the "checkuser" portion of the block, so now it is up to the community whether the ban should be loosened or lifted. The editor's quoted request follows:
Thank you, Seraphimblade. Yes, I would appreciate it if you would copy my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for community discussion.
I understand now that the 3X ban means that this needs to be considered by the community rather than decided by a single administrator. I am willing to accept a restriction prohibiting me from editing or discussing the Allen Meadors article or other subjects directly related to me.
I also understand the concern regarding the account being established as a role account. I can assure you that ACM7 is and will be operated solely by me. No other person will use the account.
My purpose in seeking an unblock is not to control or rewrite my biography. I am specifically asking for the opportunity for independent Wikipedia editors to review the "Controversy" section under Wikipedia's policies concerning reliable and independent sourcing, neutrality, context, and due weight. I would not edit the article myself. I would raise any policy-based concerns on the Talk page and leave the actual editorial decisions to independent editors.
I would appreciate the opportunity for the community to consider whether a narrower restriction, rather than a site-wide ban, would be appropriate under these circumstances.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to have this considered. ACM7(talk) 22:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Question: @ACM7, back in 2016, you explained that "The we represent seven UCA alums". To be clear now, can you reassure us that you'll be editing on your own behalf rather than on behalf of others? Your precise phrasing above ("I can assure you that ACM7 is and will be operated solely by me. No other person will use the account." ) does leave room for the possibility that while it would be your hands on the keyboard, your contributions might be the product of several minds rather than one individual. NebY (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
ACM7 requested by email to post this response here:
Yes. I can give that assurance clearly.
If ACM7 is permitted to edit in the future, the account will be operated solely by me, and I will be editing and speaking only on my own behalf. I will not operate the account on behalf of other individuals, and I will not use it to present the views of other people as though they were my own.
I understand now that an individual Wikipedia account must represent a single editor, and I will abide by that requirement going forward.
Thank you for asking and giving me the opportunity to make that clear.
Support unban, but only under the condition of a topic ban from Allen Meadors, broadly construed. We don't know whether they've been sockpuppeting and just not been caught, but the last six years at Allen Meadors has been fairly quiet, and the only reverted edits were a couple pretty benign ones that didn't touch on the ground zero of the issue. Given how focused ACM and the apparent "others" were in editing this specific article, I can believe there has been no sockpuppeting in the last six years. I think the risk is fairly small against what would otherwise be a de facto forever ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support following the response above (thank you for that), under the condition of a topic ban from Allen Meadors, broadly construed, which I hope will help make editing here a happy and positive experience. NebY (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion
I mistakenly reported Nicebear12345(talk·contribs)at AN/I last week and, well, it almost caused an international incident. It got archived there but the consensus seemed to be a lack of competency and an unwillingness to learn (or add reliable sources, or even a source). I've documented issues with their edits since the AN/I report here in the hopes of them changing their ways, but no luck. @Masterhatch: also reverted one of their edits (one I messed up doing), so courtesy pinging them. Seasider53 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment I've several interactions with this editor. And i've reverted multiple edits due to no sources and lack of punctuation/capitalisation. I found with Nicebear12345 that some of the unsourced additions could fall under WP:SKYBLUE or, as in the case when I reverted this, you could look at a map and see it's true... But as with so many of his edits there is no care and attention to basic sentence structure. If i simply fixed it and carried on everytime, then he'll just keep on "forgetting" periods and capitals. If he only did it on the occasions, then i'd fix it and pay no mind. But since it's more often than not, i felt reverting and explaining the lack of sources and punctuation was the best option. His heart is in the right place. But i think he's young. Masterhatch (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: This attempt is addressing an issue in the prior discussion in that there has been recent edits and warnings. But I still have some issues with this. For example, one of the edits that Seasider53 has taken issue with was this one. While the formatting is poor, there are indications that both claims in that edit are true, even if not sourced by Nicebear12345. Per BURDENWAIT and WP:PRESERVE, the removal by Masterhatch that Seasider53 agreed to 'seems' to have been the wrong course of action. That aside, I understand why Seasider53 is bringing this up again. It also doesn't help Nicebear12345's situation when they have recently added a source that has an access date of 2017. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
On the 2017 reference, that exact same reference with the same access date is present in a related article. They likely just copy-and-pasted it into the article. ~2026-49956-12 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: with this edit, nay "fact", they couldn't even leave a space at the beginning. Someone came along a few minutes later and moved the information to a relevant section. Again, creating work for other people with almost every edit. Seasider53 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here he added an extra space. And here spacing issues and sea of blue. And here formatting issues (adding the 'th'). Over half of his edits require someone to fix. We all make mistakes, but his seem excessive. Masterhatch (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, that second edit is up against an image, so it doesn't cause an issue visually. Edit: unless you mean the actual length of text in blue. Not sure what the policy is there. Seasider53 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago11 comments8 people in discussion
I am looking to appeal my ban by the community. I hope that you will be willing to consider my appeal and lift my ban so I can edit again. Below I will explain fully why I was banned by the community, and why I believe I have demonstrated that I can be trusted to edit again.
- My initial account was blocked on 2 June 2025. The reason for this block was because I had abused multiple accounts in an edit war. My own reason was that I found the formal edit warring report process complicated and wanted to end it quickly. I understand that this was being highly deceptive and could be viewed as trying to gain a personal advantage for malicious reasons.
- After my initial account was blocked indefinitely, I created multiple alternate accounts to continue editing Wikipedia, without repeating the initial violation that led to my master account being blocked. However, these accounts (User:HigherTime666, User:RideTheLightning99, among others), were all caught and blocked as well due to constituting sockpuppetry. I understand that this is also a serious violation of site policy.
- After this, I decided to take up the WP:SO and have not sockpuppeted for at least six months. I believe this demonstrates that my understanding that sockpuppetry is a serious violation of guidelines. I did not contribute to other Wikimedia projects during this time, as I haven't had any reason to.
I also believe that my original account's contributions prior to being blocked were very productive and valuable for the community. For example, pages that I have created, such as Priscilla Gilman, New wave of classic rock, and Murray Sanders are all accurate, detailed, and well-researched articles that demonstrate my prowess in editing and research. I was a member of the Wikipedia Library due to my prior productive edits and I used it to search for accurate and elusive information.
I hope that this demonstrates my understanding of site policy. I would greatly appreciate if my ban is reconsidered. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Generally it just requires a CU or two jump in and look, but sometimes there is more to a case than meets the eye or is in public. Often it is good if the blocking CU is at least aware and perhaps takes a look, which is why I pinged a few people above who are most familiar with the case. My skepticism still remains. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm also sceptical, but not so sceptical that I'd oppose an unban. This has come a long way from the "I don't think block evasion should be against the rules" unblocks we got earlier. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
CU results I see no evidence of recent block evasion in the logs. ToBeFree saw something around a temporary account, but I think concluded that temporary account was unrelated. It certainly seems to be unrelated based on my check. Based on what I see in front of me, I see no need to directly ping ToBeFree. I therefore claim the CU part is satisfied; the community is free to lift the ban or leave it in place. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment No comment on the merits (I'm neutral), just making sure this doesn't get archived. It would be swell if a few people would do some homework and opine here, so there could be a clear consensus one way or another. An unban request isn't about time, it's about having enough participation, which this hasn't had yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢05:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Hello to any admins. I have been blocked for editing English Wikipedia for 6 months for sockpuppetry with the reason of editing articles and redirecting links whether to Fascist Italy/Kingdom of Italy (please refer to the w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jheeeeeeteegh for much context). An admin has advised me to take the standard offer which I did. And also added what topic ban should I accept. Thanks. PrimeNick (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Let me say this: due to how readers use various devices and various resolutions, you will never get the images right for everyone. It's silly to edit war about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This user has now removed your User Talk page notice, doesn't seem interested in having the discussion. I'm having further concerns about abrasiveness, such as "Regarding the Aussies, they are a bunch of convicts anyway," but this may not be the place for it. I won't write any more in this thread if I'm not replied to. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have been urged by a trusted friend that my behaviour is currently out of control, and I should rein it right back, i.e. totally, and issue an apology to everybody concerned straight away.
...possibly unrelatedly, this is the first time I realised that 'Walter Ego' was Roxy. While it is not required that a signature clearly identify the user's username, given the somewhat fraught history this user has my eyebrow raises slightly at this. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think he's right that his signature isn't breaking the rules. As mentioned above, identifying username isn't required. As there isn't a User:Walter Ego, there's no case for impersonation either. "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users," is applicable, as it is confusing, both in terms of being a completely different name and the fact it is unclear the name consists of two links which go to different places, but that doesn't read like a rule against being confusing (which is of course a subjective metric).
For the record, previous signatures like "-Roxy, the dog.barcus" have been fine. In that case, it identifies the user and the punctuation makes it clearer to expect two links, with "barcus" not being a a huge stretch beyond "talk". After a couple incidents, I would have expected a courteous user to go back to a signature that didn't cause confusion or otherwise change the current one to something clearer such as "Roxy (ego)".
But that's enough quibbling about that from me. The wider concern is an apparent inability to change. Some might say stubbornness. As seen in his block log and this detailed summary of blocks 2023-present, there is a long history of trouble. Not even 24 hours after the above apology, we are seeing that sig talk and a reply without elaboration at Talk:Rayon. An aspect of our issues with the Fiber and Bamboo textile pages was poor communication, which seems to only being repeated there.
I know he's withdrawn from the bamboo textiles page now anyway and I don't want to sound dismissive of his apology. To be frank, I am not convinced he can neutrally edit bamboo and rayon/viscose-related topics. I can't really assume bad faith, as I have no reason not to think he believes in what he writes and has relevant professional experience. I don't want to beat a dead horse, it's just a lot of "That link does not say what you think it says" etc. we went through, to the point where it was difficult not to think he is just trying to erase sources that say (or certainly appear to say) things he does not like, without offering sources that convincingly contradict the controversial ones.
What I will end on is I would not want him cut off from the social circle going on with his User Talk page. If this does escalate, I'd recommend he has whatever details are needed to keep in contact with those people, should the worst happen (e.g. email address, instant messaging username). Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I received the same message as Thryduulf. I was just doing to drop it but since the conversation is ongoing here anyway: it definitely reads to me as an attempt to evade scrutiny. If many people do this you'd think it might give a hint. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Should the rules require transparency in signatures at all times, that it's obvious who the author is without clicking through? Stylistic changes of course should be fine, but nothing that can be considering obfuscating at all? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)13:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to be "that guy" but the signatures guideline is at WP:SIG and the place to discuss it is the accompanying talk page. This thread is already quite long so let's try to keep it on topic. WaggersTALK13:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
While doing something completely unrelated to this thread (updating WP:ARBLOCI), I found that in 2022 arbcom warned [Roxy the dog] to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others as part of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing case. That was 4 years ago and the associated findings of fact are not directly related to anything mentioned in this thread, but the warning was general in nature. I'm explicitly not threatening anybody with anything here, it's just background information I think it would be useful for everyone here to be aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here's the thing. Roxy was community banned between June 2023–February 2025. Links to the banning discussion and unbanning discussion. I want to acknowledge that Roxy's unblock was well done, and that they have in fact stayed away from GENSEX topics (or at least their editing hasn't been an issue). The incivility, however, continues as before. They've had three blocks since January 2026. Their recent editing on Talk:Rayon and Talk:Fiber is unconstructive. Like Thryduulf, I'm not (yet) suggesting any kind of sanction, but I'm not sure I see a way forward. Mackensen(talk)00:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Roxy is facing some health issues to which I'm sympathetic, but they don't get to take it out on other editors. That half asseed non apology above is ridiculous. They asked for some rope and got it with the unblock, but they've opted to hang themselves with that rope yet again. It's clear Roxy isn't going to change their behavior, so it's time for us as a community to decide if they're welcome to edit or not. StarMississippi02:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support: Roxy's behavior is persistently incompatible with a collaborative project. WP:CIR explicitly states that [c]alling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Roxy told a user, [y]ou are clearly incompetent in this area (reading). That is deeply offensive and I would give anyone a strong warning for that alone. Roxy is not anyone, though; they have caught three separate tempblocks for similar conduct, and that's only counting the blocks placed after they were released from a ban that was also for similar conduct. We should not be spending the project's most valuable resource trying to reform someone who has been given every off-ramp and still disrupts the project with personal attacks and vitriol. Enough is enough. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
W.R.T. Roxy's comments/apologies copied below, while it is appreciated, it does not change my !vote. Largely because again, we've been down this road before, but also because they still don't seem to understand all of the issues. When my efforts to improve the Bamboo Textile page kept being thwawrted - the fact they use this language (that their efforts were "thwarted") still carries the distinct tone of "I was right and everyone who differed was wrong". - The BushrangerOne ping only21:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The part of what he said that you quoted is immediately followed by: my answer was to..., after which he describes what he believes he did wrong. You can of course read it as him saying that he was right on the content, but I don't think it's correct to read him as saying that he thinks his conduct was right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to reconcile conceding that his conduct was wrong, with a continuing battleground mentality. I've lost count of the numbers of times that I, myself, have accepted that a consensus went against me, but continued to believe that the other editors were wrong and I was right. But I'm not dismissing your concern. I know from experience that Roxy has a tendency to give in to his impulses. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Three years ago, I favored giving Roxy the dog "one last chance" and received some well deserved flak for my leniency. Early last year, I joined many editors in welcoming Roxy back from his community ban after a seemingly sincere appeal asking for some rope. I dislike the rope metaphor but Roxy is the one who brought it up. Now, Roxy has squandered the good faith he conjured up and used that rope to severely damage himself. I am sympathetic to whatever his health problems are but lots of people suffer terrible health problems without personally attacking other people. I just forced myself to review Roxy's lengthy block log and the rope is gone. Many editors have never been blocked because they are capable of controlling themselves, and allowing toxic people to stay in our editing community is a disservice to them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Roxy has made exactly five edits since accepting the criticism in this thread as valid. Two of those were definitely suboptimal and the other three are not examples of the best of Wikipedia, but none of them are actually bad. I don't disagree with the above rationales, and Cullen's is particularly compelling, so I'm not going to oppose this however I can't bring myself to support banning someone just five edits after what is effectively a commitment to take stock and improve. Make no mistake though, a single step back across the line and I'll be adding my name after bolding the word "support", but I'm not there yet by the thinnest of margins. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support It might be technically withdrawing from a dispute to stop editing at bamboo textile but not at rayon but these concepts are so close (both are viscose fiber textiles) as to suggest they're not really walking away here. I wasn't a party to the cban or the subsequent lifting of it but I did read both threads and, after rope has been extended, there's only so much of it we can give an editor who seems to constantly fall back into problematic habits. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, with a heavy heart. In most circumstances, I would agree with Thryduulf—apologies and promises to do better are usually sufficient. But this is not Roxy's first rodeo. Far from it:
In 2022, ArbCom warned Roxy to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
In 2023, Roxy was site banned for transphobia and incivility (in particular, accusing a transgender person of engaging in standard transexual hounding).
In 2025, Roxy appealed their site ban. They expressed deep regret and pledged that [i]f, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment [about GENSEX], it will be with politeness and empathy. I don't think this May 2026 edit summary or the thread it removes comports with that pledge.
In June 2026, Roxy told another living, breathing human that they were a piece of shit. After Blue-Sonnet{{redacted}} that reprehensible personal attack, Roxy restored it and had the gall to chastise Blue-Sonnet for being rude. Roxy was blocked again—and even argued the block was bad enough that the admin should consider turning in the tools.
In July 2026, Roxy was blocked for calling another living, breathing human stupid and silly and vindictive.
That brings us to the current kerfuffle. I have nothing to add to what's said above, except to point out that Roxy was blocked for Disruptive editing at Fiber rope way back in 2018.
The above paints quite the damning picture, and I hope nobody will begrudge their fellow editors for supporting a site ban under the circumstances.
I'll close with this: If you oppose a site ban, please explain your plan to ensure Roxy will fully comply with our fourth pillar. Should we give Roxy another warning, which history proves will be ignored? Another time-limited block, which Roxy will dismiss as capricious? Another plea from a wikifriend, which will go in one ear and out the other? I suppose we haven't tried an arbitration case focused on Roxy—and if this thread ends with no consensus, I plan to file a case request. But I don't believe we need ArbCom's help. This is a straightforward matter. Roxy was given one more chance in 2025. Roxy has blown that chance. Therefore, Roxy's site ban should be reimposed. Regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)16:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
My feeling is that Roxy's comments indicate that he's treating it as his having been given a warning, and that it's not fair to take action based on that warning without giving time to see whether the warning has done the job or not. However, as I noted, I'm not actually opposing the ban (and people should not cite my comments as their sole justification for opposing). Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Moral oppose. I haven't always gotten along with Roxy, and yeah, the examples provided aren't great, but it feels more like a little break from the frustration would do a lot better than an outright cban. Ehh. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 17:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, it was. If you (or anyone else) have a suggestion to resolve the transphobia, the personal attacks, and the failure to improve their behavior after previous blocks and warnings, I would love to hear it and will switch to oppose. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)20:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I'm only opposing here because I'm still not seeing anything so terrible to suggest a CBan. I wouldn't have an issue with a time-limited block, but that's not being asked. Black Kite (talk)20:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not at all arguing with your oppose @Black Kite. But the reason I did not go with a timed block is we've had three of those since the unban alone and yet, we're still here. It's my opinion that Roxy can be on his best behavior for a period of time. The question is how we handle it when (there is no if with Roxy) he lashes out. StarMississippi00:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: I don't see bans this scale as a necessity when it comes to these types of violations, especially if an editor in question indeed has health issues. Perhaps a long-term yet fixed-duration block is a better option in this case, so the user can get better and reconsider their approach? Gigman (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with giving weight to health issues in ban considerations, when it comes to long-term incivility. Granted, I don't know the details of his issues, including whether this is something that can get better or is for life, and wish not to know the specifics (for anyone who does, do a bit of wiki stalking and you will find specifics).
It would be interesting to determine if there's a correlation between it and the rise of blocks in 2017 (I'll turn a blind eye to the 2014 one, as isolated incidents can happen). But a largely pointless exercise, as we can't give someone a free pass over outside circumstances. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:MISDEEDS, I would personally turn a blind eye to every incident prior to 2026 and focus solely on recent chain of events that brought us to this discussion. That might very well be related to health issues. Gigman (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a self-contradictory position. If you believe that an editor cannot change, you have to evaluate their impact as they are. Either you are okay with retaining an editor who calls other people a "piece of shit", "stupid and silly and vindictive", and "incompetent in ... reading" because they are a "competent editor in other respects" or you are not, and the answer is a tempblock in neither case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it's worth noting that their first edits were made back in 2009, and all their misconducts seem to be relatively new in this timescale. So I'd say this kind of behaviour is not omnipresent but rather contained to a specific mood, maybe?. In any case, I don't think it will be a mistake to give them one last chance, letting them read more about personal attacks and harassment. Gigman (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm only saying the above, because he is a competent editor in other respects - Precisely. I don't see the point in keeping good faith editors away from the porject. Even if they cause some disruption from time to time, their general net contributions are still positive. In other words, keeping them around and periodically "punching" them for misdemeanors is more beneficial for Wiki, rather than cutting ties. And besides, if Roxy really does love Wiki, he will probably keep on editing in the future via proxies and socks anyway. At least that's how I see. Gigman (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not believe that he would sock, and if he did, that would strengthen, not weaken, the case for a ban. I've been thinking about whether there could be a workable alternative to a complete ban, but I don't see any point to a time-limited ban or block. Given that he has a track record of adhering very honorably to his GENSEX TBAN, I've wondered whether another TBAN, from fibers and textiles, would make sense or not. It would address the present problem. However, I recognize that there's a valid argument that anyone who needs multiple simultaneous TBANS might just as well be CBANed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was talking about his adhering to the ban against editing in the topic area. He has adhered to it. He hasn't made such edits. I didn't like it when he posted that personal opinion on his talk page, and you can see me saying so, unambiguously, in that diff. But a tban is about preventing edits to pages and talk pages in a topic, not about enforcing personal opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's a punitive element to every preventive measure. It's clear that the user is ignoring interaction policies magnitudes more than I did, but I still have sort of compassion for them as long as their edits are good. Maybe an indefinite interaction ban or something like this would help as a preventative measure? Gigman (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. What decides me is the thought of the editors who, through no fault of their own, wind up dealing with Roxy. This is a collaborative project; we've no right to ask editors to put up with abuse when we're in a position to address it. Roxy clearly can't do so themselves. Their first block for personal attacks was in 2014. It's irresponsible to just shrug and act like this is the cost of doing business. That's how projects become toxic. Mackensen(talk)19:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment. This is difficult for me, and I'm not going to make either a support or oppose !vote. But I'm going to suggest taking a small amount of time – maybe about a day longer than would typically be taken in such circumstances – before anyone pulls the trigger. And I'll attempt to provide some more information, simply with the intention of providing information that may, perhaps, be helpful. When Roxy posted the apology above (whether or not one finds it "ridiculous" – myself, it sounds to me like something said through gritted teeth, but I also don't think it's at all ridiculous), it was because I had advised him on his talk page that he was on the edge of the ban proposal that has now materialized here (). A day later, I followed it up with this: . Part of what I said there was that I had seen some recent comments of his, that encouraged me about his conduct, on pages about pseudoscience that I watch. I'll show you some diffs of what I was referring to: , , and . For those who don't edit such topics, the talk pages are firehoses of temp accounts and new accounts complaining that Wikipedia is unfair to claim that these things are not scientific, often with new talk threads opening just below the last thread on the same thing. It's easy to get impatient with such complaints. But those diffs show Roxy, contra his reputation, being polite and patient with editors who would be easy to mouth off at. This is someone who doesn't fit into any simple box. He's complicated. I also said that I was reluctant to comment here (until now), out of fear of making things worse. That's because, of course, I've defended him in the past, and his recent conduct reflects badly on me – which, believe me, I regret. I do get it, that civility is a policy here. And as I told him, it's no good that he keeps regressing, and I agree with others that he has run out of rope. I don't know, but maybe he lashes out when he feels like others don't "get" what he's trying to tell them, but I realize that this is not OK, and the only way he could stay here is by getting that under control, for real. That's why I won't oppose. But I mean it when I say that this doesn't reduce to something simple. I agree with HB that ArbCom should not need to be brought in, but I also think the community needs to do more than just have a pile-on vote. One of his past blocks was for lashing out at someone who posted something antisemitic (and Roxy is Jewish), and I think that some of his previous civility blocks were made by admins engaging in performative virtue signaling. But none of that changes the fact that he keeps regressing, and it's not a valid excuse. His current health problems aren't a valid excuse either, but they could be an explanation for why he hasn't done more in the past few days to set things right. I don't have a solution, and either Roxy should provide a convincing case why he will, at last, do better, or I recognize that the emerging consensus here will take effect. But I think that's a valid reason to give him a bit more time to respond, before pulling the trigger. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment. Like others I had been holding off on commenting and wasn't going to !vote in support or opposition (see Tryptofish's comment above that echoes a lot of my sentiment), but I am concerned in how this ANI exacerbated issues rather than deescalated them after Roxy saying they were going to step away on Sept 17. When Roxy apologized and said they were going to step away from the topic at the very top of this ANI, we were so close. When I saw The Bushranger and Thryduulf commenting about Roxy's signature after, it really did come across as piling on in that context when the thread looked like it would have otherwise reached a moot natural end. I don't think either were intentional in that rather than it being a WP:BELLYBUTTON moment, but I did audibly facepalm when I read their comments in context. Normally though when someone says they are stepping back, you give them breathing room, and if there's a small minor quibble like how someone does their sig, you take it up at their usertalk after things have settled down. Heck Roxy even asked both them on those user talks to leave them be and clearly indicated the frustration and feeling of being hounded. Instead Roxy's comments were turned around like with Thryduulf's comment Walter/Roxy responded to this comment on my talk page in a manner that others may wish to review. or The Bushranger's comment it definitely reads to me as an attempt to evade scrutiny., which really does come across more as henpecking pursuit of Roxy. Thryduulf, I do have to acknowledge you had some other nuanced comments after that at least (and I've known you to be even-handed in most interactions), so I have to reiterate more that it was just really bad timing/placement for that first comment. I can't say it's unreasonable though that Roxy was frustrated at that point, but they seemed pretty measured in those couple responses given the context.I've already discussed Roxy's behavior in the past where I've been critical that I won't rehash again, but this proposal has a bit of an ick factor for me that has the appearance of editors wanting a pound of flesh despite sanctions looking like they were not needed for the OP topic. That's a red flag for me even if it's someone I'd been in a dispute with being sanctioned. Past behavior had already been sanctioned, and this recent bit already had a rough resolution until other editors kept the ANI going with side comments on signatures. That just makes trying to propose new sanctions extremely messy from a WP:PREVENTATIVE standpoint. Had issues of persisted after being talked down I could have supported something, but I'm really wary of the pile-on aspect that's developed. KoA (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It certainly was not my intent to kick over a hornet's next with my comments about the username. My point, stirred by the sudden realisation of who "Walter Ego" was here, was that, to give an example: on 4 September, Roxy made an essentially bad-faith RfD nomination. I saw that, already speedy-closed, while scrolling through, thought basically "hm, somebody has a pet topic" and moved on without any further thought. Had I been aware that was Roxy, my reaction would have been somewhat less sanguine and I may have been motivated to look further into the apparent misconduct, had I known it was a long-term problematic editor sadly giving signs of returning to form and not a new editor getting over-enthuastic. While, as I mentioned, there is indeed no requirement for a signature to reflect the actual username, we do trust signatures to tell us who a user is, and speaking entirely frankly the use of the "Walter Ego" signature felt like an attempt by Roxy to get some of the benefits of a WP:CLEANSTART without actually making a clean start - having people at a glance think they were a new editor, or at least not recognize them for who they actually were. That was the point of both my comments above - it genuinely felt that it was (is) an attempt at evading scrutiny, and it was intended as a gentle hint that, given Roxy's rather fraught history, that was something that might be a minor problem. I did not intend to prolong the discussion (indeed, after Roxy's response on my talk page, it was my intent to walk away from the matter, had not the discussion about the identical message left for Thryduulf spurred continued discussion) and I certainly did not intend for a CBAN discussion to proceed. But here we are. I do understand your procedural concerns, but the fact of the matter is that the past behavior, while apparenly sanctioned, was not sanctioned as a violation of Roxy's unbanning conditions, and thus here we are. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've been vaguely aware of this dispute from watching the textile pages. Reading through that RfD, however, and pulling from my experience as a fibre artist.... this entire dispute centres around the term "bamboo" or "rayon from bamboo" being used instead of "viscose"?
I'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy for the non-knitters in the group, and the closest I can up with is this: this is roughly the equivalent of nominating the term "pencil lead" for deletion, because the graphite in a pencil is not technically lead, and having that term, even as a redirect, serves only to reinforce the common misbelief that pencils are actually filled with lead. And then insulting everybody who says anything different. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸00:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, basically. We had a lot of discussion and reverts over this, particularly from the legal angle. A few editors (myself included) think FTC guidance says "rayon made from bamboo" is okay; Roxy doesn't and removed the citations from lead. This is a topic he's passionate about, as you may see from topics "Bamboo socks suck." and "Startpage.com" on his own Talk page, so I understand it's frustrating for him that we don't share his interpretation. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment from proposer: but this proposal has a bit of an ick factor for me that has the appearance of editors wanting a pound of flesh despite sanctions looking like they were not needed for the OP topic
That is not at all what I want and I'm sorry if it came across that way @KoA. I just want the nonsense to stop. I actually supported the unblock from the last c-ban. I think the core issue is Roxy is on their best behavior when things are going their way. As soon as they aren't a predictable pattern including three blocks and how dare you criticize me follows. It's not that these issues have or haven't been sanctioned, it's that it's the exact. Same. Pattern. This proposal may or may not pass, the outcome may be a time delineated block or none at all. But I don't think I'm alone in saying something has to change. StarMississippi00:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. Years, and years, and years, of this and they continue insulting other editors with wild abandon, and despite their many promises to the contrary the behavior continues. If this was another editor a temporary block could be in the cards, but they were previously banned over this, promised they would stop, and then continued the exact same behavior that led to the ban! If you are in a disagreement with this user it is a matter of when they insult you, not if. I'm sympathetic to the health issues they face, but that is not an excuse to act this way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I'm looking at the examples of incivility that have been provided here, and I don't think it rises to the level of a site ban being warranted. I get that patience with Roxy is running very thin, but perhaps a longer fixed-duration block could be tried before going to a ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Block imposed, close reversed I had found that there was not a consensus to site ban and after a day that such a consensus was not likely to materialize but there was a consensus for a long-term block. ON that basis I blocked for 3 months. After getting some challenge to this close I am re-opening the discussion to see if a siteban consensus will emerge while leaving the block in place as there is virtually no support for no sanction in this case. Should a different consensus emerge another admin can of course change my block in either direction. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The first close was rather confusing in many ways. Giving Roxy an emotional rollercoaster ride wasn't advisable with their current state of health. Gigman (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for re-opening. I felt closing this after 24 hours of opening with discussion still ongoing was a bit hasty.
3 months is a pretty good middle ground. Even if on the more generous side (as in, I perceive it as a light punishment), considering how many second chances he's had with little sign of improvement. From the evidence provided, it would seem he has steered reasonably clear of gender/sex topics - I don't see touching upon it on his own User Talk page (as linked by HouseBlaster's excellent coverage) as being a big deal. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I felt closing this after 24 hours of opening with discussion still ongoing was a bit hasty. Discussion can be on going and there still be a consensus found that would make further discussion unneeded. In fact I would suggest letting a discussion that has flared tempers as much as this one has go on longer than is necessary to establish consensus is not only against policy and practice but is counter productive to our community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is it fair to keep the user in block while the consensus of discussion he was blocked in was reversed and is yet to be achieved again? Gigman (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:CBAN states that For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours.. The close was severely against policy. Thank you for reverting. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reluctant support from anything from the 6 months/1 year CBAN to indefinite. I've been thinking over a potential CBAN since, well, first seeing Roxy the dog -- and this one in particular since it was proposed, but wanted to avoid piling on if I could help it. Ultimately, given the history, there's a very real chance that any CBAN will not be successfully appealed. Similarly, I'm very sympathetic to health issues not painting one in one's best light. However (and this is not the nice bit to type): like Mackensen says above: What decides me is the thought of the editors who, through no fault of their own, wind up dealing with Roxy. We need all the editors we can get -- and, ultimately, people do get chased off the project by this sort of behaviour. Not the sort of people who show up in community discussions, not the sort of people who know the community has ways of dealing with incivility -- the people who make the mistake of asking an innocent question about a product's common name or try to improve an article and get met with insults. The people who get driven out of our wonderful community before they even get a chance to start editing in earnest. And, even for non-unestablished editors -- people should be able to say things like they're worried about a signature looking misleading without having their head bitten off. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸03:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sadly, support existing block (original 3-month block is optimal), strongly oppose anything longer than twelve months. This is because of two factors. First, Roxy really needs to finally listen to the voice of the community and knock this shit off. A lot of people have participated in this discussion so far and exactly zero have called for less than six months. I also support a community-imposed "one strike and you are out" that converts the time-limited block to a permanent ban on the first offense. It pains me to write what I just wrote, but the previous 18 month ban didn't do the job. The second factor is purely selfish. Roxy has been a huge help in the areas of fringe theories, pseudoscience, and fake news. Not many editors are willing to put up with the consequences of working in that area. I have been called out by name in The Daily Mail to millions of readers and have a DM editor who to this day keeps attacking me on social media. I have evidence that someone at the Indian Ministry of Ayush is targeting me. Frankly, I don't want to lose Roxy forever, and there is zero chance that any future ban appeal will work after what happened after the last one. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I support an indefinite community ban as my first choice remedy. I'm always one for giving people second (and third, and fourth) chances but this user has had, and wasted, all of those, still shows no real remorse, and shows absolutely no hint that they are even capable of changing let alone willingness to do so. At some point we have to draw a line and this is it. WaggersTALK12:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the light of Roxy's statement below, I'm happy to see he has now shown some remorse and willingness to change. It's very tempting to say "too little, too late" but the genuinely disruptive editors normally tend to double-down rather than admitting their errors and changing their behaviour. That said, he shouldn't have let things get to this point before doing so and to some extent it feels like he's trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. WaggersTALK08:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for saying these things. I, too, wish that he had found a way to say that sooner, but I appreciate your recognition that he has shown remorse and a willingness to change, and that this differs from what genuinely disruptive editors typically do. Frankly, when I copied his statement here, I half-expected an outflowing of backlash, with editors saying that his statement did not convince them, and that their support for a cban remained unchanged. Instead, the fact that there have been very few comments makes me wonder if the "too late" aspect of this has left a lot of editors feeling like they just don't want to post that they have, to whatever extent, changed their minds, even if they recognize, to whatever extent, that his statement does change the facts of the matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Roxy is currently serving a three month block - lets see what happens after this block expires. At this point, additional sanctions feel punitive rather than preventative. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support: When someone has as long of a track record as it seems Roxy does, how much more rope do we give such a person before we finally say "enough"? From reading all of the evidence, diffs, and opinions here, I have absolutely no confidence that a time-limited block will do anything but kick the proverbial can down the road. I can understand others wanting to give this editor another chance, but when looking at their block log, what good will yet another chance do? Civility is the fourth of our five foundational pillars here. To give another break to an editor who blatantly violates that principle with a clear track record spanning nearly a decade seems to me to be a textbook definition of an exercise in futility. To answer my first question, now is the time to say "enough is enough". Sigma440 (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
While I prefer the whole shebang, I'll also Support any block length if it's close to consensus. Doing nothing is the worst option. If the community can't reform an editor before the 16th attempt, it should either be a ban or a kick upstairs to ArbCom since the community can't handle it. Blocking a problematic editor shouldn't be like a high-difficulty-level Dark Souls fight. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support CBAN. At some point, enough becomes enough. A CBAN is the only sanction that will prevent disruption - all previous attempts at time limited blocks clearly have not curtailed any of the disruption and incivility that has continually occurred.Katzrockso (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose CBAN, the existing 3 month block is sanction enough. I don't see a problem with the "piece of shit" comment and I don't understand how anyone else can have a problem with it in context. If someone unjustifiably calls you antisemitic (or racist or transphobic or whatever) because you reverted something, and you respond with "fuck you, asshole," I don't think that response should lead to a sanction, I think that's just normal human behavior. I don't get how some people expect other people to not respond to such provocations, it's like you have to turn off human emotion in order to edit here or something. (I also don't see why Talk:Rayon was mentioned, I don't see any problems in Roxy's recent edits there.) Some of the other examples are problematic: e.g., calling other editors incompetent, and the broadside against Aussies being convicts, were not provoked and are unacceptably uncivil. But those don't rise to the level of a CBAN IMO, especially given the apology and withdrawal. A 3-month block, perhaps generally a bit on the harsh side for such language, is understandable given the history. I don't have a problem with time-limited sanctions. Letting an editor "ride it out" seems correct to me: if the editor rides it out and doesn't return to the problematic behavior, then the time-limited sanction did its job. If the editor does return to the problematic behavior (and I mean soon after the expiration of the sanction, not years later) then further (longer or non-time-limited) sanctions can be applied. So I'm fine with accepting the apology and letting the existing sanction take its course and seeing if that fixes the issue. I know some editors seem to want perfect behavior from their colleagues, but I'm of the camp that if an editor does productive work but gets blocked for a few months every few years, that's a good trade for Wikipedia. People aren't perfect, they screw up sometimes, they get their punishment, they move on until the next time they screw up again and get punished again. That cycle isn't some kind problem to be solved, it's just life. It's how humans are: flawed, imperfect, mistake-prone. Levivich (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a rather selective retelling of events that seems to imply incivility, regardless as to what prompted it, wasn't... edit warred back in. And followed by scolding the person who reverted it in. But, well, opinions can differ.
Realistically, I am not a "perfect behaviour means attacking people is okay" sort of person; I am familiar that many, many, many people seem to view it as such. (Well, he's such a good worker, so what's a little... active bigotry, harassment, weirdly sexual comments that make others feel uncomfortable, every few years? is a cliche). Personally, I see the editors we loose from such behaviour as just as important. I don't get why we are so callously throwing them aside. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸21:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, I don't have a problem with "piece of shit" in response to repeated unfounded accusations of antisemitism. And I don't see any bigotry, harassment, sexual comments, or anything like that by Roxy reported here. Did I miss something? I mean I guess the Aussie comment could be described as bigotry (kind of a stretch IMO, like calling a white person a cracker isn't the same kind of bigotry as using a real ethnic slur), but even accepting that it was an example of bigotry, a 3 month block seems sanction enough for that, and beyond that I don't see any other bigotry, or any harassment or sexual comments. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to the general phenomenon of "but he's such as good worker, surely we can have a few {insert bad behavour}" type defense as cliche; apologies if that was not clear. (Though weirdly sexual comments in response to female editors making good faith enquiries about photos is... eeek. . Combined with the established history of transphobic remarks + a resumption of such behaviour, as linked above.)
Unfounded is in the eye of the beholder -- personally, while I agree that the evidence of antisemetism was lacking, what on earth do you expect when you edit war (with rollback!!!!) out mentions of Judiasim from an article with a newbie with little to no meaningful explanation? Nobody's in the right there. Like. At all. If you were in public and somebody accused you of being racist/sexist/homophobic or whatever, you can do what any human adult can do: roll your eyes and move on. Not start a shouting match on the bus and make the environment toxic for everybody else trapped in with you.
And certainly not go on a RGW insulting match/STONEWALLING mission against anybody so much as mentioning the textile equivalent term "pencil lead" because you view it as misleading. Is it? Yes! But we follow the sources; we don't ignore them because we, personally, don't like a common name. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any "weirdly sexual comments" in the diff you linked (wrong diff maybe?), nor do I see any transphobic remarks in the recent links in this thread. When someone edit wars with me, I don't expect to be called antisemitic, even if the edit war is about a mention of Judaism (although in similar situations I've been called that and many other things many times by many people on and off wiki, and some of those people were pieces of shit, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that). Levivich (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, not a wrong diff. Though I will concede the innuendo is not American, the meaning is rather clear and not exactly out of character for things I've had leered at me on the streets when I was in the UK. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I had to google this one and apparently it relates to the allegedly phallic shape of the bun and the white icing being of a similar hue to a liquid that undeniably has phallic associations. A generational divide seems plausible here as I know I'm at least a generation older than Leeky and I suspect Levivch is of a similar age to me, although in my mind Roxy is older than me. Maybe he's just down with the kids? Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Cinnabons are round, not phallic shaped, but I guess in the UK they're cylindrical?) Okay, yeah, I didn't interpret that statement to be referring to pictures of women "eating" semen off of someone's rear end. Seems like a stretch to me but maybe it's just me. If he wrote "licking" the innuendo would be clearer to me. But assuming arguendo, I'd call that a bad off-color joke more than a "weirdly sexual comment." (Although I concede that, if the innuendo was intended, it was both weird and sexual.) Levivich (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to imagine innuendo wasn't intended when he said had pictures of women eating iced buns but they are unsuitable. Why else would someone have pictures of women eating iced buns that are unsuitable? Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
They could be unsuitable in a number of other ways, e.g. poor quality, not freely licensed, etc. If you read the comment as innuendo then it's obviously not what was intended, however if you don't read it in that context then those are the most likely meanings. I'm not saying you are wrong to read it as innuendo, I'm just saying that there are alternative readings that don't require mental gymnastics. This is the basic definition of innuendo - comments that can be read/heard as both innocent or as sexual. Which meaning the recipient is intended to take is signalled by such things as surrounding context, cultural/in-group knowledge and non-verbal cues (the latter obviously not available here). Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Those edits were reverting mentions of Judaism from the lead of an article about fish and chips, not an article about Judaism. And I don't think that it's reasonable to expect people to just roll their eyes and move on, in this case, where a Jewish editor was accused of being antisemitic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
In any case, this incident took place in June. It is now the middle of September and there is little evidence to suggest that Roxy has since learned to be more civil in his interactions with others. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I know. I'm in agreement with holding Roxy responsible for things where he was in the wrong. But that doesn't mean that we can just throw anything at the wall, and he has been blocked in the past for some things where he wasn't really in the wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Which is why I specified "from the lead". And Roxy, who is Jewish, was upset when the other editor not only accused him of antisemitism, but explicitly compared him to a notorious neo-Nazi. Purely hypothetically, imagine if someone had, in context of your username, compared you to Phyllis Schafly because they disagreed with you about a matter of WP:DUE and felt that you hadn't done enough to explain why. I can understand how the best possible response would have been to shrug it off. But I'm also prepared to allow for editors being simply human and making simply human errors of judgment. But in a discussion that has devolved into whether or not cinnamon buns are phallic-shaped, I guess this is where we are at. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
But in a discussion that has devolved into whether or not cinnamon buns are phallic-shaped, I guess this is where we are at Well, I can honestly s I wasn't expecting that dismissal from you, of all people. But I suppose I should not expect you to speak ill of a friend. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸17:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am merely acknowledging the inherent unfairness in asking anybody to attempt to sit neutrally and sit in judgement of a friend; it is not something I would wish on anybody. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸18:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that [an insult as a response to an insult] should lead to a sanction, I think that's just normal human behavior. Just because it's normal human behavior doesn't mean it isn't incivil. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm of the camp that if an editor does productive work but gets blocked for a few months every few years, that's a good trade for Wikipedia. I'm of the exact opposite camp. That sort of editor is way more harmful to the project than most vandals because a lot more valuable editor time is lost dealing with their incivil behavior, as opposed to most vandals, who get blocked within minutes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, a new editor calls another editor a Nazi, the second editor calls him a piece of shit, both get blocked for a while. How much valuable editor time was wasted, really? Care to estimate how many minutes? If the second editor then spends many months building an encyclopedia, but does the same sort of thing thing 9 months later when another editor calls them a dirty Jew, with similar results, how much valuable editor time was wasted? What I would like to see from one of you who are holding a torch and pitchfork would be a list of times that Roxy went off on someone for no reason and without being provoked. Was it a lot? almost never? I can't convince myself that someone who is in the habit of calling people Nazis os also a precious delicate flower who is deeply hurt when they are called a piece of shit. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nor do I care. You didn't answer the question I posted above, so again I ask, if someone spends twelve years doing good work, and on the average once or twice a year deals with someone calling them a Nazi by calling them a piece of shit, how much "valuable editor time" was wasted? Give me an estimate in minutes per year. Who, exactly was harmed other than someone who picks fights because they enjoy them? Also ANI AN does not sanction editors for behavior from 12 years back. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
ANI does not sanction editors for behavior from 12 years back You're right, because (1) this isn't ANI, and (2) the problematic behavior occurred as recently as a couple of days ago. It's not "once or twice a year".
Based on the search results for noticeboard threads, and not counting 3RR reports, I estimate that upwards of thousands of minutes of editor time (maybe 4000 a year, which amounts to about three days in length) has been lost on noticeboard threads discussing Roxy's behavior. This is probably way over the actual amount of time, but unless someone wants to calculate from signature timestamps the exact number of minutes spent on each noticeboard thread involving Roxy, there's no way to get an exact amount. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Timestamps can't capture all editor time - I'm following this discussion and have spent far more time reading it than I have commenting on it, and I'm definitely not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, there's this thread, the original cban thread, their part in the skepticism Arbcom case, their unban request, and many not discussions. That's also not the full accounting because there's also the opportunity cost of lost good faith editors. Take me, for instance, who was a target of their ire and presented most of the evidence that led to their warning from Arbcom. Now, it's not apples to apples because I didn't call them a Nazi or anything, but I did consider dropping this whole Wikipedia thing as not with the trouble. How many potential editors have dealt with this and just walked away instead? How do you weigh their value against even a single lost editor? What if they're an editor that makes 80,000 edits in six years, blocks 18,000 vandals, deletes thousands of BLP violating and offensive revisions, suppresses hundreds of diffs revealing private information, writes a few good articles, and works on many more? The cost isn't just time at ANI, it's members and potential members of the community. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Super-strong disagree, especially given how easy it is for certain types to get blocked, and how many bad blocks are given out, on this site. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mean a complete catalogue would require an essay, but off the top of of my head: (i) space cowboys, (ii) gangsters of love, (iii) people named Maurice, (iv) pompatii of love, (v) pickers, (vi) grinners, (vii) lovers, (viii) sinners, (ix) jokers, (x) smokers, and (xi) midnight tokers. Oh and the English, some of whom regularly use the c-word, and Boomers, some of whom don't understand why there is any confusion about who should use which bathroom. I'm pretty sure Roxy is in some of those categories. As to why it's easy, well, again, an essay-full of reasons, including--see above--many in this community believing that if you tell someone to fuck off every few years, you aren't suitable for collaboration and should be sitebanned. Levivich (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No it doesn't. 99% of humans are sometimes jerks to people and still collaborate with people every day. Sometimes people are jerks to the people they're collaborating with even while they're collaborating. A positive environment helps collaboration and a toxic one can kill it, no doubt, but it's not a binary: jerk or not jerk, collaboration or no collaboration. It's a matter of degrees and the two can, and do, coexist, all over the planet, every day.
Btw, requiring people to have perfect behavior over a period of years is being a jerk to them. Judging people overly harshly is being a jerk to them. So is calling them convicts or incompetent. Or antisemitic because they removed the word "Jewish" from an article. As is bringing up their past misdeeds every time they lose their cool. As is repeatedly arguing with a particular editor's votes across discussions. And so is expecting septuagenarians to conform to behavior standards set by twentysomethings. People are jerks to each other all the time on Wikipedia in a variety of ways big and small and yet we still all collaborate.
There are lines and there are degrees, none of it is black and white, much of it subjective. For the lines Roxy crossed and to the degree they were crossed, I don't think anything more than the 3 month block is needed.
I think I've now comprehensively explained my reasoning and answered a myriad of questions and retorts about it -- I do wonder why my votes often get so much attention while others are permitted to vote in peace -- and so I think we can all end the discussion of my vote here. Levivich (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do wonder why my votes often get so much attention while others are permitted to vote in peace. Well, you often have interesting things to say. Also, people respect your opinion and think you're thoughtful, so when you offer an opinion that people really disagree with, they think it might be worth trying to change your mind. I won't bother in this case, you've said your piece. Mackensen(talk)10:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Most Wikipedians are able to stay unblocked during the course of their stay on their site. Some of them do get blocked, but those who do often learn their lesson and stop engaging in the behaviors that lead to their being sanctioned. But sadly, there is a small percentage of the community who are chronically sanctioned (often for long periods), who repeatedly fail to correct course, and who fail to be definitively departed from the community. It is these users who must be shown the door, for the good of the community. --Xacaranda (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Bish, but I just want to clarify that I said that I'm not opposing, just commenting. I have no problem at all with you citing the things that I said as reasons why you opposed, but I want to keep my own position clear. And I'm glad that you raised this issue of a dubious block, because when I have said that if this gets taken to ArbCom I will want past blocks to be reviewed, this is one (not the only) part of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Weak oppose per Trypto and as in my view the value Roxy offers is sufficient to warrant giving them a few more chances. I.e. escalating blocks - 6 months if he's uncivil after the current 3 month expires, then 1 year if need be, and only after that a perma.I respectfully disagree with the weight supporters are giving to collegiality. This community exists as we care about building and curating the world's foremost source of encyclopaedic information. Some of the work involved is relatively easy to perform while maintaining perfect civility. But the sort of work Roxy specialises in - defending the wiki from fringe & POV pushers - tends to be quite exasperating. Yet it's vital work that if left undone could lead to all sorts of harm from misinformation. I dont see many of us sensitive almost-always-polite types stepping up to do that sort of work on a reg. (And Roxy does somtimes maintain admireable politeness here per Trypto diff , , and ) On another note, editorial decisions like what info to include or exclude, sometimes to the point of deleting an article that took hundreds of hours of hard work to create, are unavoidably high stakes for some. There's extensive body of work by the likes of Joel Brockner on Procedural fairness etc finding that when unfavourable high stakes decisions are made they counter-intuitively hurt more if expressed in civil rather than polite language. Which isn't to say collegiality isn't a huge net +ve to community wellbeing, of course it is, but a case can be made it's only one desirable quality among many. I normally appreciate Houseblasters forthright views on this topic, especially as they’re one of a tiny group whose gave me useful advise about improving my own collegiality, but I'd eat my hat if Roxy would dismiss this particular block as capricious when even some of their buddies & fellow sceptics like Guy Macon support it.All this said, I get that incivility can be extra discouraging to various minorities who we'd very much like to see more of, hence not opposing the extension to six months, even though I'm of the view Barkeeps original 3-month block is optimal. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Which isn't to say collegiality isn't a huge net +ve to community wellbeing, of course it is, but a case can be made it's only one desirable quality among many. You are aware that civility is our fourth pillar, right? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
4th pillar is civility and respect. There's lot's of editors who are consistently civil; in my view there's far fewer who are consistently respectful of fellow editors who have different views. I guess it depends how you'd judge such things, but for me if we banned every editor who repeatedly says things not in accordance with 4p, we'd not have much of a community. It's probably not profitable to get too philosophical on this, supporters have many valid points, yet some of us still feel Roxy will likely be a net +ve after his block. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You're quite correct that civility and respect are not the same thing and that both are important. The difficulty with the net positive analysis is that it necessarily involves someone being on the receiving end of the "negative" behavior. Why those editors, in particular, don't need to be treated with respect doesn't get addressed in this analysis. I suppose the message is edit long enough so that someone will come to WP:AN on your behalf and defend your being terrible to other editors. We don't dare codify that one as a guideline but it's got a long and venerable history. Mackensen(talk)23:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A counter essay could be written to WP:Unblockables supported by empirical study on the counter-intuitively minimal effect hot/passionate/incivil types like Roxy have on communities v certain types of cold/disrespectful actors. But I dont think it will be productive to link to such studies here and I won't further reply as there'd probably be downsides to Roxy & others to prolonging the discussion. This said, I take the point I may be underweighting the impact of the incivility - it clearly does distress & demotivate several good editors, so downgrading to weak oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Up until right now, I've declined to formally support or oppose any of the proposals here, because I know that I'm seen as someone who has defended Roxy in the past. Even though some editors who oppose sanctions have said that they are doing it per me, I haven't actually said that, until now. But I feel that now, I want to actually oppose a cban. Let Barkeep49's block run its course, then have Roxy try to do better, according to the self-imposed restrictions he has described, and if he relapses, take it to ArbCom. (If an ArbCom case is requested before then, I'll recommend to the Arbs that they decline it, because the community has dealt with it for now, with that block and with Roxy offering a plan, so requesting a case would actually just be saying that someone doesn't like what the community has done and is shopping for a different outcome.) This means, implicitly, that I also oppose the various other proposals below, as having been supplanted by the block. As I see it, Roxy has demonstrated remorse, along with self-awareness and a plausible path back to non-disruptive editing. I'm pleased to see that, among the few comments posted since his statement, some other editors also recognize that his statement has, to whatever extent, changed the situation here. I think that there is a non-zero likelihood that he will relapse after a while, but that likelihood is small enough that the reasonable course of action for the community is to take that small risk, rather than enact a cban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The community has not dealt with the issue, because there is still disagreement on whether or not to impose a CBAN or any other sanction. The three-month block was the result of a bad closure. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Um, the fact that editors are not unanimous is not the same thing as not dealing with something. If it's better, I'll say that when this AN discussion is closed, the community will have dealt with it, but the community will not, technically, have reached an outcome from this discussion, until this AN discussion is closed. Since I said that in terms of an RfAr filing, I don't think that filing before this AN discussion closes would fix anything. But I'll put you down as still supporting a cban, no matter what I might say, and me as opposing it, no matter what you might say. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear, I opposed anything over a year and also opposed lifting the existing 3 month block, so you can count me as also supporting this. This is not a new !vote, just a comment on my existing !vote. Looking it over, this looks really good. Tryptofish, I hereby award you a 20% raise in the amount of money Wikipedia pays you. Don't spend it all in one place. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
then have Roxy try to do better, according to the self-imposed restrictions he has described, and if he relapses, take it to ArbCom.
Can someone explain why this user is so valuable that even after all of this and 10+ blocks, and now a current 6-month block... if they do it again, then they get to go through Arbcom for a formal review instead of just an indefinite block?
Why? Why is this one user so kid glove by the community?
Because some editors have many friends and endless social capital. It's no wonder Wikipedia is rapidly losing editors; new editors are subject to immediate indefinite blocks for minor transgressions of policy while established editors with innumerable offenses are presented with last chance after last chance to no avail. Katzrockso (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is an oft-repeated myth: that new editors are subject to harsher penalties than veteran editors. A new editor that said what Roxy said ("silly thing," "incompetent," "bunch of convicts") would get the same 3 month block Roxy got, especially after apology and withdrawal. Also, a new editor can just sock: dump the account, start a new one, repeat ad nauseam. The veteran editor is at a disadvantage specifically because they don't dump their account and start new ones, allowing 20 years of mistakes to accrue to the point where people describe it as "last chance after last chance to no avail." If Roxy socked, Wikipedia would get the benefit of Roxy's productive edits and Roxy wouldn't be judged by their past conduct. How is that not a win-win? But editors who don't do that, are punished for their integrity. Levivich (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is even worse for editors who, like me, have the same username as the name on their birth certificate. Yes. that was my choice, but I had no idea 20 years ago that I would still be editing Wikipedia after 20 years. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support An editor with no redeeming features should be indeffed/banned ASAP. Roxy benefits the encyclopedia when things are working. A block takes care of other times when things are not working. There is no need to optimize punishment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose all time-limited blocks. I see no justification at all for a time-limited block. Roxy has had so many chances, and none of the previous time-limited blocks have worked. If we want Roxy as a contributor we need to allow him to demonstrate, now, that he can be a productive one. If he can't demonstrate that or we don't feel he deserves the opportunity to demonstrate that now then we need to bite the bullet and ban him now. Nothing else is fair to either Roxy or the people who have been on the receiving end time and time again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I won't comment on the CBAN proposal, but will oppose this. Roxy has had (by my count) 15 time-limited blocks. If those, and the earlier CBAN, didn't do the trick, does anyone seriously think #16 suddenly will? I think it was Einstein who said something about doing the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different outcome. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would support a 6 month block over a 3 month block; and I'd support that over no action. But ultimately I think all that does is push back this very discussion 6 months before we will have to have it again. CoconutOctopustalk12:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Second choice after CBAN I honestly think RTD has had enough rope. If the consensus is that we must extend some more they at least need to take a break and consider last chances. Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Second choice after CBAN. As Simonm223. I don't have any expectation, given past outcomes, that this will work, but it'll give everyone a break if nothing else. Mackensen(talk)12:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reluctant second choice in lieu of no action at all. Nothing has changed after the prior time limited block or even the INDEF. I don't think six months is enough when the core issue appears to be that Roxy isn't aware or doesn't care how their comments come across to others. StarMississippi12:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Second choice after CBAN per my comment above, this user has squandered the many opportunities we have given them and kicking this down the road yet again is not going to solve the problem. It's better than no remedy at all but it's a distant second choice. WaggersTALK13:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
If this time-limited ban passes, I can make a good prediction of what will happen. The block will expire, and Roxy will resume blaming everyone but themselves for what he believes to be an arbitrary and capricious decision. Roxy's defenders will resume threatening admins with WP:RECALL petitions for daring to block Roxy. Roxy's defenders will resume inventing novel interpretations of policy to oppose a block. Newcomers will be bitten, experienced editors will have to spend yet more editor time trying to teach Roxy how to behave themselves, and admins will have to stick their necks out to enforce our fourth pillar.
But, if we are kicking the can down the road, I'd rather have six months of no personal attacks, no bigotry, and no incivility from Roxy than zero months. I therefore support this measure as a distant second choice. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)13:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You know what? Levivich makes a good point about three months versus six months. If the indefinite ban fails, refer to ArbCom is my actual second choice. Maybe they'll find a way to avoid a site ban and keep Roxy on the straight-and-narrow. I would, genuinely, prefer that outcome.
In that event, do you see the ArbCom case as something that would start right after the close of the AN thread, or after the end of the existing block? My suggestion would be to wait for the end of the block, in order to give Roxy some time for reflection and increase the likelihood that the ArbCom case would actually accomplish something good. (I say that with recognition on my part that, in the past, such reflection hasn't really worked.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's a good question. My initial thought is that Roxy's three month block should be annulled, without prejudice, and the case can begin after this thread is closed. The arbitration case would last at least a month, so there would be a great deal of time for introspection, and editors more creative than me might come up with a sufficient remedy that is not an indefinite ban. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)15:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Distant second choice per HouseBlaster, who hits it on the head, but really procedural close because this thread is just making everyone vote a second time on a question that was already being addressed in the above thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:16, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment. I think that, one way or another, the community should deal with this rather than kicking it over to ArbCom. That said, I don't like the idea of any time-limited block or ban. But as an alternative to a full CBAN, it might make more sense to have a TBAN from fibers and textiles, broadly construed. I've commented on reasons for and against such a result earlier in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Personally I don't think Arbcom is needed here. It's pretty clear that the community can manage to deal with a repeatedly recidivist editor who can't help but insulting other editors. What is there to arbitrate? Our own unwillingness to handle an editor who has been around long enough to become a fixture? Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I hope so; I still see the discussion having a consensus for an indef siteban at this moment, but given that there was already one "no consensus" close, I couldn't rule out another one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
My reason for not wanting this to go to ArbCom is that I think the community can come to a decision on this, and I want to encourage the community to make the effort to come to a consensus, rather than lazily leaving it to ArbCom to do it. (That's not the same thing as saying that ArbCom would be ill-equipped to deal with it, which is not true.) More as a thought experiment than as anything else, I believe that if, hypothetically, this were to become an ArbCom case, I would want a full case that would also examine the admin actions of each block that Roxy has received. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, I don't think the community can come to a decision on this issue if members of Roxy's fanclub continue to make statements distorting the meaning of our civility policies. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clarifying. In the future, please post such comments as a reply to whoever you are replying to, instead of to me. And if you think Roxy is unblockable, you should take another look at his block log. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think Roxy the dog is unblockable in a literal sense. It's more the case that he can't be blocked easily or without a great deal of people taking issue with it. If someone without Roxy's tenure/experience engaged in the behaviors described here, they would almost certainly already be blocked with email+TPA disabled. Xacaranda (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
If someone without Roxy's tenure/experience engaged in the behaviors described here, they would almost certainly already be blocked with email+TPA disabled. Exactly. I completely fail to understand why we give experienced editors more leeway to be uncivil when they should certainly be aware of our civility policies.
Third choice after CBAN and community-imposed indefinite block on basically the same grounds as HouseBlaster. But wait, isn't a community-imposed indef the same thing as a CBAN? Why yes. Yes it is. That's how far back this option is for me; I'm only not !voting oppose on the basis that if the CBAN doesn't pass something has to. I'm sympathetic to those who point to the good work Roxy has done here, but some of the opposes have a whiff of "because I like him" about them, and overall: we've been down this road before. There is no indication that a time-limited block will see any change in the behavior that led to it; functionally, a time-limited block is strictly punitive. A topic-ban is, in my opinion, a non-starter as conduct issues are not limited to the specific topic area. Sometimes we have to roll the hard six and accept that an editor is not compatible with a collaborative project. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Second (or third) choice only if consensus is lacking for an indefinite sanction. The editor can "ride it out" and return to editing with a "time served" attitude, which is highly likely to lead to additional similar problems. An indefinite sanction requires an editor to address in detail why they were sanctioned in an appeal, and to make specific commitments, which should be ironclad in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - I don't see what six months will accomplish that three months won't. I'd rather let the existing sanction run its course and see if it's enough to prevent the disruption. I'm confused why this is even being proposed/supported. I get someone wanting a cban or indef, or (like me) saying no cban or indef just let the 3 month block run, but I don't perceive the logic behind extending the 3 months to 6 months. Seems like arbitrary extension of punishment just for the sake of it. Levivich (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also oppose this becoming an arbcom case, which would waste dozens of editors' time for months, which would be a far worse waste of resources than the reported infractions. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per Levivich. In my opinion the discussion should not have been reopened after the ongoing three months block was imposed. At that point the issue seemed settled, and a reasonable time off determined. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to walk away from this discussion already, but I can't help but ask you and @Levivich: If you think Roxy deserves a softer sanction, why are you opposing the given softer option? This doesn't make existing 3 month block more viable, it just makes 6 month block less likely over an indefinite ban. As @Black Kite said above: you choose your battles wisely.Gigman (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The three-month has already been imposed, and that seems enough. But if the choice is between six months and indef, of course the six months is better but would seem unfair after an already three month block is in place and working. With the standing three month ban Roxy will be back to celebrate the holiday season with us, a changed editor with recharged spirit. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose any time-limited block, support referral to ArbCom if the siteban fails. There's not much I can say about this that hasn't already been said. A time-limited block will just kick the can down the road. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I hope no one takes this wrong, but if the individual is truly committed to reformation and based on how others are vouching for them here... despite double digits apparently of NPA and civility blocks... how about this?
The 3 month block sticks.
Next NPA/Civility infraction is automatically 6 months; next one 12, 24, 48, 96, etc.
I realize it may look silly on the surface - but a major complaint I'm feeling here is that:
Roxy is apparently incredibly valuable
Roxy is apparently sometimes incredibly rude
People seem to be sick, tired, and exhausted with the topic over time on all sides
Consensus is all over the place in this thread
So put it squarely into Roxy's hands then. They 'eat' the 3-month block here, and if they're not rude in the future, they'll always be fine. And if not, the outcome will be boringly brief, procedural/borderline automatic, and over time increases, as the community's time engagement on it decreases inversely. — VPP (t/c)21:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong support: 96 months is 8 years. Realistically, after 8, 16, or 32 years there is a non-zero chance that either Roxy or Wikipedia won't exist. After 64 years most of us are unlikely to exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose for the same reason I oppose traditional time-limited blocks for Roxy. Either we trust him to edit now or we declare that he's had his final chance already. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) The answer to all those questions is "possibly". An entry in the block log is the most likely way for admins to know, but it might be that admins using something like Twinkle don't see that (I don't use it so I can't say). Admins generally should respect a consensus for it, but they don't have to. If they do (or don't) there is nothing to stop someone else taking the matter to a noticeboard to see whether the consensus is that the should (not) have. There is therefore no guarantee that time will be saved. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Roxy should be CBanned now. An alternate solution that allows them to eat six or seven more civility blocks before being de facto banned is a terrible one. In fact, much worse than a simple three-month block since it already constrains the future community by giving Roxy an automatic "incivility pass" for behavior that would get other either editors indef'ed after far fewer blocks. Alternatively, if we start the doubling from the first block, I will support this, changing the current block to the properly prescribed 32,768 day block. If Roxy continues to be uncivil after this block expires on June 13, 2116, then I have no problem with them being blocked until November 18, 2295. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support as a distant second. A CBAN now is the only way to prevent future disruption of the encyclopedia - we should not tolerate any more abuse/incivility. Katzrockso (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose this proposal and any further proposals that involve time-limited blocks. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that time-limited blocks will not work and not a lot of evidence to suggest that time-limited blocks will work. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, but frankly, I don't see how this can be an alternative for the main restriction. Judging by the dynamics of this discussion, Roxy will face either a block proposed by me, or a CBAN (which is more likely), but in any case he has to take at least 6 month Wiki break. If he faces a lot of users opposing his return however, this proposition should be considered as a condition on his appeal in the future. Gigman (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Weak support over the 3m above if it could be enforced automatically it would save the community's energy every time an incident happens. But it would also need to be clean. Patrolling Admin A enforces the next block and Admin/Editor B doesn't get to badger them that this should be an exception because Roxy doesn't mean it this time and deserves a 17th chance. That said, 3m is too low an initial block. Would suggest starting at a year. StarMississippi21:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The last few days spent watching the community characterise me have been difficult. I have apologised (twice) as you would expect, and will continue to do so from my Talk page.
When my efforts to improve the Bamboo Textile page kept being thwawrted, my answer was to bombard the page, and the talk page, with support with almost constant changes and evidence. I lost my cool and couldn't understand why people were not understanding. Please note that I have not spent the last 18 years looking for people to attack, no, I have avoided doing that THere are no out of the blue episodes of upsetting people..
One of the things that concerned me following my return was my ability to avoid the GENSEX area entirely -I failed btw, having commented on the Quentin Crisp Talk page, and at jimbotalk - but in essence I have avoided the area entirely.
I mention that to perhaps suggest a way forward for myself, should I be allowed to return to contributing. My serious blocks, have always been when I become so involved that I have not stopped, and lost control. If allowed back to contribute, I would self impose an editing restriction of no more than one edit per page, Article or Talk, per day. This would stop me going off the rails. I would have to think carefully before posting. The result would be different to what I have done recently, and make my explanations and suggestions better. I cannot prove it, but when I do slow down, things improve. I mention GENSEX above to show that I can work with restrictions.
Again, I apologise, losing control in this way is something I am ashamed of. I am very proud of the numerically positive contributions I have made to the project though. - Roxythe dog16:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I waited about a day after copying this over, to give others some time to see it. Now, I want to say some things about Roxy's statement, and my personal opinion of where it leaves us. This is completely separate from any discussion of the proposal below, which is something distinct from what Roxy is asking for.
I had wanted Roxy to say something approximately like this much sooner in the process, but we all are who we are, and none of us is perfect. The fact that he had to think about it does not equate to him being insincere, just that it takes him some time to get comfortable with self-criticism. I also want to make it very clear that I acknowledge, explicitly, that Roxy has had a history of relapsing after having made apologies, and there's no getting around that.
What I think is most important about the statement is that it demonstrates self-awareness. How many of us would find it easy to say in public that we are ashamed of things that we have done? I'm pretty sure nobody suggested the one-edit self-restriction to him, so how does someone come up with something like that? He has been thinking about his mistakes, and trying to self-examine why he does those things, and he came up with the realization that he tends to lose control when he gets into a back-and-forth that is going badly, and that he would do better to step back from it right away. It's got nothing to do with making "too many" edits or comments. It's about something he realizes about the process in his mind when he relapses into bad conduct. This is self-awareness, something we don't typically see in disruptive editors, and it's a good indicator of the capacity to learn, however imperfectly, from mistakes.
He also decided, again with some delay, to fix his signature. That's not the central issue here (civility is), but it's something else where he ultimately did listen to advice from other editors.
So much of this is about human nature, and human nature is a complicated thing. We should recognize that the legitimate issue of whether Roxy will continue to present a threat of disruption through incivility is something separate from the side-issue of his quirks as a human being. And all of us have such quirks in one form or another. Humans also resist changing their opinions, even when faced with new evidence. That means, I think, that some editors who have already staked out positions supporting a site ban are going to be reluctant to change their positions now that this statement from Roxy has appeared. If you have supported a ban and find fault with Roxy for being slow to issue that statement, then please look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are being slow to reevaluate the available information, now that this statement is here.
There's also been discussion of the "unblockables" problem. This is another complicated thing. It goes against one's sense of fairness to allow leeway to an experienced editor, when that would not be allowed to an inexperienced one. On the other hand, fairness also requires looking at the entirety of someone's contributions, and this is a balancing act. But whatever we might do in Roxy's case should be based entirely on what Roxy has done and might do. Not on making him pay for something somebody else got away with.
Roxy is proposing this one-edit restriction as something that he would choose to self-impose, whether or not it gets mandated formally. There are arguments for and against having the community take ownership of this restriction, making it enforceable. Personally, I think it would be useful to make it enforceable, but with longer blocks than proposed below, but I realize that there are plusses and minuses going both ways. I also think it makes sense to omit his own userspace from it. I don't buy one editor's argument, below, that comments on his own talk page are going to disrupt things for other editors, unless other editors make their own decisions to watch there. And again, this isn't really about the number of edits, but what those edits contain, so block him if he says something truly unacceptable on his talk but don't base it on numbers of edits.
As I said, there's no getting around Roxy's history of relapsing. If the community decides on a site ban, that takes care of the problem of incivility and the resulting problem of potentially losing other editors, and it reduces the risk of him relapsing to zero while the ban is in effect, but it loses the good that comes from his positive contributions. If we don't, having that one-edit limitation takes care of, for now, the problem of incivility and of losing other editors, and it preserves Roxy's positive contributions, but it comes with a non-zero risk of relapse. That's the trade-off, and there's no simple answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
But whatever we might do in Roxy's case should be based entirely on what Roxy has done and might do. Not on making him pay for something somebody else got away with.
Let me clarify. I wasn't talking about previous blocks when I wrote that. I was talking about the argument that the "unblockables" problem should result in stronger sanctions now. This also has nothing to do with NOTTHEM. You are bringing up things that are unrelated to what I was saying. I don't think we need to relitigate previous blocks or previous admin behavior, to evaluate his statement. In the event that this becomes an ArbCom case, that would be the place and time, but for now it's a distraction (as is making this about me). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Like most of you, my experiences in my time with this person are mixed from very nice to "what on earth?!". I'll be bold and go out on a limb and propose based on Roxy's own very hard restriction suggestion:
I would self impose an editing restriction of no more than one edit per page, Article or Talk, per day.
Unblock Roxy
BINDING no-sunset rule (not self-imposed) that they said: one edit per page per day, article, talk, wiki, whatever. Their own user space they can do whatever.
IF they exceed, give them a 1 day block. No appeal, no nothing. It's a pretty binary restriction. Yes or no.
If they do it again, like I proposed above with scaling blocks given the long history here: 2 day block. Then 4, 8, 16, 32, etc., and our collective time involvement (as said, a constant claim above of being a headache) is hard nullified, and any enforcement/outcome really comes down to Roxy's own actions. Ball in their court exclusively.
They should be able to exceed one edit to fix their own typos and stuff.
Limitation can only come off by later community consensus: no lone admin/groups on isolated page - must come off on WP:AN, WP:ANI or Arbcom. Roxy can ask for it to come off after 1 year of NO violations or other blocks.
Regardless of any claims/whatevers about things like WP:UNBLOCKABLES or WP:FANCLUB and so on: at that point, it wouldn't matter who says what or lobbies how. Roxy's fate would be utterly under their own control, and it would be impossible for anyone but them to be responsible for a block under their own rule.
I'm going to hold off on commenting directly on Roxy's comment that I copied to here, until other editors have had some time to react. But I'll offer a couple of comments in response to this proposal. I agree with the idea that, if the community accepts this approach, the community should take over the "ownership" of the restriction, so that it is community-imposed and not voluntary, and enforceable. I also agree that Roxy's own userspace should be exempt. I see a small potential problem if someone else posts a follow-up question to Roxy during a discussion, and has to wait a day for a reply, especially if that other editor construes the slow response as something like stonewalling. Although not proposed here, I also think that the community should consider a TBAN against fibers and textiles, broadly construed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
especially if that other editor construes the slow response as something like stonewalling.
Nah, and we'd be assholes to hold that against someone (cf Roxy). Screw anyone who would try to play that angle. We don't have to be respectful of any overt dickery on here ever under AGF (which that would certainly be by that hypothetical other user if/once aware of Roxy's limit--it would be overt dickery to call it stonewalling). Besides, we're not under deadline. A slower pace of communications is fine sometimes. — VPP (t/c)17:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. I continue to believe that we should either trust Roxy to control his own editing on his own starting now, or we should say he's already had his last chance and CBAN him. I don't think bending over backwards with complicated custom rules helps anybody Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There doesn't seem to be strong enough consensus for a CBAN now off this incident. So we have Roxy offering what seems to be rather large and heavy pair of handcuffs and saying "Put them on me, please". This seems to be the lowest friction option... hand Roxy not just the literal finale rope, but also the controls for the hatch that will drop them, and none of us have the ability to override Roxy yanking that cord to drop.
The problem with these types of custom restrictions is that they place an ongoing onus on the community to monitor, enforce, and explain them (to anyone who is unaware of the communication limitations). This is a substantial bill. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I volunteer to do the monitoring. We edit in the same area (pseudoscience and fringe theories), I believe that Roxy trusts me (The fool! Bwahaha...), but I also don't think that anyone believes that I will give them a pass. I also have the same tendency to respond to incivility with incivility, but 20 years with only one 2.5 hour block shows that I handle that tendency better than Roxy has. That should take care of the "ongoing onus on the community to monitor [and] enforce" concern. As for explaining silence, I will do that if I notice it, but I don't really care if someone infers something from silence. That's their problem and they need to stop doing that. See WP:SILENCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
While I appreciate your volunteering, for redundancy and resilience, the onus shouldn't fall solely on one person. An indefinite, ongoing effort on English Wikipedia is one that can often become neglected and forgotten. (Now someone could write a bot to do the monitoring, which would replace the daily effort with bot support instead.)
My concern regarding explanations is not about people inferring any intent, but helping them understand the conversational constraints. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Stick it on the editing restrictions page. Roxy is "popular" enough that I'd imagine no small number of editors would readily go to WP:ANI at the first violation with the link to their restriction. Since the violation by nature is starkly yes or no - did Roxy edit more than once beyond typo fixes?
If no = nothing to do (assuming no NPA, etc.)
If yes = block on the required cadence. Why they did the extra edits/responses doesn't matter. The absolute irrelevancy of the context is the consequence of Roxy's years long behaviors. "Do not press the button again or be blocked" is as simple as it gets. — VPP (t/c)17:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
What !vote? If Roxy agrees to, say, no more than two edits in any 48 hour sliding window and I count 3, I won't file a report for anyone to !vote on. I will just pick an admin, link to the logged restriction, link to the three diffs, and the admin will apply whatever block the agreement calls for. There isn't an admin who would tell me no. Three minutes tops. It isn't Roxy's nature to test the limits and see what they can get away with. They have flaws (As do we all) but that isn't one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose It seems like a lot of ink is being spilled trying to come up with complicated and uniquely tailored disciplinary actions rather than admit that a long-standing editor has simply run out of chances. I still prefer cban. Failing that I think a 6 month block is a weak second choice. This, however, is not a viable solution. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was debating saying something like this in my first comment. This isn't a situation where someone is regularly bludgeoning discussions, (trying to) enact a fait accompli, or overwhelming pages with tens of tiny edits per one small change. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. I think it's great for Roxy to propose self-restrictions that he thinks might help him avoid issues, but they don't work as a community remedy. Schazjmd(talk)20:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think that it's worth considering that Roxy did not frame this in terms of anyone having concerns about him making too many comments. I think it's reasonable to evaluate VPP's proposal in terms of that, but it would be inaccurate to evaluate Roxy's own statement in this regard. My reading of what Roxy said is that he has thought about his own limitations, and he sees himself as falling back into incivility when he allows himself to get carried away. And he believes that if he holds himself (or is held) to fewer edits, he will be unlikely to fall back into his past behavior. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would also note that they changed their sig, not because they had to, but because some editors didn't like it.
Regarding "they don't work as a community remedy". why not? during my single 2.5 hour block (in 20 years of editing) I proposed a voluntary one-way interaction ban for myself (I had already stopped interacting) and it was logged as a restriction enforceable by any administrator. The community could come to a consensus for community restrictions equal to the voluntary restrictions. There is no rule against that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The difference is that in your case the community agreed that the restriction you proposed was relevant to the issue that resulted in the block, was proportionate and stood an at least reasonable chance of preventing the issue reoccurring. In Roxy's case, multiple people do not see the proposed restriction as relevant and/or having a reasonable chance of preventing recurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Right, Two issues. Will this actually help? I think no. The other people who are !voting against it think no. Can it be a community restriction enforceable on sight by any admin with no further discussion? Of course it can. It won't (not enough support) but there ain't no rule that says a dog can't play basketball. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
They changed it a week after and and tryptofish and yourself advising they change it. If they had changed it when it was brought up by other editors it would be a good sign, but when they ignore them and reply rudely and wait until after they've already been blocked to change it at the urging of friends it's not really the same thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I didn't specifically urge Roxy to do that. I gave him advice on formatting it, after he made a mistake while doing it on his own, but that's not the same thing. He did it while blocked and about at the same time as writing the statement he asked me to copy here. Obviously, you are right that he did it after a delay and only after he was blocked, although he has also been unwell during that time. He tends to need some time before engaging in self-reflection, but with time, he eventually does examine his misdeeds. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose blocks in the amount of days for someone with this degree of recidivism are a joke. I also firmly oppose the userspace carveout as I frankly don't trust Roxy not to use it as an end around the restrictions of the "I didn't reply, they looked at my talk where I happened to call them silly" variety. I thank @Guy Macon for their willingness to monitor, but a user should not need this degree of guardrails to be civil part of the community. StarMississippi19:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment. I think it's becoming clear that this proposal is unlikely to get consensus. I also think that discussing the specifics of the proposal is potentially a distraction from discussing what Roxy, himself, has said, independently of this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose This is an absurdly complex sanction that I see no benefit for. I think it's an even more unworkable idea than the previous "doubling sanctions" idea, as it starts with a mere two days for an editor already on their 16th block. Just to get to a block longer than their current three-month block, we'd be talking nine additional blocks. Even Jimmy Wales would be blocked a whole lot longer than 512 days if he somehow reached a 25th block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
While VPP did indeed propose one, day, two days, etc. that has zero chance of happening. A much more acceptable progression would be existing 3 month block, next one automatically 6 months with no discussion needed, next one 12, 24, 48, 96 (8 years), etc.
Some editors, (I would count VPP and myself among them) genuinely want to do the right thing and follow the rules, but aren't perfect at it and may stumble once or twice during a long editing career.
Some editors genuinely want to do the wrong thing and are constantly trying to figure out how to get away with it. These aren't bad people. They just think that pushing their POV on gun control / abortion / middle east politics / alternative medicine etc. is more important than building an encyclopedia.
But some (I would count Roxy among them) genuinely want to do the right thing and follow the rules but repeatedly fail at it. If they are otherwise productive editors that gives ANI a problem. The easy answer is a permaban. Problem solved but at a a considerable cost. A common solution is giving them some rope. That has failed in this case and it would be stupid to keep doing it again hoping that This Time It Will Work. A 'wise solution would be to try to figure out how to help the editor who is struggling without wasting a bunch more time.
One huge advantage to the 3 month / 6 month / etc idea is the "no more discussion" clause. That means that we can get to a 64 year block with less effort than I am spending writing this paragraph. It also short circuits any "bad block!" claims. The block that escalated you from 6 months to 12 months was bad? Tough. You shouldn't have done whatever led to the 3 month or 6 month block, and you agreed to not trigger further discussion. (A genuinely bad block would lead to some other editors discussing the admin's behavior while Roxy steps aside and says "I promised to not dispute this. Go ahead without me.")
Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I think this might work, and if it doesn't we can stand 15 minutes of work with years or decades before having to spend another 15 minutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose because this proposal is self-contradictory: it can't be a binding "one edit per page per day" restriction if They should be able to exceed one edit to fix their own typos and stuff.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Close review of the RfC on the new Image Carousel feature
The challenged part is "The community also agreed that there should be an opt-out feature." According to my (clearly involved) reading of the RfC, there was about twice as much support for an opt-in than for an opt-out. Voorts argued on their talk page that "The issue of opt-in only is not ripe for discussion at this point." but had no such qualms about opt-out apparently. Apart from inaccurately reflecting the discussion, this also IMO sends to the WMF the message that the community wanted this to be an opt-out feature, which is not what was said and will make it a lot harder to in the future say "well, actually, we wanted an opt-in, sorry for any confusion".
In my opinion, the close should either reflect a consensus for an opt-in, or not mention any choise between opt-out and opt-in at all. Fram (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Commenting in a advisory "non-admin but with my PTAC hat on" capacity, I think this also IMO sends to the WMF the message that the community wanted this to be an opt-out feature is equivalent to rejecting a feature from the communities side. The way the WMF has tested and positioned the feature is to benefit/hook in users who very briefly visit our site, peruse through our lead and then leave. These are folks who will never interact with the settings page to "enable" a feature for their own convenience, we barely keep them long enough to skim through a article. I don't see the consensus for an outright rejection from the community in the discussion and so it makes sense to me that we should send a signal that the community thought that there were policy violations, and did not like it in it's current state (which reflects the consensus in the discussion) but not signal to the WMF that the feature is dead in the water with the community. Sohom (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, the way the WMF has presented the feature is because according to them, readers wanted more images in articles, so instead of helping with that, they created a tool which, for those articles which already had multiple images, these were duplicated at the top. Questions about how this tool helped in any way wth the stated goal were not answered.
Anyway, the question is not what you or I think about the feature, the question is whether the close is a correct summary of the RfC discussion. How had the discussion a consensus for an opt-out more than for an opt-in? Fram (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fram, the mw:Reader Growth team that presented the feature is a team that works on the problem that I outlined (bring more readers in). If you look at the annual plan you can see that the product manager for the team owns that OKR to bring more readers (DE3.1). The work presented to the community was directly in line with that OKR. The testing was also performed with the same audience in mind. I'm fairly certain of this since I've been looking at the readers team's work for a long time in my advisory role.
the question is whether the close is a correct summary of the RfC discussion. -- And this discussion is relevant to that question, since it means that from a technical POV, options, A and B presented were a false dichotomy. However, if the RFC closes as A, that would be a supervote since it does not reflect the fact that most participants did not call for the outright removal of the feature and thus would be a incorrect close of the RFC. Sohom (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are still arguing why the rfc result was wrong, not whether the rfc close reflected the rfc consensus. That many of your arguments in doing so are wrong doesn´t even matter. Fram (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(I participated) I appreciate Voorts for closing it. However, for such a long discussion, I do think a more fulsome close, that addressed where people agreed and disagreed, and what camps of users there were, might have been of value. For example, the "opt-in" camp was divided between article-level opt-in, and total opt-in; I think those could hardly be considered the same view. I'm not saying there is/isn't consensus for either, I just think the close could have gotten into the nuance better, which might surely help the Foundation as it designs the future of this tool--and make the community feel like it understood its own position. I also think the close should have taken into consideration that the discussion was proposed in a moment of crisis/outrage, new options appeared as it went on, a lot of developments happened during the running of the discussion, etc. Bottom line: while I'm not sure there's a consensus for an opt-in as Fram argues, the discussion should perhaps get reclosed (by Voorts if they're willing) or panel closed. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓04:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Seems not to have any indication of how widespread that test will be (1% of pageviews? 100%?). Page just says "a bigger sample of users" which is not telling us much. As usual, page only lists the objections they think they can get rid off, and doesn't mention the objections they can't. No surprise there. Fram (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
From the post Graham linked: "The experiment will begin the week of September 28 and will run on Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Czech, English, Farsi, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, and Vietnamese Wikipedias." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the confusion, that phab task had a copy/paste error. I've updated the task in phab and reverted the Meta change @Graham87 made as the original Tech News item was correct--again, sorry for the churn here! Re: the test sample, it will run on 1% of enwiki (so 0.8% of enwiki will get one of the four treatment arms, split evenly, while 0.2% will be in control) and 10% of other wikis. For context, the last test ran on 0.1% of enwiki and 10% of other wikis (since then, our Experiment Platform team increased the cap on enwiki after validating they would be able to support the increase). We can definitely update the project page with that, thanks for calling it out. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(I participated) The close is correct insofar as the WMF was tweaking the feature during the discussion and seems to still be changing things in response to our feedback, which means the RfC consensus cannot directly apply to current or future versions of the feature. The discussion was most useful as direct feedback to the WMFers working on the feature, who I trust have read the whole thing carefully and will care much more about individual, actionable pieces of feedback than whatever summary one person decides to very belatedly put at the top. tldr; this close review is pointless. Toadspike[Talk]19:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's how I feel. The only things I could find consensus on that would be actionable going forward is that the version they tested violated several PAGs and that there should be an opt out mechanism. As I said on my talk page, I did not find that the ultimate feature should be opt out rather than opt in and I thought that was sufficiently clear from my close. If it wasn't, it now is, and the WMF's project manager for this feature is here to see it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
But where did you see that consensus for an opt-out feature? And in any case, like was said below, if a close needs this kind of clarification, the close should be updated (or vacated), not the clarification buried in an AN discussion. Fram (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the sentence on opt-out should be removed. I am not convinced it will be read the way User talk:Voorts#Image carousel RfC interprets it, and read in other ways it does not affect the consensus. For similar reasons however, I am wary of the request for a more fulsome close, I think the current close in aggregate is well-worded. CMD (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I had seen that comment when I wrote the above. Even if one person involved here has full control over a project, they shouldn't be burdened with having to explain that the close doesn't actually mean that the community agreed it should be an opt-out feature. CMD (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
How about adding a simple clarification to the close? Something like "For clarity this means that the community has decided an opt-out is a minimum requirement. It does not mean that the community has decided this will always be an opt-out feature simply that there is currently no consensus that it needs to be opt-in. However a consensus could develop in future discussion for this feature to be opt-in, as this feature is developed further." Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Involved, supported A/B) Either expand/rewrite the close or if voorts doesn't want to do that, then overturn and let someone else close it. For a discussion that long and complex, a four-sentence closing statement isn't enough to accurately summarize the discussion. On a brief skim of the !votes, it seems clear that far, far more people supported opt-in rather than opt-out (I agree with Fram that it looks like a 2:1 ratio or thereabouts). It seems like the consensus was rather overwhelmingly for A (pull it) first choice (which has already been done), and B (opt-in) as a second choice. Thus, the sentence in the close "The community also agreed that there should be an opt-out feature" is misleading: I think it's pretty clear that about twice as many participants agreed there should be an opt-in feature, not an opt-out feature.
I disagree with voorts's statement at their user talk that "I cannot find a consensus that the community wants opt-in only for an as-yet incomplete feature." A closer absolutely can report consensus that the community wants opt-in for an as-yet incomplete feature. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits that. I'm reminded that a closer reports consensus, they don't determine it. So that part does seem super-vote-y: substituting the closer's judgment about what's best for the community's judgment.
I might be better educated about the consensus that was there if there were a more fulsome closing statement that explained, e.g., how many people voted for what, what arguments they made, what policies/guidelines impact those arguments, how the votes were weighted as a result, etc. -- the usual stuff of closing statements.
I also disagree with voorts's statement here that "@SherryYang-WMF is reading this discussion and thus will read the close as I have interpreted it above." The closing statement isn't just for the benefit of WMF staff, it's for the benefit of everyone, now and in the future. Clarifications belong in the closing statement itself, not buried in the close review discussion.
I appreciate voorts closing this and other discussions; they're a very good closer IMO, but this one was a rare mistake. I think a detailed analysis of the discussion would show that consensus was for A first choice and B second choice, which means the community consensus was not to have it at all (in its current form, it can always be changed and re-proposed), and to have it opt-in as a second choice, and that's what the closing statement should say (to repeat: I'm involved and voted for opt-in, so I may not be seeing the consensus clearly myself). Levivich (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich, the feature was changed and pulled during the discussion. From my read of the discussion, most editors just wanted the feature pulled for now (or limited to opt in for the purposes of beta testing) based on the PAG violations. I did not see very many editors saying that any completed feature should be opt-in only. Moreover, it's very possible that many editors may change their mind once the completed feature addresses the PAG violations. I don't consider that analysis to be a supervote. I also didn't see the need to do a long close in this case for those reasons. If consensus develops to overturn my close, someone else can close it because I'm not going to write a very long and detailed close on what is ultimately a moot issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Voorts: you don't see very many editors saying that any completed feature should be opt-in, but you see many editors saying that any completed feature should be opt-out? Surely not, right? So then why say the latter?
And if it's very possible that many editors may change their mind once the completed feature addresses the PAG violations (I agree with that), then why say that there is consensus for opt-out? If the unfinished nature of the feature prevents consensus from forming for opt-in, then why would it not prevent consensus from forming for opt-out?
I don't think pulling the feature makes consensus moot at all -- we can form consensus about what should or shouldn't be included in forthcoming features -- but even still, you didn't close it as "feature pulled, everything else moot". You saw consensus for opt-out but not for opt-in, and that doesn't make sense when there are 2x as many votes for opt-in than opt-out (a fact that you don't seem to disagree with?). Make it make sense?
Maybe this is a communications disconnect. "Opt-out" means "turned on by default" and "opt-in" means "turned off by default." If, for whatever reason, there can be no consensus to have a not yet finished feature turned off by default, how can there be consensus to have a not yet finished feature turned on by default? Do you see why I think it doesn't make any sense? Levivich (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
And yet you still go with the most ciriticized part, "There is a rough cosnensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature." which simply doesn't match the actual RfC. Please reread Levivichs statement. Fram (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and I'm still waiting for your explanation of where you saw that consensus for an opt-out. And I don't seem to be the only one. Fram (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have explained my reasoning. The fact that you aren't satisfied with it and don't seem to understand why consensus can't be found where most editors aren't opining on a completed feature is not my problem. Take a step back from your quite obvious desire to see this feature be made DOA and look at this from a broader perspective of how we form consensus here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You have explained your reasoning why you think a consensus for opt-out would be better than one for opt-in in this case. Yu have still not given any indication of how you found that consensus in the actual dscussion. It looks as if you have disregarded all comments for an opt-in, because they were based on a since-pulled version, but kept all the comments for an opt-out, based on a since-pulled version. Something like that? Fram (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The new clarification doesn't track with my reading of the discussion either. This particular beta was apparently supposed to be opt-out from the start, but it wasn't programmed correctly. This was fixed within a day or two as I understand it. Aside from that, many Beta tests are opt-in (through preferences), and cementing opt-out as a default consensus changes that perception. CMD (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I read the current close as a mandate on the final version of the feature as opposed to necessarily a mandate that the feature must be opt-out and available to all users in it's next iteration (i.e. skip beta in it's next release) Sohom (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Sohom Datta Which shows an issue in the wording of the close, as voorts has stated that "I was not resolving the opt out vs. opt in issue for the completed feature." CMD (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reading the discussion, I'm seeing a consensus to have it opt-in in some form - editors don't agree whether this should be on a per-page basis, per-user basis, or something else, but I don't see that lack of agreement meaning there is a consensus for it to be opt-out.
My preferred close would be one that tells the WMF they need to work on some sort of opt-in proposal, that they can then present to the community for consensus before moving forward with deployment. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Most of the !votes were about the then-current beta and based on a critique of that beta. There was an August update for which I explicitly found no consensus. I don't understand how you can divine that there's consensus for opt in over opt out for the launch version based on editors' opinions regarding an incomplete beta that has since been pulled. The feature is going to change. The WMF has been directed to give us time to do an RfC before launch. Why is it so urgent to decide opt out vs. opt in before the feature is even done? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Once the feature is ready, it would be trivial for the WMF to change the feature to opt in if that's what the community wants. Why do you want to bind the community based on an RfC when editors necessarily had incomplete information? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
None of this explains how you found consensus for opt-out in that discusson, but not for opt-in. All you do is strengthen the impression that you have provided a super-vote. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The !votes being based on the beta doesn't invalidate them; the WMF can return to the community when the product is out of beta and ask us to change it to opt out. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The !votes being based on the beta doesn't invalidate them Yes it does. WP:ROUGHC says: (emphasis supplied)
Arguments that contradict policy [...] or are logically fallacious are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. On the other hand, if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but then an editor has added the missing references, that argument for deletion is no longer persuasive.
Even though the example is based on a deletion discussion, it fits this situation. The argument that the beta is so terrible that it should be made opt-in in is no longer persuasive after the beta has been significantly improved.Of course, this only applies to !votes based on the state of the beta, which in the RfC in question were most of them. FaviFake (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't say that those !votes are invalid; they are simply no longer relevant because the WMF had already begun to address them and released a new version of the beta in August. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
In a way; to better explain my response, I assess the consensus as that it shouldn't be shown by default to every reader on every article. What that actually means, and how that should be implemented, is left for the WMF to propose and the community to approve. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
it shouldn't be shown by default to every reader on every article I agree, that's the consensus. But "it" refers to the version of the feature before the WMF improved it. Those !votes are now moot, or at least not as relevant, and should be weighted accordingly by the closer based on the specific rationale given by each !voter. FaviFake (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be consensus here that the close should be changed in some way. voorts has indicated that they do not want to write a new close above. The two options presented so far are a full overturn or the addition of Nil Einne's clarificatory amendment. My preference is for the clarificatory amendment, as it would be simpler and address the immediate concern that prompted this discussion, although it's not a very strongly held preference. CMD (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
But that "clarification" has the same issues? Where in the actual RfC is the consensus for "opt-out is a minimum requirement" but at the same time "no consensus that it needs to be opt-in"? We had twice as many people going for an opt-in than those going for opt-out, so how can the consensus be the opposite? If the consensus for opt-in isn't considered strong enough, then close it as "there is no consensus whether it should be opt-in or opt-out, this should be decided by an RfC before a full roll-out" or something similar. Fram (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The point isn't that there's consensus whether the feature should be opt-in or opt-out. The point is that there's consensus the absolute minimum is there needs to be an opt-out. This seems important to some since the choice isn't a binary and treating it as a binary is a mistake. The community has not yet decided between it being opt-out or opt-in and the close is not suggesting they have. In fact IMO the close seems to be clearly stating it hasn't been decided yet. It's perfectly possible there is no opt-out and the feature cannot be turned off as another option. Whether the feature is opt-out or opt-in will likely be decided at a later date when the feature is more developed, since there's no consensus at this time. The fact the there's consensus for an opt-out but not consensus for opt-in is not particularly surprising since the WMF inadvertently implemented it that way at first, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the community wouldn't want the ability to turn off the feature when needed and it will be very rare someone would want the feature being opt-in but oppose having the ability to turn it off a needed (i.e. opt-out) as much as that might be a distinct second choice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Brick walls... where is that consensus for an opt-out? You seem to just be going "oh, everyone who wants an opt-in surely would be happy with an opt-out as a second choice", but the same can be applied to "everyone who wants it shut down would want an opt-in as a second choice", making a clear consensus for an opt-in as an absolute minimum. And yes, opt-in or opt-out is rather binary.
"The community has not yet decided between it being opt-out or opt-in and the close is not suggesting they have. " but at the same time you would close this with a "consensus [...] that there needs to be an opt-out" and "no consensus that it needs to be opt-in".
"The fact the there's consensus for an opt-out but not consensus for opt-in is not particularly surprising since the WMF inadvertently implemented it that way at first, "?? Not following that logic here.
"Whether the feature is opt-out or opt-in will likely be decided at a later date when the feature is more developed, since there's no consensus at this time. " I repeat myself: "then close it as "there is no consensus whether it should be opt-in or opt-out, this should be decided by an RfC before a full roll-out" or something similar. " Fram (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A third option is to change the word "opt-out" to "opt-in," which I think would be a more accurate summation of the discussion, i.e. editors agreed it should be pulled for now and opt-in if/when returned. Levivich (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's based on "B" being more popular than any option besides "A". I wouldn't say "any future version," just the next one. "Pull it, and if you bring it back, make it opt-in instead of just on by default" is how I'd summarize it, based on "A" being most popular and "B" being second most popular. (It's possible there is more nuance there that could be revealed by carefully counting/weighing votes, but that's my general take away without having done either.) Levivich (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm kinda confused, isn't that what @Voorts is also proposing roughly? In my mind, the "pull it, and if you bring it back, make it opt-in instead of just on by default" part that was the consensus of the votes based on the flawed version has already happened (in the push to beta and the ensuing August 8th update). In the discussion that followed there was no-consensus to enable it by default still and so now the WMF is being asked to either request a RFC when they need to re-enable the feature for everyone && include a prominent opt-out mechanism in the feature at the minimum. (atleast that's my interpretation of the close). Sohom (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
How is "There is a rough cosnensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature." (Voorts close) even roughly the same as "pull it, and if you bring it back, make it opt-in instead of just on by default" (Levivich, right above)? Fram (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think what I'm saying is the same as what voorts wrote. "There is a rough consensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature" means "There is a rough consensus that any further betas should be turned on by default with an opt-out feature." It must be on by default in order to be opt-out.
What I'm saying is the direct opposite of that: There is consensus that any further betas should have an opt-in feature, meaning they should be turned off by default.
And my basis for that consensus is that A (pull the deployed version) was most popular, and B (opt-in) was second-most-popular. I could also see a close that said "Consensus is to pull this version, which has already been done, and no consensus about anything further, a new RFC will be required to evaluate the next version before it's deployed."
What I don't see is consensus for "pull this version [A], and any future version should be on by default with an opt-out feature," which is the close as written (both the original and revised), unless I'm misreading it. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Right, but we keep skipping over this part of what I'm saying. I don't mean to be a jerk but I just want to highlight this very important fact:
You're saying that at a minimum, the next beta should be turned on by default, with an opt out function.
And I'm saying: no, consensus was that it should not be turned on by default. Not at a minimum, not at a maximum, not at all, without a new consensus (a new RFC). It should be turned off by default, with an opt-in function, if it's rolled out at all. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There was not a consensus that the WMF needs to return for an RfC before running a beta.? also don't understand how a beta can be opt-in only when this is supposed to be a reader-facing feature. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No offense intended here, but it doesn't matter if you understand the logic of the consensus, or if you agree that the consensus was logical. As I understand it, they can't easily make anything opt-in or opt-out except for logged-in users. So they could deploy a future version that is only opt-out for logged-in users, and on for all logged-out users. I'd have to carefully read the whole discussion to parse out whether people's comments were specifically about the deployed version that was pulled, or general comments about the feature in general (any future versions of it). So that's why I think it's possible that there was consensus to pull, and no consensus for anything else, one way or another. I think it's also possible that there was consensus to pull, and consensus that any future version should only be deployed as an opt-in for logged in users. And yes, that means effectively eliminating access to the feature for logged-out users, which might defeat the main purpose of the feature altogether, but consensus gets to decide that. Consensus gets to decide it's not a feature that we want at all, or it's only a feature we want for logged-in users who opt in. I'm not sure, without careful reading of the whole discussion, which of these it is. What I am sure of is that the consensus is not to pull the beta and then re-deploy as an opt-out feature for logged-in users, because that would directly contradict options A and B, and A+B=an obvious supermajority of the participants (without having to carefully read the scope of their rationales). Levivich (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I get your point. I think this discussion ended in an unusual procedural posture, given the feature had been pulled. I read the consensus as best I could in light of that. I don't think the community was speaking to the completed feature, given that many editors who wanted the beta pulled tried to work with the WMF to change the feature during the course of the RfC. Taking off my closer hat, no matter what, there will need to be a discussion to adopt or not adopt the completed feature. I think arguing over this RfC is sinking time from communicating with the WMF to ensure that whatever feature is proposed is the best it can be. What happens after that is anyone's guess. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
One option is to remove the line "There is a rough consensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature" and replace it with "there will need to be a discussion to adopt or not adopt the completed feature." Because while this discussion is a time sink, it will be more of a time sink of the WMF re-deploys the feature with it on by default (opt-out), and then we have another RFC to turn it off by default (opt-in) or pull it altogether. Which is what just happened in the RFC you closed!:-) IMO, inclusion of that line about rough consensus for opt-out is dooming us to having a Round 2 of this. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
"there will need to be a discussion to adopt or not adopt the completed feature." I don't think there was consensus to require the WFM to create a new discussion once the feature is complete. FaviFake (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This puts me in mind of an old cartoon pinned on my bulletin board: "Let's form a committee to create a task force to develop a team to determine the fastest way to deal with the problem." Schazjmd(talk)18:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
For clarity, as I'm not sure which version you are referring to for your option 3, in the revised (22:06, 23 September 2026) version of the close, the sentence mentioning opt-out is "There is a rough cosnensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature". (Also, as of this message, an opt-in to the image carousel is currently included in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures.) On objections to the clarificatory amendment as written, is there a different wording that would work (working on the assumption here that an agreed-upon clarification would mean there is no need to redo the entire close). CMD (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
My "third option" suggestion (change "opt-out" to "opt-in"), in addition to the two options you suggested (full overturn or the addition of Nil Einne's clarificatory amendment) would work for either the original close ("The community also agreed that there should be an opt-out feature.") or the amended close ("There is a rough consensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature.").
The issue I have with the clarificatory amendment is that it still says "... the community has decided an opt-out is a minimum requirement ... there is currently no consensus that it needs to be opt-in." That still says consensus for opt-out, no consensus for opt-in, which I cannot reconcile with the discussion I'm reading.
I just counted, and to over-simplify things, assuming all A/B votes support off-by-default a.k.a. "opt-in" (A was "pull", B was "opt-in"), and all C/D votes support on-by-default a.k.a. "opt-out" (C was do not pull, D was do not pull but have "better exclusion support"), I'm counting ~15 votes for C/D vs. ~63(!) votes for A/B. When it's 63-15, that's 81% of participants voting for A/B over C/D. How do we get to "on by default" when 81% voted against "on by default"?
In terms of potential clarifications, other than my "third option" of replacing "opt-out" with "opt-in" in the above-quoted sentence of the amended close, I'd propose two additional options that would, at least, satisfy me (can't speak for anyone else):
4th option: just take the sentence "There is a rough consensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature" out of the amended close altogether; or,
5th option: add to the close an explanation of how an apparent 63 A/B (pull/opt-in) vs 15 C/D (leave it on by default) vote gets weighed in favor of the C/D position (on by default aka opt-out) and not in favor of the A/B position (off by default aka opt-in). Levivich (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich The third and fourth options are one and the same with the difference being purely semantic. I feel like we are somewhat splitting hairs here. To put things into a bit of perspective, WMF Readers team typically operates in three iterative phases, they experiment on a section of the readership (about 0.01% or 0.1% of readership), they run betas, by making the feature it available to all editors that have opted-in to having the betas enabled (which is what is the status quo currently) and then there is full deployment. There are other mechanisms (say enabling it by default only for editors but not for non-logged-in users) but I haven't seen these be used by the Readers Growth team and those are explicitly not called "beta" launches.
Coming to the close and consensus, if we as community say "this needs a RFC before non-beta deployment" (which is effectively what we are saying here) that already implies that everything before that will be opt-in. That in itself satisfies the conditions of the consensus. Whether or not we explicitly say that there is a opt-out or opt-in is moot because the word beta implies opt-in. Even then, I personally see the "There is a rough consensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature" as useful because one of the sticking points in the early prototype was that for folks who wanted to opt-out, there wasn't a clear way to do so. Sohom (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Even then, I personally see the "There is a rough consensus that any further betas should have an opt-out feature" as useful because one of the sticking points in the early prototype was that for folks who wanted to opt-out, there wasn't a clear way to do so. "
And for people who e.g. wanted this to be an opt-in on a per-article bass, there wasn't a clear way to do so either. Why would one perhaps useful option be included in the close, and another (with clearly more support) not? Fram (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because that depends on the final version of the feature. The opt-out was a sticking point even during betas (AFAIK). I have no issues if that is taken out since in my mind the close is equivalent without it. Sohom (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do hope someone finally takes it out then, because whether it was a sticking point before the RfC is hardly relevant for the determining of consensus of the RfC, and I see no way that anyone can really defend that it had consensus during that discussion. See Levivch's analysis, see Voorts' total lack of analysis despite many requests. Fram (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Sohom: Whether it's one and the same depends on whether the third option is applied to the original close (which, after changing "opt-out" to "opt-in," would read "there should be an opt-in feature") or the amended close ("any further betas should have an opt-in feature"), the main difference between the two being the word "betas."
I do agree with you about splitting hairs. This is another one of those discussions where I don't understand why it's as long as it is and why there are so many questions, etc.
To me, this whole RFC, close, and debate, is very simply and easily summarized thusly:
A new feature was deployed
In an RFC, editors voted roughly 63-15 to either pull the feature altogether or make it opt-in; the feature was pulled during the RFC
As a result of the RFC, the feature either needs to (1) not be re-deployed at all without a new RFC overturning this RFC's consensus, or (2) be re-deployed (after making changes) as an opt-in feature.
That's the close, IMO. That's the summary of the RFC: either don't have it at all, or have it as a opt-in. Those are the WMF's options per the RFC, IMO. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was banned from discussing islam or muslims: ( User talk:John Not Real Name#1RR restriction and topic ban ). It has been over 6 months so I am appealing the ban. In that time I have not ever broken the rules nor violated the ban. I am unsure if I can appeal the Wikipedia:1RR but I wish to do so as well. As I already mentioned I have not violated this rule since and understand the rules better now. I am sincerely sorry for causing any disruption. I would note though (This is not an excuse and I do not offer it as one. I wish to provide context is all.) that in other areas I have proven that I am not only willing to compromise but accept even when a determination is negative towards mine or not exactly how I phrased it however in all my interactions in this topic I had to contend with proven rule-breakers (Multiple accounts such as with Rulioz(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) for this see here: ( [] ) and M.Bitton(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) for this see here:( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb#M.Bitton banned ).). As already mentioned I do not include this to justify what I did and again I apologise. I wish to focus on bringing high-quality information to the public on all topics. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose The ban was imposed on 2025-09-28. You have made zero edits between then and now, zero edits until you decided to contest your block. I don't see how we could possibly judge your edits so see whether you can be trusted to edit constructively without the ban in place. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh. I am Sorry I did not realise I had to be active. I thought my compliance without editing was enough. I decided to leave for a while and decided to return today (24th of September 2026.). John Not Real Name (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's impossible to judge your conduct and/or editing pattern to determine whether the sanction is still necessary because you have no subsequent contributions to judge. You are still allowed to edit (keeping in mind 1RR) everything in the encyclopaedia barring topics involving Islam and Muslim people. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) It's not so much that you have to be active, it's that I can't see how to judge whether or not you are ready to have the restrictions lifted. I hope you see, this is not any sort of personal attack. I can well imagine you resuming editing outside of those problem areas and being very constructive. Making several hundred edits over the course of a number of months. Then contesting your restrictions again, at which point I'd be happy to support your request. --Yamla (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I was unsure of where to submit this request so I have done so here.
I have been recently editing the List of Deadliest Catch episodes article. Since the series is quite old, I had to resort to The Futon Critic to add viewership of its Season 3's episodes which aired in first half of 2007. Before late 2007, there didn't use to be dedicated websites documenting TV ratings for cable shows until TV by the Numbers came around.
While The Futon Critic is considered reliable enough by those editing TV show-related articles, the website for some reason has been blacklisted by the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive. As a result, the website and its oages cannot be archived there. The website is still allowed to be archived by archive.today, however archive.today is itself blacklisted on Wikipedia.
In recent times many websites covering TV shows and their ratings have gone offline, so preservation is important.
I request you therefore to make an exception to allow use of archive.today (as well as its mirrors archive.ph and archive.is), on the relevant article I mentioned. Thank you very much. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Contentious topics designation applies to all content related to post-1992 American politics and closely related people. We're not always good about tagging the relevant pages, but the designation applies regardless. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reminder also that in clear cut cases like these, regular editors should feel free to add the notices. Per the template themselves Template:Contentious topics/talk notice you don't need to be an admin to add them unless adding additional page restrictions which only any admin can do. You're just documenting something that is already the case so that editors are aware or reminded and hopefully less likely to get in trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Usually, I would request a temporary protection to this page in WP:Requests for page protection, but this is an urgent situation that needs immediate attention to the admins right now
As many of you are aware, this company, who is behind the famous PUBG: Battlegrounds game, is facing numerous dramas involving two pro Vietnamese players falsely perm banned by the distributor themselves (because of the fact that they are stalking an active South Korean streamer named Soopi), this caused nationwide protests in Vietnam in which many of the gamers are threatened to erase this game from their roster for good. I'm aware that this drama would be also going to this site as well, as many of the contributors like Annh07 and Netstars22 had continuously reverting unconstructive edits on those pages, mostly because of this fact if you look enough at the page history. So, I really want admins here to consider a longer protection for both of those pages, so that it won't be heavily vandalized because of that – Quochieu0211 (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello Quochieu0211, by the amount and content of the disruptive edits, this was actually just an ordinary page protection request, and your message is almost 24 hours after the last edit by anyone to the page. Actioned, but no need for this path in similar cases in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 hours ago15 comments8 people in discussion
This backlog is getting pretty bad. If it's difficult and frustrating to do things the right way, it encourages people to hire the spam/scam farms we then have to chase down and block. If you've got a spare moment and can pitch in, please do! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1; if anyone reading this is not sure how to go about this I have a half-finished guide to COI edit requests which I can make into a less half-finished guide if there's interest. Rusalkii (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I handled those that were in my general areas of knowledge from the oldest through the beginning of this month. I'll try to come back and do September in a bit. Do we have (or could we develop) something like AfD sorting? I go through Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Food and drink every few weeks usually, would be willing to do something similar for COI edit requests just to, as you say, encourage COIs to use that system. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You can use WP:PETSCAN for this, like this query - substitute the WikiProject of your choice, or any other category. Note that these are talk page categories, so any categories that only show up on the main article won't work. There isn't any more user friendly system, though if there's wider interest I could try to throw something together. Rusalkii (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll offer a few observations on the state of the backlog and why it's become so long. The answer is, of course, AI. I'm seeing more and more AI-generated edit requests and compared with when I started patrolling the queue years ago, the average request has become more complex and more time-consuming to review. The numbers are stark. I parsed the page histories of User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable and its predecessor User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable to count how many edit requests we're seeing each month. This August, COI editors submitted 737 new requests, while reviewers answered 646 requests and removed them from the queue. We are a little more than halfway through September, and there have already been 479 requests added to the queue, while 299 have been answered. The number of edit requests has risen dramatically in just the last few months. To me, this suggests that either AI has recently improved at generating surficially passable edit requests or COI editors have now caught on to using AI.
Month (2026)
New requests
Answered requests
January
322
210
February
268
227
March
332
287
April
394
292
May
476
522
June
532
585
July
696
482
August
737
646
September (as of 9/17)
479
299
This is not a short term blip. The average monthly volume of edit requests has been growing steadily since 2012, but the growth in 2026 is unprecedented. Frankly, the reviewers have done an admirable job of keeping up with the pace, considering how much larger the volume has grown.
Monthly average number of requests
Year
New requests
Answered requests
2012
39
38
2013
37
35
2014
52
50
2015
70
64
2016
85
87
2017
100
109
2018
162
162
2019
170
171
2020
154
142
2021
165
165
2022
122
117
2023
148
164
2024
138
134
2025
215
201
2026 (so far)
470
394
Unfortunately, the trend shows no sign of letting up. We may need to start exploring ways to triage the queue before this gets out of hand. Altamel (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Certainly many of them are AI. Many AI agents have noticed that they're "not allowed" to edit wikipedia directly, and instead have been offering suggestions on talk pages on behalf of their operators. Since editors review the requests pretty thoroughly, this is one of the less harmful ways for AI to interact with the projects. But when it comes to the volume, we're in trouble. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Happy to pitch in! I’ll work through the backlog over the next few days. I’ve interacted with COI accounts before so I’ve some familiarity, but will go through the guidance on response templates before I proceed. Baberoothless (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The sole purpose of this account is for nominating for deletion open source software-related articles. Already blocked at the Spanish Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, for confusing name and also for their disruptive actions under anonymous accounts. See also this deletion request. Also, please decline any ongoing deletion request opened by this user. Amitie 10g (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You didn't notify them of this report @Amitie 10g.
As you notice, all al their deletion request are for open source software-related articles, athrough few editions to unrelate to them. The same criterion has been used for every nomination since 2020. For me, this is disruptive. Amitie 10g (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
From the AfD results, it seems that the community largely concurs with Mdggdj's assessment of the merits of the articles nominated for deletion. There is nothing 'disruptive' in nominating articles which have something in common, if they merit deleting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This might be the same user as User:Clenpr/Rotating Orange España IP, who has also been combing through poorly referenced software articles for several years albeit with a different boilerplate deletion rationale ("Fails WP:GNG and also not found any WP:RS" vs. "Not notable. There are no independent sources"). To be clear, this would not be illegitimate sockpuppetry. This user has also been reported multiple times but there has never been any appetite for taking action. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, a lot of open-source software articles are barely-sourced crap and I'm not surprised 70% of their AfDs succeeded. In some cases I suspect many of those 30% of AfD results that didn't agree with Mdggdj's nominations were probably closed as no consensus through lack of activity, or because people claimed "there were sources" which have never appeared (I note a current example - Python Paste). Also, OP, I have changed the title of this section to remove "LTA". That's a personal attack and you are warned not to do that again. Black Kite (talk)14:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am having a lot of problems editing. Categories being removed when editing using visual editor and going nowhere near source, just now edits being added using a temporary account, despite being logged in, pages suddenly refreshing and all the changes I'd been working on being lost. Is this typical? Am I raising this in the correct place and does anyone want diffs (which may take a while for me to get together)? LateFatherKarma (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Hello, from August onwards my account has been consistently stalked and wikihounded, mostly by user Lex infopedicas with disruptive edits. Their first edits were to the article Battle of Aydın that I had restructured from unsourced to sourced a few days before this. I will note a few of their diffs: 1, 2 and I also recommend looking at the full page history of the article as there are plenty more edits by them, other accounts and IPs which caused the article to get locked. Just today, this user undid one of my edits to Turkey red, an extremely obscure article which he hadn't edited before and, in addition, he seems to be hellbent on doing something to the Siege of Tripolitsa article which I had greatly expanded about a month ago. For example, he initially blanked 12,000+ bytes of content, then 9,000+ and, after he realized that this won't work, he began trying to "add" content through 1) removing sources I had added and 2) replacing them with some sources of unknown reliability and with interpretations of unknown provenance. See the history of the article here. Another edit of his in August in the Menemen massacre article added a Turkish government-affiliated source to it in order to inflate some numbers. I had previously edited the same page in June, fixing those same numbers in accordance to the sources cited.
I also suspect user Mustafa1423 of being the same person or, at least, very related to the Lex account. Their edits, again, exhibit the same behaviour and 100% of them after August are related to undoing or "adding" to my own edits, just like Lex's. For example, Mustafa also edited the Battle of Aydın article here and also blanked 13,000 bytes of content in Çerkes Ethem under the guise of "reverting vandalism".
Note that (and this is important) that Lex's edits in the Siege of Tripolitsa article began after a recent post on Twitter/X by a Turkish ultranationalist user which targeted my account and my edits on that exact article. The post amassed over 2,000 likes and was filled with harrassment and threatening replies (e.g. here and here). In addition, one reply mentioned the Turkey red article which was, "coincidentally", edited today by Lex, as I noted above. Meanwhile, both Lex's and Mustafa's edits seem to have began a few months ago after a Reddit post about my account on r/Turkey, which targeted my edits again, but this time on the Çerkes Ethem article.
This harrassment on my account and on the articles I've edited has been constant, to the point where I had to (successfully) ask for page protection for some pages. There have also been some anonymous users (with no accounts) targeting the same, and other, articles, but I believe it's futile to give them here, as many of them can be found in the above articles' history pages (however, I will give examples if asked by an admin).
What this person@Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah says is absolutely not consistent with reality; on the contrary, this person is altering the English articles in the encyclopedia to suit their own ideological motives. I request that appropriate action be taken and I am also filing a complaint against this person. Lex infopedicas (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You have to provide evidence in the form of diffs (see WP:CDLG). If what you're saying is actually true, then you should easily be able to do so. If it isn't true, then I suggest you go spend your time and energy elsewhere. Wreaderick (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This case is not about vandals or an organised group targeting a "victim," nor is it a matter of teenagers ganging up on someone. This is about User:Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah's clear violations of WP:NPOV, one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.
I am not affiliated with any organised campaign, and I hold no particular political stance. What concerns me is this user's demonstrated bias and hostility, which I find disturbing regardless of any political angle.
First, the username itself is self-admitted evidence of an WP:NPOV problem. Translated, it reads: ''We are from Trabzon, all praise to God for the grace of being Rum.'' This, visible on the user's own page, signals a far-right Rum nationalist stance. The user has written andon's article almost entirely from blog-style sources -- (a violation of WP:RS), using heroic, ballad-like language. This sourcing pattern repeats on other articles as well.
The violations don't stop there. The user has inserted the label ''terrorist'' in this edit, and elsewhere describes a specific ethnic group as ''barbarian.'' When I, editing from a temporary account, reverted this clearly racist wording, the user restored it, dismissing my objection as mere ''allegations.'' By that same logic, should andon's massacre of 19 civilian fishermen not also be called ''barbarism''?
Every accusation above is backed by a direct link, this is not a matter of unfounded claims but of documented fact. If administrators dismiss this as rookie users overreacting, or fail to address a nationalist (at times racist) NPOV violation, I will escalate this case to the U4C. I understand the difficulty administrators face: they can be unaware of what these nationalist words mean, while others may simply appear as an angry mob online. But that is not what is happening here. Racism is a serious sickness, and everyone affected by it deserves to be taken seriously. ~2026-51874-86 (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here's one of those anonymous editors I talked about above. Without being mentioned at all, this individual has "somehow" found this thread to rush to the defensive.
Considering that this text is mostly AI-generated, I will not dwell on it much. However, I need to defend myself on the "racist" accusations which are total nonsense.
Secondly, I did not describe anyone as "barbarian". The source, which I added, talked about "barbarism", while describing the view of Beethoven (the subject of the article). I quote from it directly: "[...] Turkish invaders, who continue to occupy the city and rule over the Athenian citizens. The barbarism of the invaders is represented in several songs, including a choir of dervishes and a noisy Turkish march". Nevertheless, due to the above editor's concern, I proceeded to put the word barbarism in quotes to address the issue. I do not think anything other than that needs to be said. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Those are the names of two Nuxalk deities. When I tried to move the incorrectly titled "Aelquntam" to Alhkwʼntam, it was somehow blacklisted by the site. I already wrote a move request in the proper place.
Kumugwe is incorrectly listed as a Nuxalk deity instead of Q’umakwa. The page should not be moved, because it's the correct Kwakwaka'wakw name. However, trying to create "Qʼumakwa" separately runs again into the same blacklist issue.
What is going on? There must be something wrong with the filter.
Is administrator attention necessary every time a page with ʼ is created? If the rule is not amended, handling names of PNW origin will be troublesome. Gattonero2001 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The following is a collation of their unblock request and relevant follow-up responses:
Hi team Despite being advised that this was not acceptable, I clearly understand the problem stems from the continuing AI-generated wording. I acknowledge that I am not only the subject of the draft but that I have also edited it, which is a relevant conflict of interest. In future, I will use the talk-page/edit-request process and will change how I communicate and edit. I reassure you that I shall not use AI-generated words when communicating with Wikipedia editors. Further, I will not repeat the same question once guidance has been offered. [responding to a prompt from Rosguill to explain their past behavior:] First of all, I must confess that I took the warning lightly. I thought I could use AI as a language-corrector. I do now appreciate that Wikipedia expected my editor-to editor communication to be written entirely by me. I realise that the warning and that the repeated attempts were my mistake. Further, I will not directly edit Draft: Ravi M. Ravichandhira. I will use the talk-page/edit-request process to make suggestions. They will be supported by independent reliable sources. Any minor editing I may do will be limited to pages in which I have no conflict of interest. For example: typo corrections; updating citations or correcting non-controversial errors. I can assure you that the talk page/edit-request process will be used to propose removal or correction of unsupported material in my draft.
First of all, I am very sorry for my actions, and I understand that using or editing in another account and trying to evade a block violates Wikipedia rules, and I take full responsibility for what I did. I promise to operate only in a single account and will not use another account to evade blocks or restrictions. I really wanted to help out in Wikipedia, and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to return. Please consider giving me a second chance. Thank you. 🙏 Alfdeckse (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am asking for administrator review of User:Likeanechointheforest's use of the rollback permission, including whether they should continue to hold it.
The immediate incident concerns Luke Procter. I removed a statement claiming that Procter had led Northamptonshire to promotion to Division One in September 2026. Northamptonshire were not promoted.
My original edit summary was "removed nonsense". I accept that this was unnecessarily terse and should have explained the factual issue more clearly.
At 20:58 UTC on 27 September 2026, Likeanechointheforest used MediaWiki rollback to restore the claim: Special:Diff/1377088016. The revision is tagged "Rollback" and "AntiVandal". They subsequently placed an unconstructive-edit warning on my talk page.
I later removed the incorrect statement again with the explanatory summary "Remove false claim: Northamptonshire were not promoted; Kent secured second promotion place": Special:Diff/1377089350.
I raised the issue directly with the editor here: prior discussion.
The particular Luke Procter rollback is also being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrative action review; I am disclosing that discussion here. My reason for raising the matter at ANI is the broader history of acknowledged mistaken rollback actions and whether that history warrants administrative action regarding the permission itself.
I reviewed the editor's rollback history and found at least six prior rollback actions which they subsequently personally undid with an edit summary stating "mistake", "mistake!", or "my mistake!":
15 March 2026 – Perfect Blue: rollback Special:Diff/1343648371, followed by self-undo Special:Diff/1343648414 ("my mistake!"). The rollback summary itself characterised the reverted contribution as "good faith" and contained a custom explanation, so I cite this as an admitted erroneous rollback rather than alleging that this example independently constituted misuse.
The final example is particularly relevant to the chronology. The mistaken Honbasho rollback was corrected at 20:57 UTC on 27 September. The disputed Luke Procter rollback followed at 20:58 UTC, approximately one minute later.
I recognise that WP:ROLLBACK contemplates accidental rollback actions and says that an editor who makes one should promptly undo it. I therefore do not present those six examples as six established policy violations. The self-corrections are mitigating evidence.
My concern is the repeated pattern of erroneous rollback decisions, several associated with the AntiVandal workflow and erroneous warnings, followed by the present disputed rollback which was not self-corrected.
When rollback was granted to Likeanechointheforest on 17 February 2026, they were expressly advised on their talk page: "Never use rollback to revert good faith edits", were told not to use it in content disputes, and were advised that inappropriate use could result in revocation: User talk:Likeanechointheforest#Rollback.
WP:ROLLBACK states that default rollback should be used for obvious vandalism and other circumstances where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, and that unexplained use against good-faith edits is misuse.
I am not requesting a block or any wider sanction. I ask administrators to review the complete rollback history above and determine whether continued possession of the rollback user right is appropriate.
I recommend not using AI to create requests like this, as it tends to make people automatically dismiss whatever you have to say. Setting that aside, I'm not sure I see an issue. You made an edit that did not really explain itself and appeared to be removing information for no reason. After you removed it with an explanation, your edit stood. You also did not give them any time between talking on their talk page or posting here - Not even thirty minutes have passed! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!23:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thread at WP:CR was opened long ago. I made a final request there over a week ago. No dice.
I understand why folks might want to avoid closing: Arday's death was a culture wars flashpoint last month, and the topic touches on WP:ARBR&I.
But at this point the lack of closure ensures that the consensus cannot be implemented –– if in fact it is determined that consensus is to include the disputed language.
@JyotiTheLightHouse: (Non-administrator comment) I noticed that you signed this post with a fake signature and timestamp. They were accusing you of AI-generated content in your draft article (now deleted). Your user page is clearly AI-generated as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You copy and pasted it onto this noticeboard without any indication that it was you (and not gurkubondinn) that wrote it here. Just don't copy and paste other people's signatures in the future. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I’ve noticed a pattern of LLM-usage and copyright violations in Acratopotes’s contributions to Wikipedia and Commons.
In September 2024, they were warned for using AI to enhance an image they introduced into a WP page. Their response to the warning implied that all their image uploads until then had used AI, and should be deleted. It’s worth noting that by this time, the editor had uploaded ~300 files to Commons and introduced them in various Wikipedia articles–sometimes, even replacing the existing image. Several of their uploads were deleted for LLM usage following a discussion on Commons.
Since then, they have received more warnings for uploading copyrighted images to Commons, and enhancing them with AI. They have admitted to uploading files they found on social media, and other websites. For example, they uploaded an image of Mohammed Atta to Commons saying they found it on the FBI website (the image was deleted for possible AI “beautification”), and then introduced the said image to the WP page of Mohammed Atta. Very recently, they were again warned for introducing AI enhanced images to WP pages. Additionally, I found a mainspace edit they made in July, which explicitly notes that they used ChatGPT to generate the text and source. It explains why sometimes their source links don’t work, because they are possibly “hallucinated” by AI.
At first glance, this might seem more of a Commons issue than a WP one, but evidence suggests that their contributions to both platforms feed into each other. Their continued LLM usage and copyright violations, despite countless warnings, brings into question the credibility of their edits, especially because they contribute mostly to contentious topics. I dropped them a message on talk page about this last week and received no response, but the editor is actively making edits. Baberoothless (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up with Wikipedia's policies on artificial intelligence. I will never again use any AI tool to upload content. I don't have much time to devote to Wikipedia because I have other commitments in my life. In fact, that's one of the reasons I haven't been able to reply to your messages. In general, I'm also thinking of cutting back on my editing work. Unfortunately, I can't find the time to contribute to WP because of my work.
No apologies necessary re: response to my message; everyone has personal engagements and I empathise. I do think that you have been notified of the WP’s policies on AI-use enough times, but I will reiterate the same in very simple words—AI use for generating text and sources, as well as, enhancing images is a violation of WP’s core content policies. You can use AI to suggest small corrections, like spelling, punctuation, capitalisation or grammar, for your original writing (and again, this applies only to text you have personally written from scratch). AI use is also permitted for translation provided the translated contributions adhere to Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation.
Similarly, for file uploads, you cannot upload images that you came across on social media or any other websites on the internet. Any image not created by you can only be uploaded to Commons and used on WP if, and only if, it has been released to the public domain or you have explicit permission from the photographer to release it to the public domain. Everything else is a violation of copyright. If you’re unsure if an image you want to upload is free-use, you can always ask another editor to weigh in.
I’d also like to mention that I do not want you to stop editing altogether. Quite the opposite, actually. You’ve been an editor for a while. I think you possess the ability and discernment to make meaningful contributions to WP and Commons without AI use. I’d highly recommend that instead of hanging your boots, you familiarise yourself with the aforementioned policies and continue editing. WP policies can be a learning curve (they have been for me too!), so always ask for help if you have any questions. I have found most editors to be very helpful in providing guidance on policies. Willingness to learn is half the job, and a hallmark of a good editor—something that you don’t need AI for. Baberoothless (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I read your entire response. Thank you for your detailed and clear explanation regarding copyright and artificial intelligence. Im also grateful that you took the time to help me.
"If you’re unsure if an image you want to upload is free-use, you can always ask another editor to weigh in." I'll definitely keep that in mind. You're absolutely right—willingness to learn is half the job. I understand your intentions, Baberoothless. Acratopotes (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
October 2026 Administrator Elections – Call for Candidates
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Qualified editors are encouraged to find at least one experienced nominator. Self-nominations are also allowed. Please review instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
September 29–October 5: Nominations phase (we are here)
October 8–12: Discussion phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed. However, in practice, few candidates succeed without ~10K edits, some content creation, no recent behavioral issues, and a nominator.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Pinging the blocking admin @Blablubbs: The block's due to expire in a month, and though it's not a pretty range we can probably just lift it, at least temporarily. I'll go ahead and do that. I suggest get all your account-setup done early, and keep a list of accounts handy in case we need to involve IPBE later. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I have tagged Anastasia Schipanova for speedy deletion under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion).
The article is currently also at AfD, but I believe the present version independently meets G11 because it is structured as a promotional profile/portfolio, with extensive promotional career listings, awards, fashion appearances, and substantial reliance on the subject’s own website and profile/interview material.
Speedy deletion nominations are already placed into categories that administrators monitor. It's generally frowned upon to nominate something for AfD and speedy deletion at the same time — AfD tends to trump the speedy as it involves community input and consensus building. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, so (despite the name "speedy deletion") there's no hurry involved that requires a third notification to administrators of deletion. • afranticturtle🐢 solidarity18:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
.jpg){kind=link}