Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, (un)deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{subst:RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	134	0	134
TfD	0	1	13	0	14
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	18	24	19	0	61
RfD	0	0	93	0	93
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 sockpuppet investigations
• 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 10 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 30 requested closures
• 50 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 4 Copyright problems

Following on from request: Please reconsider my topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The community agreed today to remove my topic ban, and replaced it with a single article and associated talk page block. I had no idea this would result in me being unable to use the library. I have used this valuable resource quite a bit, to improve articles, including on an article I got to good article status. I really do feel I can be trusted, without having any bans or blocks. Could the community consider this, so I have better access to quality sources? I'm sorry to take more of your time but I didn't understand this would happen. LateFatherKarma (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that this was meant to be a lessening of restrictions rather than imposing additional ones, I don't see why the block couldn't be lifted and you trusted to self-enforce your ban from the page in the same way the previous tban was.

Courtesy ping participants in previous discussion @S Marshall @Rsjaffe @Newslinger @The Bushranger Rusalkii (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Support unblock. Losing access to The Wikipedia Library is definitely an unfortunate side effect of the partial block that I did not consider in the previous discussion. It has been more than six months since LateFatherKarma was unblocked, and they have made a considerable amount of constructive content contributions since then, so I believe an unblock can be granted via the standard offer without needing any additional restrictions. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely support unblock and then have topic ban from the page without accompanying partial blocks. I believe @The Bushranger placed the block so would rather they be the one to undo it if they agree, as this is not a dire emergency and can wait a few hours. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Support replacing the blocks with a topic ban per the above. It's a shame that the Wikipedia Library access is so binary but addressing that issue is far more complicated than simply trusting LateFatherKarma in the same way we've been trusting them for the past six and bit months. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Absolutely, in the circumstances this is right.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma, you can simply contact TWL to get access in this kind of case. You don't need an unblock. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's a potential solution, would prefer a topic ban from the stalking page and associated talk page as it would also remove the block message. I would of course ensure I honour this trust if it's afforded to me, and appreciate you letting me know this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unblock let's give LFK their library card back. More people should use that tool. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Moving this here again from the archives in the hope someone is willing to make a decision and close this, thanks. LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've left a request at WP:ANRFC. I'm involved so can't close this myself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community 3X ban appeal from Bmona12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bmona12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bmona12 has submitted an appeal on their user talk of their WP:3X ban which I'm bringing here for community consideration. - Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

---

I am formally appealing my community ban. Since four years have passed since my initial infractions, and administrators have kindly restored my talk page access to allow for this review, I am presenting my final appeal here.

I was originally blocked for a mix of copyright violations, uploading unfree images, and copying text between pages without giving attribution. When User:Tamzin blocked me and asked me to explain the rules, I didn't take it seriously. I was impatient, ignored the questions, and just spammed basic "I promise to do better" messages.

To make things worse, I aggressively tried to bypass the block by making multiple secondary accounts out of sheer frustration. I want to be entirely transparent: over the course of 2023, I created and edited using the sockpuppet accounts User:Jodibetterton12345, User:Billymonahan123, User:Monahana123, and User:CaptainMohando1, as well as logging out to edit from my provider's 114.75.144.0/20 IP range. It was a toxic, immature way to handle the situation, and I understand completely why the community placed a full ban on me under WP:3X.

I have spent the last few years completely away from the site, and I realize now how much cleanup work my behavior caused for editors like User:BattleshipMan and the clerks who had to log my SPI. I want to properly answer the policy questions that User:Tamzin originally laid out for me, to prove that I finally understand what I did wrong:

1. Copying from other websites: It is never okay to copy and paste text directly from external sites like Fandom wikis, DeviantArt, or fan blogs. Wikipedia requires everything to be written completely in my own words based on independent, reliable sources.

2. Copying within Wikipedia: If I copy text from one Wikipedia article or draft to another, I have to explicitly credit the original page in my edit summary to comply with the Creative Commons license.

3. Using non-free images: Copyrighted images can only be uploaded if they are absolutely necessary for the reader to understand an article, and only if a free alternative doesn't exist. They require a specific fair-use rationale. I now recognize that decorative images cannot be uploaded to sandboxes or drafts, and every single file must strictly meet all 10 core non-free content criteria.

I haven't made a single account or tried to sneak back onto the site since my community ban. I genuinely miss contributing to articles on animation and film. If you are willing to give me a second chance, I am completely fine with strict restrictions to ensure I am editing constructively, including a clean-start agreement, a long probation period, or close mentor supervision over my article contributions and any potential media uploads. Thank you for your time and for reviewing an old case.

---

I have added links to the usernames given and made no other alterations. Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bmona12: Thank you for your belated answers to my questions from 2022. Might I ask, did you use any kind of large language model (e.g. ChatGPT) to write your answers? Statements like Wikipedia requires everything to be written completely in my own words based on independent, reliable sources are something we see a lot in AI-written unblock requests, where they make an overly broad statement about policy (requires everything; copying verbatim from other sources is actually sometimes allowed) and then mention policies that aren't related to the block (based on independent, reliable sources). I don't mean this as a "gotcha" question; your primary time editing was before we banned the use of AI in discussions, so if you did use AI, I see that as an honest mistake, and not something that on its own would keep me from supporting an unblock. But if you did, I'd appreciate if you could answer again in your own words, because really the crux of this unblock request is whether you, as an individual, understand our copyright rules. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Response from Bmona on their talk:

Did I used an large language model to write my request? No. I am 100% against AI, why would I use it? It uses a lot of water and ram. If an end of the world ever happens, (Which I believe will never happens) AI would easily be the number one reason for it in my books.

I'm neutral at this time, just conveying the reply. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Bmona12 has displayed immature behavior back then and I had my reasons for having him block on those sock accounts that he used back then. Also, if you ask me, I am strongly against the use of AI for one, they are not trustworthy enough and secondly, those AI data centers affect the environment. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not inclined to read some overly broad and perhaps unnuanced understandings of policy or copyright law as necessarily being a result of LLM use. I can also see why sources would come up in the question on copying, especially as it appears a few drafts were rejected due to a lack of sourcing. Courtesy link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmona12/Archive. If unblocked, I would caution against uploading media until there is a bit more experience and a firmer grasp on related policy. Given the previous rejected AfC drafts, I would also softly recommend a bit of time working on existing articles before creating new ones. CMD (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Requesting more involvement This unban request has gotten minimal attention. Hoping to get more involvement.--v/r - TP 21:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support- while this appeal does appear polished by AI, it contains information about Bmona12's ban that an AI would be unable to know, leading me to believe that this appeal was in fact human-written. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - That user did some immature actions in the past and use sock accounts to evade bans. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support- In my opinion, this appeal should be considered. The fact that the editor recognizes the problems that resulted in the ban and then addresses them, also accepts full responsibility for their support 'sockpuppetry' activities, should be taken into consideration. Four years have passed and the user has accepted their ban which shows clearly that the user understands the relevant policies. Meanwhile, they should avoid uploading non-free media. It gives them the opportunity to rebuild trust through constructive editing.Farhanansari1994 (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support i don't really mind a bit of polish from AI, it seems to be the user's own thoughts. they seem to understand what they did wrong. a couple years can bring a change is maturity. WP:SO seems to have been met. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I think this is at least mostly the user's own thoughts. They did provide honest details of their previous unacceptable behavior, for which they accept full responsibility. I don't know the details of their downloading non-free images. And since that seems to be thing, I agree that they should hold off on doing that for awhile. Overall, it is important to regain the community's trust by editing according to Policies and Guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect creation

Wanted to create a redirect from Ghazwa-e-Hind (conspiracy theory) to Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India. And Ghazwa-e-Hind (prophecy)/Ghazwa-e-Hind (hadith) to Indian reunification#Religious groups. "Hind" is caught in an edit filter.

These are two distinct concepts, cf. wikt:Ghazwa-e-Hind.

Turned Ghazwa-e-Hind into a dab per the page history (unrelated to the Hindu nationalist conspiracy theory of demographic change), after coming across this prodded article Prophecy of the conquest of India at User talk:Ahammed Saad (which I've distinctly rd'd). Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Regarding this. Please see the above. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Can you please explain this revert . The recent redirect conversion isn't correct per the page's history. We're dealing with distinct things here.

I was confused by the target after recently searching for this phrase at enwiki (coming across it at a userpage cf. above), as other mentions of it on enwiki related to sense 1 here wikt:Ghazwa-e-Hind.

Am I missing something at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for this? Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

These two senses are certainly related to each other and one is clearly derivative of the other. Better served with a hatnote than a crappy disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem would be with deciding the primary rd target (which per the page history would be the prophecy).

The previous rd target to Muslim nationalism in South Asia was based on discussions here Talk:Ghazwa-e-Hind. Which could be restored as such but fails a target mention now.

I'll further invite PulauKakatua19 for comments, who created the wikt entry which I primarily based the dab rationale on.

Nonetheless, I'll add the hatnote for the timebeing. @Bkonrad: Can you also look into the redirects being caught in the filters. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless the I would think the prophecy would be the primary topic. On the surface, it would seem the content currently at Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India has the most substance. Indian reunification barely mentions the term. As for last point, I'm not sure what you mean by redirects being caught in the filters. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Though I would note that the conspiracy theory section is entirely unsourced. I've tagged it.

By rds caught in filters I meant the initial reason for opening this thread:

"Wanted to create a redirect from Ghazwa-e-Hind (conspiracy theory) to Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India. And Ghazwa-e-Hind (prophecy) and Ghazwa-e-Hind (hadith) to Indian reunification#Religious groups. "Hind" is caught in an edit filter." Gotitbro (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, those are result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6. Seems the topic is contentious for some. I don't work with edit filters much, so I can't really help there. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: I see. But can a sysop not create an rd/article regardless of title filters? I came here because the filter notice linked AN as the venue when tring to create these.

Regardless, thanks for the help so far. Hope someone can handle this. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Gotitbro, I've created the three redirects you requested. Fences&Windows 14:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Robloxguest3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Disruptive page move closed. See on their talk page. Thank you. Henrydat (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The user is very disruptive to me. Also, the user undone a close i've done (which I did properly). This user is projecting. Robloxguest3 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, and am not the user referred to here, but in possible related data I just asked Robloxguest3 to reopen a page move and let an administrator decide it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Me, too. I will waste the time if I do that. Henrydat (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Henrydat's failure to properly contest my closes

Hello. @Henrydat has been undoing my closures without good reasons in the edit summary. (see the discussion after the one above). He said on this notice board I did a "disruptive" page move. Instead of messaging me before undoing my close. (the proper way), he undid my close and then sent me a message calling my close "disruptive". He has dragged out the discussion more, which is incredibly annoying. I am hoping that proper action will be taken. Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The move discussion is at: Phú Nhuận ward Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The answer is , I've questioned you about your "a second opinion" and please be civil. Henrydat (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ElectricShock53 unban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After six months with zero edits, no sockpuppetry/block evasion, whether from a named or temporary account, I finally decided to submit this appeal under WP:SO (the special offer) and following WP:UNBAN.

In September 2025, I was first blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirmed that my owner abusively used multiple accounts. Later, in October that year, I was banned by the enwiki editing community per WP:3X (but not globally locked) because CheckUser evidence confirmed that I repeatedly abused multiple accounts, that is, repeated block (later ban) evasion, until my last confirmed sockpuppet was blocked indefinitely on 10 January 2026. Since then, I have made absolutely zero edits for six months, that is, without sockpuppetry or block evasion (from a named or temporary account).

The period I used away within WP:UNBAN was a period I used away from editing to develop a completely clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies, including sockpuppetry, consensus and appropriate dispute resolutions.

If the community were to lift this CheckUser ban, I would:

• Make edits from this account only, and not from my confirmed sockpuppets. While it is OK to have multiple accounts, using them for illegitimate reasons is not, as that any contributions I make when evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
• Have full transparency with administrators (including CheckUsers) regarding concerns for my editing.
• Avoid controversial/dispute-prone areas of the encyclopedia.
• Accept any restrictions. This includes, but is not limited to topic and interaction bans that the community may impose.
• Immediately cease editing, if an administrator requested while any concerns are reviewed.

I agree and understand that, given my history of abuse and adding false information, which some users consider it unsourced, the threshold for trust is very high, and that this request may be declined at any time.

In addition to this, I'm asking for the opportunity to demonstrate (under whatever conditions the community considers appropriate) that I can contribute according to (and complying with) Wikipedia's policies, rather than asking for immediate/unrestricted editing privileges.

Thank you for your time and consideration. ElectricShock53 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

From User talk:ElectricShock53#Unban (unblock) request * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like for ElectricShock53 to more directly address the behaviors they socked in service of. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting block. With respect to: If the community were to lift this CheckUser ban, I would ... Have full transparency with administrators (including CheckUsers) regarding concerns for my editing", why wait until the ban is lifted? This feels like saying "I'll answer any question you have, but I won't tell you which question you should be asking" loophole to me. This is all very vague. This doesn't address why you were blocked in the first place, nor why you understand why that behavior was problematic, nor how you would go about addressing it in any potential future contributions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock based on LLM use in the unblock appeal as noted by 331dot, which I independently second and believe to still be present within this version. Fermiboson (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Review, Edittttor

I have just blocked Edittttor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (hereafter, Ed to avoid typos) for two months and am bringing this here for several reasons:

• the user and I have a mild history as I was the one who removed their EC status.
• I think two months might be too lenient, but they've only been blocked once for one month.
• There is indication of a COI, which I have reported to COI/VRT queue.

On the block. For a relatively new editor in terms of edit count, Ed has spent some time in the weeds of complex and contentious topics for which they have been sanctioned:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive366#Edittttor
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive370

Our core responsibility as admins is to living people about whom we write. Ed appears to be unable to neutrally edit about living people without allowing their agendas to be present.

• They are advocating for and promoting (as in visibility via GA, not necessarily promotion-although I see that too) Abdul El-Sayed] while editing in a way that detracts from Stevens, El - Sayed's opponent. This is something @RoySmith brought up at Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul El-Sayed citing NPOV.
• This follows a similar pattern of editing with respect to Donavan_McKinney and their opponent, Shri Thanedar.

Immediately upon the conclusion of their block, Ed reinstated an edit on Melissa DeRosa about which they'd been edit warring and warned.

Please let me know if anything else is needed. While I feel confident in my block, I am always open to more POVs. If a reduced block comes into play I believe at minimum they should be topic banned from American politics and or BLPs. Star Mississippi 00:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at those contributions, any unblock would need a tban from US politics, BLPs, and Israel/Palestine. And re-revoke ECP. But... has anyone else noticed how we block people much harder when they add sources and quote policy? If he was a run of the mill vandal, a two month block would be seen as extraordinarily harsh. But yes this is certainly someone with a political agenda who hasn't learned from lesser sanctions so yes I do think they should be blocked.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remember that a block is not supposed to be a punishment. The reason we have escalating blocks is to give editors the time they need to reflect, and to avoid disruption. If we can "get through" to Ed, then the block is no longer required. Since they have done well with referencing and other matters this should not be beyond them. If it is, appropriate sanctions (possibly per S Marshall above), will be required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC).
  
• While the pattern you point out is problematic, a two-month block out of the blue seems overboard absent an actual COI. Maybe you have proof that Ed is actually connected to these candidates in some way, but to me he appears a overzealous editor and that can be addressed in other ways like a topic ban. Jessintime (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also several more instances as well.

Pennsylvania-3:

Chris Rabb (progressive): [14]

Ala Stanford: [15][16]

Sharif Street: [17]

Texas 30:

Frederick Haynes III (progressive): [21] [22]

Barbara Mallory Caraway: [23]

Illinois 9

Laura Fine: Talk:Laura Fine is easier to just link

Daniel Biss: [24]

Kat Abugazaleh (Most progressive): [25]

After returning from their block, Edittttor continued the pattern with William Lawrence (activist) (DSA, Edittttor created article) and Bridget Brink (Lawrence's primary opponent).

Edittttor edits to the Brink article changed her stance about Ukraine to be the "U.S. State Department's Stance on Ukraine", downplayed her responsibilities as ambassador, added information about Brink owning several million dollar houses outside the district, and removed that part of her reason for resigning as ambassador was disagreement with Trump, specifically only emphasizing tensions with Ukraine. .

The most glaring issue was that the lead had been changed so that appointed by Donald Trump was mentioned before any of her ambassador titles. I changed the lead to be more neutral ], and was reverted. , saying that Ambassadors to Ukraine usually had the appointing president listed. I reverted back , saying that None of your examples lists the appointing president before the position. The lead I wrote for Brink is similar to that of other ambassadors in both the Trump/Biden admins, before listing some examples. Eventually, the outcome was that Edittttor still had the appointing President information in the lead, but not before the position itself.

Meanwhile, for William Lawrence, he received criticism for a remark he made on a podcast, which Edittttor changed to "received news coverage". .

As for Melissa DeRosa, they reinserted 3500 bytes with the following edit summary: re-added info to provide WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE since this article was recently whitewashed.

The whitewashing allegations were first made back in April. Edittttor had added a 4,000 byte "Criticism section", which another user later removed for violating WP:NPOV . [A few days later, regarding a different section of the article, another user added a brief mention of a report, with that user saying that not mentioning it was whitewashing . Edittttor, combining that one specific example from that article, along with a talk page message from an IP 4 years ago , re-added their 4,000 byte criticism section, and wrote that Several editors have commented on the white washing on this page, so please post specific issues to Talk page before reverting again ). EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I came across Edittttor's work at DYK and I agree fully with Star's and EaglesFan37's assessments. Whether there's a conflict of interest or not, Edittttor's editing is entirely slanted toward highlighting positive elements and minimizing negative elements about candidates on one side of a political divide, and minimizing positive elements and highlighting negative elements about candidates on the other side. Edittttor is clearly engaged in WP:ADVOCACY, whether a COI is present or now. In the context of ongoing, high-profile primary and general elections, a two-month block is preventive by minimizing the disruption to the project. However, a topic ban on U.S. politics, BLPs and I/P, appealable after six months, would likely have the same preventive effect while allowing Edittttor to rebuild the community's trust in other areas of the project. Their edits are fine from a technical point of view and I believe they can be an asset to the project if they can stay away from areas where they cannot edit neutrally. If they can't stay away from those with a topic ban, then an indef would be in order. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

On seeing evidence of Ed's multiple failures of source/text integrity and deeply incorrect citation of ABOUTSELF, I need to correct my comment about their edits being “technically fine” and say I think an indef is appropriate to protect the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Endorse block. While a series of topic bans could similarly curtail disruption, the sanction would be so limiting and labyrinth that a block is almost a lesser sanction. their reply on their talk page here only convinces me that a sanction is necessary. Specifically the line here:

Shri Thanedar: Criticism by state senator Darrin Camilleri sourced solely to a tweet. Yes, and it is properly attributed in the article "State Senator State Senator Darrin Camilleri posted on his official Twitter account...".' This is in line with WP:ABOUTSELF. What's the problem?

makes it clear that this editor does not have the understanding to comply with WP:BLP (or WP:RS for that matter) or the will to. In either case, a sanction is necessary to prevent further damage to the project. Katzrockso (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

New details, indef block review

Because of my specific background, I regularly read some of the pages involved and was already familiar with this user but never paid much attention. After spending time analyzing many of Edittttor’s edits and checking the accuracy of their citations, I found several useful clues and insights that may contribute to this discussion. Robert Granieri — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1341154663, 1 March 2026. A new section, still live:

• 1. "Granieri's backing allowed the men to purchase Stinger missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, and more than 3.5 millions [sic] rounds of ammunition." No weapons were ever acquired — the sellers were undercover federal agents. The source cited beside the sentence, Sudans Post, says the two men "attempted to illicitly purchase" them. The Justice Department's 2024 charging announcement says they "sought to illegally purchase weapons … from undercover law enforcement agents", and its February 2026 announcement quotes the U.S. Attorney saying "the plot was thwarted". Both men pleaded guilty only to conspiracy counts.
  2. "In 2024, the two men were sentenced to 3.5 years in prison." Sudans Post gives 46 months for Peter Biar Ajak in February 2026 and 41 months for Abraham Chol Keech in December 2025. 2024 is the year of arrest.
  3. "Since 2023, Granieri has donated more than $5 million to Super PACs …, most to pro-Israel groups such as United Democracy Project." Only $250,000 of the $4,455,000 on the cited OpenSecrets page went to United Democracy Project, the only group the sentence names — 5.6%, or 6.7% adding $50,000 to the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund. The rest went to Congressional Leadership Fund, House Majority PAC, Women Vote! and similar committees.

Shri Thanedar — three, all still live in the "Public image" section:

• 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344821013. The footnote reads, in full: In a message endorsing Thanedar's primary challenger in 2024, Jocelyn Benson said "I think Shri has a very big heart. But this is about the work." The cited HuffPost article attributes no words to Benson and names her once, as one of Adam Hollier's supporters; the quotation appears in a passage whose only attributed speaker is former Rep. Brenda Lawrence. The footnote carries no citation of its own.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344867506. Criticism by state senator Darrin Camilleri sourced solely to a tweet. Every other critic in that sentence who is cited at all is cited to independent reporting — Rashida Tlaib to Business Insider, and Brenda Lawrence, Adam Hollier and Warren Evans to HuffPost.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344827131 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344839495, ninety minutes apart. He wrote "About 170 dogs and monkeys were rescued", then returned and inserted "55", producing "About 170 dogs and 55 monkeys". HuffPost gives about 170 as the combined total; the sources beside it give 118 dogs and 55 monkeys. The edit raises and changes the figure the sentence states from about 170 to about 225, where the sources support 173. All three are in one edit, all three are still in the article while two of them do the same

negative influence — his money "purchased" weapons that were never acquired, and 6% of his donations became "most".

Bridget Brink has been mentioned above for how her resignation was framed; this is a different edit. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1363212575 Edittttor added the clause "This led to Zelenskyy pressuring for her to resign" to the paragraph about her translation of a Rubio message. The CNN report he cites — "Pressures from Kyiv and Washington led to US ambassador's resignation, sources say" — attributes the Kyiv-side pressure to Zelensky's office and to his chief of staff Andriy Yermak, nowhere says Zelenskyy sought her resignation, and dates the friction earlier, to Biden-era weapons decisions and her anti-corruption work. It is still there, and sits inside the passage Edittttor rewrote three days later — the edit EaglesFan37 cites above — whose opening sentence is a fragment with the typo "cricism".

Darializa Avila Chevalier — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1356771193, 29 May 2026, where Edittttor wrote "Abdikadir Mohamed Felt, a Somali immigrant caught up in President Trump's 'Muslim ban'". The cited Intercept piece very precisely rules the ban out as the reason he was detained: he "had received his U.S. visa before the measure had come into effect …" and was flagged, after clearing immigration, by CBP's Tactical Terrorism Response Team. The same sentence turned a verb into a surname — the source opens "Abdikadir Mohamed felt nervous as he approached the customs desk". Another editor later softened "caught up in" to "affected by", so the article now reads "Abdikadir Mohamed Felt, a Somali immigrant affected by President Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban'". The madeup surname was kept and it untouched, and now remains there in a paragraph about "Abdikadir Mohamed's encounter".

Waleed Shahid — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1353472905, still live: "In 2016, Shahid became the communications director for Justice Democrats, an organization formed in 2018." Here we have 1 sentence, 2 incompatible dates. Justice Democrats launched in January 2017, and the New Yorker mag Editttor cites one sentence earlier places his arrival at the merger in August of 2017.

Barbara Mallory Caraway - this diff - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1339335372. The source reads "he had actually called the police chief because, he explained, his wife was chasing him with a kitchen knife". The attribution was dropped on purpose I guess, so the husband's account of why he called the police now reads like an established fact about her.

Varshini Prakash — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1352374537 : "Prakash edited the book written by Girgenti", where the Publishers Weekly citation in the same sentence reads "Edited by Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti".

Shenise Turner-Sloss — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1303406898. The Dayton Daily News says "She said they were responsible for getting the city to approve its first-ever housing policy framework" — she and fellow commissioner Darryl Fairchild. He changed it to "She was also responsible". The same edit dates a March 2024 levy to 2025 and calls it "eventually successful".

These two are not from American politics, and they are not recent. Both are from October 2022. The White Terror (Spain) was the mass killing of civilians by Franco's forces during and after the Spanish Civil War. Saying that a bishop helped drive it is a serious charge. At Isidro Gomá y Tomás (Special:Diff/1115431184) Editttor added the words "and contributed to the fervor of White Terror" to a sentence about a speech Gomá gave in Budapest in 1938. The only source on that sentence is a page from spainthenandnow.com. That page does discuss atrocities by Nationalist forces, but I cannot find the phrase "White Terror" and it never says Gomá contributed to any of it. The charge is the editor's own conclusion, written as though the source had made it. It is still in the article. During that same day, at Manuel Arce y Ochotorena (Special:Diff/1115433299), he added the only Spanish Civil War material that article has. It is an anonymous account, introduced as "A witness to Ochotorena's actions during the White Terror". The witness is then quoted with such citations: "Many priests acted very badly. The bishop of Zamora in 1936 was more or less an assassin – I don't remember his name." The witness says plainly that he cannot name the bishop. The sentence around the quote names him anyway. The source does not name the bishop, it's SYNTH. This is still in the article too for nearly four years. Whatever is going on, it is not limited to American politics.

Why I think this needs more than another timed block? Each of these edits looks perfect, carrying a real, correctly formatted citation, so nothing looks wrong on the page until you check every source or citation. And there we find mistakes, manipulations, etc. Over revealed mistakes like made up surname or facts manipulatins or original research are still live. The user in question was formally warned at AE in February to stay out of WP:CT/PIA until extended-confirmed, had extended-confirmed removed a fortnight later for what the removing administrator logged as "potential gaming, DE"; was blocked one month in June under arbitration enforcement for repeated ECR violations; and was blocked two months on 28 July for disruptive editing.

Based on all the evidence, I would support an indefinite block. I also think, if the community chose a topic ban on Edittttor, it should prohibit them from editing any content related to politics or biographies of living persons worldwide. Pathtrodder (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the original account you edited under? Katzrockso (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a fairly damning assessment of a routine lack of source-to-text integrity, though Pathtrodder obviously being an undisclosed sock account isn't great. Fences&Windows 14:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

+1, not the best look for Pathtrodder but the case for multiple TBANs at minimum (if not an indef) is a strong one. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Even without Pathtrodder’s comment, the repeated WP:Advocacy and making false claims/making misrepresentations (see ECR/GA dispute on their talk page) in their unblock request should be enough for an indef at this point. EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:PROJSOCK and should be struck out and discarded from consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado LLM articles in mainspace

Fuzheado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While Fuzheado is an admin, my issue is not with abuse of admin tools but with editor actions and abuse of autopatrolled. This was raised at WP:AINB#Fuzheado; I summarize here but encourage readers to look at the whole thread.

Fuzheado admitted creating at least 10 articles, 8 in mainspace, using a custom LLM tool . Three more were found in mainspace later . Most disclosed LLM use in the edit summary but at least one, Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals, did not .

Fuzheado responded to the AINB case with: the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations. However, there were malformed sources and source/text mismatches in every article examined .

Fuzheado then said I take the blame and will delete the articles or resolve them individually. The writing and fact checking done by a combo of a custom Gemini AI LLM and deterministic code (python) shows promise in notability determination but even with my oversight they fall short of being ready for article production. He published articles which he knew, or should have known, were both violations of WP:NOLLM (WP:NEWLLM for older articles) and too flawed for mainspace.

Once the non-disclosed article was discovered, Fuzheado was asked to disclose and userfy any remaining LLM articles on June 23 , repeated June 25, repeated on his Talk page July 11, July 28. There has been no response. While all affected articles may now be userfied, confirmation is needed. I understand he was busy with Wikimania but this request has been pending for over a month, and he has edited enWiki during that time.

I ask for three actions:

(1) Fuzheado's autopatrolled status to be revoked.

(2) Fuzheado to provide a list of all his LLM generated articles, or clearly state that there are no more.

(3) Fuzheado to be given a clear public warning that use of LLM to create articles is unacceptable to the community and further violations will lead to sanctions. If he believes Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong, he can undertake to change them in the usual ways.

M kuhner (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at the page creations it seems only Networked geothermal is an LLM assisted creation, and it is now a redirect. I don't expect this user would now create additional LLM articles without community endorsement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC).
  

  The creations identified as LLM-generated were userfied despite no response from them re helping with cleanup (see and User talk:Fuzheado#AINB), but there's very likely more (the first revision of Walk for Peace USA had several AISIGNS) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  When confronted, Fuzheado used the words "curtail" and "pause" but notably not "stop."

  I would have expected this user would not create any LLM articles in mainspace without community endorsement. That expectation was wrong. And I do not see a clear agreement to stop, rather than "pause." I rather expect another round when he feels the tools have improved sufficiently: to me that is a straightforward reading of the AINB thread. M kuhner (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Fuzheado was at least open about his custom LLM experimentation. I would oppose removing autopatrolled provided Fuzheado agrees not to use LLM output any further on Wikipedia outside the limits in WP:NOLLM. Unilaterally regarding himself an exception to this guideline isn't going to end well. Fences&Windows 13:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Reluctantly oppose (1), strong support (2). (1) for the simple reason that all of our eyes are on him now, and if he pulls this again I expect the pitchforks will follow extremely quickly. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive, and pulling autopatrol accomplishes nothing in my opinion. I am reluctant with this logic because I acknowledge it is treating an established editor very differently from how we treat a newbie. However, we don't do things on Wikipedia to send messages. (2) because communication is required, especially of an admin, and I would hope and expect that Fuzheado truly acknowledges that he made a mistake which wasted community time (and my tokens) instead of behaving like "sorry I got caught", which I must admit it is feeling increasingly like. Fermiboson (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with experimenting with LLMs. If you're going to do that, though, don't do it in mainspace. Do it in your own userspace, in draftspace, or off-site. By definition, I would consider LLM-written articles to require human overview. That seems inconsistent with autopatrolled to me. But if the article languishes in draftspace until someone gets around to checking it, that's fine. Who cares. If anyone finds the job of checking LLM-written articles to be boring, they can simply not do it. It's not a burden on the system. Eventually, we might reach the stage where editors can post LLM-written articles without the LLMs glitching out and people subsequently freaking out, but I don't think we're there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Agreed with F&W, Fermiboson, and to some extent with NRP; I would only support (2) from the above. Fuzheado has already agreed not to use LLMs outside the narrow exceptions specified in the guidelines. I don't really see a need to ban him from using LLMs even for translation and for copyediting his own work. Though I will say that he shouldn't be using LLMs to draft content, not even in draftspace, due to the myriad of actual policy problems (e.g. WP:V) that this creates.
  If Fuzheado continues to use LLMs outside these exceptions, his autopatrolled right can be removed (either voluntarily or not). But we should give him some slack given that (a) he has acknowledged the issue and (b) I trust that he, as a long-term admin, can keep his word, in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Support. Support. A sound proposal, given the facts of the matter. I appreciate that this is a celebrity Wikipedian who has performed meritorious service to the movement, but we are talking about stepping across a pretty clear red line with disturbingly little reflection. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Carrite here: Support x 3. Just to reiterate the quote above, the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations is extremely troubling. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support all three. With regards to Sanctions are preventative, not punitive, I should note that given they [stepped] across a pretty clear red line with disturbingly little reflection once already, and have not given an indication that they will not step over it again, these are all entirely preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  What I meant is that the purpose of pulling autopatrol is that someone will take a look at the article, and I am very confident every single article creation by Fuzheado in the near future will be examined under a microscope, autopatrol or no. Fermiboson (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support all three. Fuzheado needs to show evidence of actually accepting the same rules that apply to the rest of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support the proposals. This is an editor who thought that their status and experience gave them "latitude for experiments" outside of our policies and guidelines which were not supported by consensus. The fact that no attempt was even made to gain consensus for these "experiments" is evidence, I think, that they knew full well that they were not acting within the scope of the guideline. Wikipedia is not a laboratory, there are ways to do "experiments" and this is not the way. Athanelar (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I think you should notify the user on their user talk page with a link back here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fuzheado was already notified of this thread, see . Some1 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support all 3 Admins shouldn't be treated differently than non-admins when it comes to using AI/LLMs on this project. Some1 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm surprised that anyone is invoking WP:NOTPUNITIVE as a reason not to remove autopatrolled – yanking autopatrolled is just about the least punitive "sanction" possible. Unlike a block or a topic ban, or removing any other advanced permission, losing autopatrolled doesn't prevent an editor from doing anything at all; it just means that one more set of eyes will be on their article creations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the issue is, that he already said he would conform with the guideline now after we had gotten his attention (and he would not object to deletion of the articles) and it was not some breaching experiment, it was a continuation of his workflow that existed before the guideline existed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Given that the articles produced by said workflows violated multiple other core content policies, LLM or no, I do not believe the second clause is of relevance. Fermiboson (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  And as M kuhner has already pointed out, there hasn't been a clear commitment to stop (just ambiguously saying that they will "curtail article creation" and "have paused"). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support all three. Fuzheado intentially disregarded a content-related PAG that was passed with overwhelming community support. They have not been fully collaborative since this was discovered, so I believe all three suggested actions are constructive NicheSports (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support all three. The fact that we independently discovered more articles that had not been disclosed as failing NOLLM does not inspire confidence. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban

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)

Nice to see you again. Can you link your original topic ban announcement? Accesscrawl (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I can do that. It was . However, it's no longer on the page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion isn't preserved on the current version of the user talk. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I would sugggst withdrawing this request for now and drafting a better appeal. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I remember, there have been many blocks and bans historically. I agree with voorts that a better appeal is necessary Katzrockso (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

"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)

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.

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)

Community Unblock Appeal from User:Zubarkokar

Hello Administrators!

I am submitting an unblock request after 6 months under "Standard Offer". I was blocked for sock puppetry on my first account User: Muhammad Ahsan2233 but instead of following Wikipedia guide lines, i start creating multiple accounts to avoid my block in that process I created 16 account (which I fully listed and disclosed during the CheckUser review on my talk page) plus I also involved in meatpuppetry i copy source code from wiki fandom and discord history servers and publish on Wikipedia. I was caught each time now I am changed and I see now that I was just wasting the administrators' time and my own.

I realised creating multiple accounts gives unfair advantage to that person in any argument or bypassing previous blocks without accountability this destroyed Wikipedia culture. I do not have access to my first account due to password issue, so I am using this as my only account account. I have been using this account on there platforms like Urdu Wikipedia, where I have made many constructive edits under the same username. I hope this track record shows that I have truly changed. If the block is lifted from me, I will play my positive role in the pages about Pakistan's history.

Copied from User talk:Zubarkokar - there's a lot of discussion on that talk page worth reading here as well. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to appeal on the sock master account? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 22:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

They said they do not have access to [their] first account due to password issue. And this is the account they've been using on the Simple and Urdu Wikipedias. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a topic ban and a one-account restriction on the subject of Indian military history, broadly construed. Given there was some problematic editing in this area originally, the extensive list of recognized sockpuppets were used to continued posting in this area, and that this is now an extended-confirmed restricted topic, I think this is a natural protection for the project. While Zubarkokar is not extended-confirmed and can't make edits in this top anyway for a while, I think it's prudent to have a review rather than it automatically being granted due to the sensitivity of the topic area. I think the one-account restriction is there for obvious reasons. I oppose an unban without these two restrictions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unban. User appears to be unrelated to سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ anyway. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Moving out of archive, where it was prematurely automatically archived. PhilKnight (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Unban with a one-account restriction - user seems to have grown, but I do think a one-account restriction is still necessary. Jishara (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP, again

60 outstanding requests, with some unaddressed ones dating back two days. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done by several admins including me and Rosguill. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for fixing an double redirect issues on redirect pages Kursaal Theatre and Talk:Lithoxus lithoides

Hello, everyone.... Please fix an double redirect issues on redirect pages Kursaal Theatre and Talk:Lithoxus lithoides because all of these redirect pages are still can't be fixed until today. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Both are Fixed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC).

Personal COI question

I’m not sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but- as of a couple hours ago I’ve now got what qualifies as a COI with a few minor articles on here. I don’t believe I’ve ever edited any of them. I cannot declare any of them publicly without dangerously outing myself however, so what I am supposed to do? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 07:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You only need to declare a COI if you're making edits related to your COI. The best advice, if you don't want to have to declare it, is pretend those articles don't even exist—avoid editing or even reading them, and you'll be fine. In solidarity, nil ^nz 07:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to avoid any potential issues given they’re articles within topics I edit on a semi-regular basis, are local to me and may have been edited by me in the past (on old IPS; i’ve never edited them on this account). Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 07:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It would not matter if you had extensively written those articles in the past before you became involved with the subjects, unless you had some foreknowledge of this change. Your edits made before you developed a COI, or at least those before you knew a COI was possible, are COI free so not a problem. As Nil said, just avoid them from this point forward and you'll have no issues. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I totally understand that as I'm in the same boat. My approach is to stay firmly out of any edits that have anything to do with the related industry, extremely broadly construed. I think if there's ever a question if something's a COI, one should treat it as a COI. Though if these were edits before the COI, then by definition you could not have a had a COI when you made them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for fixing an double redirect issues on redirect pages Fang (Harry Potter) and Fridwulfa

Hello, everyone.... Please fix an double redirect issues on redirect pages Fang (Harry Potter) and Fridwulfa because all of these redirect pages are still can't be fixed until today. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

'Fang (Harry Potter)' is slightly problematic as 'Fang' does not appear anywhere on the intended target page, Hagrid. Is there another page it could be directed to? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki you're now invited into this discussion. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

So, @Malcolmxl5... Please just delete Fang (Harry Potter) and Fridwulfa, OK...??!!!! ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Backlog at AfD

There are about 45 AfDs that need closing. Could a couple more admins pop by and help reduce the backlog? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done by me and @Sandstein:. GiantSnowman 11:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What's the rush? I generally pop round most days and clear a chunk and it's months since we had much more than a day's log hanging over. Thanks to my colleagues for helping out but aren't there other backlogs that need more attention? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

By the time AfDs get to the point of closure for admins, all the "easy" ones have already been done, leaving difficult ones that require close analysis of !votes and / or have walls of text spanning multiple relists. From my experience, these take about 10-15 minutes each to go through and assess consensus. (And if you don't do this, woe betide you as somebody will take exception and drag you off to DRV.) So with the back-of-an-envelope calculation, that means it would taken me seven and a half hours to clear the backlog. Thanks for those chipping in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Possible 2FA issue

Hi all. Crossposting this here if anybody seeing this can sort. Thanks. User:Nightfury ~2026-42527-43 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42527-43: your best bet for account recovery is to contact Trust & Safety by email: cawikimedia.org. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

TFD close request

This is a bit irregular, but we have a TFD where the majority/all the normal closers (including me) have !voted or feel recused out (see WT:TFD#Medal TFD for the last's notes). That TFD is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 13#Medal templates 2. I'd appreciate if we could have an experienced user/admin from outside the regulars step into close this one. Izno (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Izno, I have now closed the discussion. However, I haven't deleted the templates, since they are transcluded on a large number of pages; instead, I've listed them at the holding cell. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Jack and the Beanstalk

User (Gawaon) is misleadingly claiming this story to be "about cannibalism" (humans consuming other humans) despite the fact that "giants" are considered to be fictional monsters (like trolls, ogres etc.), not human beings. User in question cannot even prove their own argument to be true and is using utter speculation ("it may be a human") and lacks any serious Wikipedia credentials. ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and thus not a matter for administrators. Please continue to discuss it on the talk page, but try to be less rude and combative. Do not edit war over it on the article. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 13:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

They are adding unsourced material. Fence127 (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Fence127 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed? You did nothing except post a template for newbies to the talk page of someone who has been here since the Spring of 2023 when you yourself have been here for less than a month. Do not do that again. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 16:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Fence127 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting for the record that the TA is now ~2026-42635-29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continues to be rude and combative with their fellow editors. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 18:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@A Frantic Turtle, that TA's IP geolocates to a different continent than the OP's IP. It may be a joe-jobber. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, although judging by their recent replies to others they would be no huge loss to Wikipedia if they were also disinvited from editing here. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 00:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. I don't have time to review that user's situation fully, but if another admin wants to step in, they can feel free. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Can some admin block this battleground, not here IP? Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring on The Ecclesbourne School and related disruption on other pages. Another admin can modify the block if they feel this isn't enough, but they have clearly broken WP:3RR at least twice over on that page. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for deleting redirect pages Fridwulfa

Hello, everyone... Please delete redirect pages Fridwulfa because it can't be fixing these double redirect issues until today. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the protection as it's been 18 years and I don't see the need for it to be admin-protected. You are free to send this redirect to WP:RfD or update the double redirect. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

My Talk Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lately, someone has been writing strange things on my talk page; most recently, the person I believe to be the same individual hurled insults at me in Turkish. In English, it translates to: "you fucking traitorous motherfucker, you traitorous bastard." I don't even know this person. BEFOR01 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi BEFOR01, both TA (~2026-42826-47) and User82826272762 blocked as block evasion and abuse. Bizarre behaviour as both editing Draft:Perso-Turkic war of (569–571) which I assume was the target of the messages but you have not edited that so why they started messaging you it odd. KylieTastic (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent u

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CSSD8183 if someone hacked me this is my username but not having my self access please check what done with this and please kindly connect to me do be project 400sst using my self and my accounts please give me reasonable answer about the matter and check CSSD8183 this still available and from where it running on H ~2026-42693-40 (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be CSSD8183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was indeff'd a few days ago for posting this type of incoherent stuff. That's why you can't edit under your account, TA-40: you've been blocked. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 15:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to unsalt Draft:Kisan Swaraj Sangathan

I would like to request that Draft:Kisan Swaraj Sangathan be unsalted so I can prepare a new draft.

The previous draft was rejected because the title had previously been deleted and salted. Since then, there has been substantial new independent coverage of the organisation in reliable sources, including BBC Hindi, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, ANI, NDTV, Zee News, The New Indian Express, Moneycontrol, Dainik Bhaskar and others.

I intend to create a completely new draft based only on independent reliable sources and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you. MIT&boys (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You should appeal the salting at WP:DRV. But I would be prepared to show the best WP:THREE sources that demonstrate notability. Katzrockso (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to unprotect User: Spencer

OP sock blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User: Spencer fully protected his user page: 20:31, 2 September 2015 Spencer talk contribs m 9,139 bytes 0 Protected "User:Spencer" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) for absolutely no reason, but there are no edit warring, vandalism and disruptive editing, they committed wheel war, Please unprotect the user page. Ashantsey (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask Spencer first? Also, why are you accusing Spencer of wheel warring? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, you haven't notified Spencer of this discussion, as is required per the instructions on this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, Spencer did not wheel war, They did not wheel war, I'm confusing with meaning of wheel war, it means administrator A protected page, Administrator B disagree and unprotect page, administrator A got angry, delete controversial page, administrator B undelete it and now, after that, two administrator were desysopped for wheel waring, so spencer did not wheel war. Ashantsey (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also the fact that you just created a link from Spencer to User:Spencer makes it puzzling to find a good-faith intent here. Morwen (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

May need perhaps a collaborate closure on this RfC discussion

I already requested a closure at WP:CR, but I'm re-requesting a closure (hopefully a collaborative one) on the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths. Id est I think I might need probably at least two closers, especially to speed up request fulfillment. Sure, a collaborative closure has been normally used for tougher discussions, but awaiting a solo closure is much longer, IMO. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Collaborative closures actually take longer than solo ones, as it requires finding multiple willing uninvolved editors, all of whom have to read the whole discussion and form their own preliminary opinions, then they have to present their opinions to each other and, unless they are all in agreement on every point all of them make (and don't make) they need to discuss the differences until they are in agreement. All this discussion takes time that isn't required for a single-editor close, even more so when the closing panel are in different time zones or are active at different times of day. I've expressed my opinions in the discussion so will not opine on whether a panel closure would be beneficial for other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree, huh? Awaiting for an uninvolved higher experienced editor to competently perform a solo closure may take days more than closure performance itself. I'd rather await lesser experienced ones performing collaborative closure, actually. George Ho (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

An RfC that may be of interest to this page

There is a new RfC that may be of interest to this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposing a 24-hour blackout in response to WMF actions. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocked unfairly and without any valid reason by one user citing totally false reason

IP blocked unfairly and without any valid reason by one user citing totally false reason of harassment. Give proof of harassment, it is wrong and malicious to randomly block other/new users by giving false reason. this misusing wiki by the user, such actions and motives behind it should be fairly investigated to prevent such bullying in future ~2026-42947-98 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, your temporary account (TA) is not blocked. No TA associated with this one is blocked. Presumably this is about is the three-month /32 IPV6 partial block (from article space) which affects your TA, but I'm not allowed to associate your TA with an IP. Pinging user:Sohom Datta, who made the block. Meters (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Meters, I'm going to decline to unblock here, for context on why the block was made, I would suggest reading through the block logs and associated SPI history of other TAs on this range, especially those blocked by other admins. For what it's worth, I think this TA is also a sock from the same sock farm who is trolling us. Sohom (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't advocating an unblock, just letting you know. Meters (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to delete redirect pages User:Cinaroot, User:Cinaroot/common.js and User:7thSon o7

Hello everyone. Please delete redirect pages User:Cinaroot, User:Cinaroot/common.js and User:7thSon o7 because all of these are fulfilling the G8 criterias. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NomanPK44 ban appeal

NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copied from User talk:NomanPK44#Indefinite block:

I am appealing my community ban under WP:3X and requesting consideration for an unban per WP:UNBAN / WP:SO. I accept the responsibility of what I did. I was originally topic-banned from the WP:ARBIPA area for disruptive editing and POV-pushing, I violated that ban, and after being blocked I evaded the block repeatedly using approximately 5–7 sockpuppet accounts. When that stopped working I continued evading the block through IP editing. I also want to directly address my May 2024 appeal, which was declined because I had claimed 1.5 years of no editing that was not accurate. That claim was wrong and I regret making it, I understand it damaged my credibility and gave the reviewing admin good reason to distrust anything else I said. I'm not going to repeat that mistake here. To the best of my memory my last IP edit was around mid-February 2024. I don't remember the exact date since it has been quite a while but I am sure that after that I did not engage in any editing, sockpuppetry or IP. I understand why this happened. I have had a long time away from this site to recognize that this was the wrong response. If unbanned I do not expect or ask for the ARBIPA topic ban to be lifted. I am willing to continue observing it and I'm open to any additional restrictions or what the community feels is appropriate to confirm I can edit constructively before any broader trust is restored. NomanPK44 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a complete topic ban from WP:CT/SA. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support with the topic ban from WP:CT/SA and also a single-account restriction, including no logged-out editing. I think that almost goes without saying, but because of this user's abuse of multiple accounts, I think it's worth being clear. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this thread that was automatically archived. We need more voices on this than just two people. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support so long as there's a full topic ban from WP:CT/SA and only after an admin believes that NomanPK44 understands the scope of WP:CT/SA. Back when NomanPK44 was editing, they kept trying to interpret the restriction/topic ban in the most limited way possible, so there was an iterative "I didn't know that _______ applied" process. If NomanPK44 returns, we should not have to go through that whole rigamarole again. It has to be clear that dipping a pinky toe on the edge of this topic ban is a thing that will only happen a maximum of exactly one time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support In summary, this includes all the countries commonly accepted as part of South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) and everything related to those countries, "including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of my revision

Please can an administrator delete my revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Leah_Roberts&diff=1367639169&oldid=1363230983 ? Darrelljon (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give a reason why this should be suppressed, other than being factually wrong and unsourced? • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 20:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~Jay1982theCentaur~ - NOTHERE

Could an admin please take a look at user:~Jay1982theCentaur~. The most charitable interpretation is that they're fooling around with templates. The least charitable interpretation they're wasting reviewer time on jokes. Either way, while they haven't crossed into outright vandalism, as far as I can tell, literally none of their contributions have been constructive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You make me comments on Wikimedia’s commons not Wikipedia ~Jay1982theCentaur~ (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"haven't crossed into outright vandalism" is rather generous of you. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see they had broken into the mainspace. Yeah, the first one is very clearly vandalism. The second, too, if that's something they made up. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• indeffed by Asilvering. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for deleting redirect pages Fang (Harry Potter)

Hello, everyone... Please delete redirect pages Fang (Harry Potter) because it can't be fixing these double redirect issues until today. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Note this redirect is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 1#Fang (Harry Potter). It is not a double redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)