Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive381

Lifting topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi I was told to bring this up here.

I was topic banned on 5 November 2025. When I asked to have my topic ban lifted, PhilKnight said: "I think it is too early to lift your topic ban, you need to wait 6 months and build up a track record of constructive editing." and 331dot said: "I concur with PhilKnight." It has since been at least 6 months since I was topic banned and in that time I have done a lot of constructive editing. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You should address why you were topic banned, why you want it removed, and why the topic ban is no longer necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was topic banned for creating frivolous redirects. I want the topic ban removed so I can create articles without having to go through the AfC process. The topic ban is no longer necessary because I have proven I can be a constructive editor to Wikipedia and will be careful about what redirects I create in the future. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you like to show us some of your work through AFC? Morwen (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You can find a list of my created articles at User:GoldenBootWizard276/Created articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You've created roughly 200 drafts in the past six months. How many of those made their way to full articles the first time you submitted them? How many required further work to become full articles? How many are still in draft phase? If we are being asked to allow you to create articles directly, I think these are key questions. Anyone know if there's any sort of automated way to gather this data? --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

For those assessing this request who would like to know the history:

• The original block on April '24 was for repeated copyright violations.
• After some declined appeals they were unblocked in Jan '25 to follow the AFC process & eventually allowed to edit again.
• They were reblocked from mainspace in August '25 after creating over a thousand redirects and not showing an understanding of why they were problematic.
• Another failed appeal was made in September and they were eventually unblocked one month later with the a ban on creating new articles.

Since then, I'm seeing a lot of accepted drafts (mainly stubs) but only one warning/issue that was a while ago. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have accepted many of their drafts via AfC, however from my memory not one had more than a single reference. Not sure about the totality of their submissions, though. Lynch44 18:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276 - Following up on @Yamla's questions and @Lynch44 comment, please point out a few example that you feel represent your best work during the Tban period - both articles accepted through AfC and Drafts in progress. — ERcheck (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of my best work during the topic ban would be:

1. Norman Bleehen
2. Draft:Suicide of Nautica Malone
3. Murder of Michael Kahan
4. Beer House Cantina arson
5. Simon Whistler
6. Paul Zuckerman
7. Draft:St Helena Hospice
8. Draft:Ivan Dikov
9. The Lakes Mental Health Hospital
10. Chicomuselo massacre

Honourable mentions: John Laugharne (DYK), Francis Scobell (DYK), Caroline De Haas, Draft:Dennis Graham (musician), Draft:Francis Itimai. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that Norman Bleehen was created/completed prior to the Tban. — ERcheck (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look through some at random, and the only ones that weren't stubs have been expanded by subsequent editors. User:GoldenBootWizard276/Created articles shows 214 stub/start class articles, one list and one C class article (Indian Mineral Leasing Act).

Most of his recent work looks like Robert Squire - a single paragraph based on a single source (usually the same one across articles). Quantity over quality for sure, but the majority of his articles are accepted so that's definitely a plus.

That said, I really wish more work was put into the articles before submission, since there seems to be a strong focus on just getting the things out there so he can move onto the next draft.

Take yesterday as an example, all of which were sourced to History of Parliament Online (HOP):

1. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit Charles Mompesson.
2. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit John Gauntlett.
3. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit John Moyser
4. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit Wharton Dunch

This makes it a little difficult to judge whether we have an editor who fully understands Wikipedia policies, or someone who's found a set process that they can repeat for different politicians. There's not much venturing outside that set process for us to go off, so I'd like to see how he answers the above questions and probably look into his editing history a little more (including finding any articles that aren't sourced to HOP).

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There is value to creating verifiable content that is accepted, even if it is small. metawiki:Inclusionism, metawiki:Eventualism, and metawiki:Incrementalism are views creating lots of stubs for others to flush out later would align with. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Good point, he's done a lot of good work, it just makes it a little difficult to tell whether he's got a full understanding of policies when assessing whether to remove his TBAN.

To be clear I'm more on the support than oppose side, it'd just be a lot easier if his work was more varied. That said, I've just seen his post with other work, which should hopefully tip the scales. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we only require one suitable source for ye olde parliamentarians? I was under the impression that all subjects had to have multiple good sources even if they're presumed notable. Meadowlark (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds credible sir, especially for the Japanese. ~2026-33190-89 (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There are a few SNGs where a single source is enough to establish notability for AfC's purposes (although obviously multiple sources are always preferred). WP:NPOL and WP:NSPECIES are two of the more obvious examples. In solidarity, nil ^nz 07:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Two questions come to mind when making a vote:

1. Did GoldenBootWizard276 meet the terms of the Tban, i.e. "wait 6 months and build up a track record of constructive editing"?
2. Does the editing in the past 6 months show a need for a continued Tban?

On Question #1: There were no specific criteria set out for "constructive editing". It feels that GoldenBootWizard276 created many drafts to go through the AfC process to try to build up that track record. (@GoldenBootWizard276: It was noted by Yamla that there were ~200 drafts created during the Tban period. The question, "How many of those made their way to full articles the first time you submitted them?" - which was not answered. In addition to AfC drafts, what other areas Wikipedia were you active in during the Tban? )

On Question #2: It seems that there may be quite a few AfC drafts that have had to be revisited. That would indicate that both GoldenBootWizard and Wikipedia benefit from the Tban/review through AfC - which is not that restrictive. The proliferation of stubs during the Tban appears to point to a desire to crank out articles rather than create meaningful content. How many HOP stubs are in the count? I hope that GoldenBootWizard's desire is to improve Wikipedia, and wonder if he and Wikipedia would benefit from some time in improving articles rather than creating articles.
— ERcheck (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

---

---

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Of the ten "best work" chosen by GoldenBootWizard276, three failed the AfC process. Considering the shear volume of drafts, the number of stubs/start-class, and single sourcing, all concerns raised by others, I'm afraid I think it would be a bad idea to lift the topic ban at this point. I think if GoldenBootWizard276 is able to create articles directly, it just means more cleanup work after the fact for other editors. I appreciate GoldenBootWizard276's enthusiasm but I think they still need at least one independent set of eyes on what they are creating, and the topic ban ensures that. --Yamla (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This is a somewhat unfortunate vote to cast, but I feel as though GoldenBootWizard is not putting sufficient work into these drafts and is instead simply trying to get out as many submissions as possible. I have reviewed several more of their one-reference stubs and was able to (pretty easily) find extra sources related to the subject, for example John Plumptre (1679–1751) and Nathaniel Palmer (died 1718). As Yamla has stated, many of GoldenBootWizard's drafts have been declined, including many which go beyond the one-source-automatic-SNG-pass articles on British MPs (which, even still, have been declined by several reviewers because of a lack of sources). These articles are fine, however until we see some indication that GoldenBootWizard can expand these past their microstub state, we should still require they be submitted through AfC to allow for better oversight. Lynch44 18:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose I have to oppose due to a lack of evidence. I was initially happy to see the longer articles, but as mentioned above there are too many stubs & declined articles to justify lifting the ban right now. He's almost there, but really needs to focus on quality over quantity. If he can get a decent number of accepted articles above stub (and ideally start) class over the next few months, I'll be happy to reconsider. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Modest oppose In most unblock requests, I'm thinking about whether disruption will ensue if unblocked. Because the restriction is so minor (requiring AfC process for all new articles rather than being able to start articles in mainspace), I have a higher standard for removing the block. I'm looking as to whether the project will benefit from lifting the restriction or not. In this case, I think there would be slight harm to the project, as they're still cranking out a decent number of unsuitable articles that get caught by the AfC process. This also gives GoldenBootWizard direct feedback, which should help them improve further. So the status quo is beneficial. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to the functionaries team, June 2026 (3)

At their request, the checkuser permission of Dbeef (talk · contribs) is removed. The committee sincerely thanks Dbeef for their service as a checkuser. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, June 2026 (3)

Possible COI / Identity claim

The editor user:~2026-33323-74 changed the date of birth in the article without providing a reliable source. When questioned on their talk page they stated that they are the subject of the article (Sudha Rani) and that the date of birth in the article is incorrect. Diff showing the response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-33323-74#c-~2026-33323-74-20260605124000-A1-K-20260605123800 A1-K (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Since both DOB claims are unsourced I have just removed as unsourced. KylieTastic (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I also looking for a Wikipedia tool or gadget that allows me to send warnings notices to user talk page messages with a single click while reviewing their edits or contributions. Is there a tool available for this and how can I enable and use it? A1-K (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@A1-K, I would look at Wikipedia:Twinkle, as it is probably the most widely used tool for warnings, maintenance tagging and more. KylieTastic (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic Thanks. I already use a custom mobile script at User:A1-K/minerva.js for some editing tasks. I was wondering if there are any other tools, gadgets, or user scripts that work well for mobile users and can help with warnings, notices, vandalism reporting, or general maintenance work. Do you have any recommendations? A1-K (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry no, I hardly ever edit on mobile, I don't use the app and the few times I do edit on a mobile browser I have it set to force desktop mode. KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem..Thanks. I mainly edit on mobile using a browser though I occasionally switch to desktop mode when needed:) A1-K (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a specific version of Twinkle that works on mobile, try User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile if you haven't already. Most of the others (e.g. RedWarn) kind of work but aren't always happy to do so... In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Thanks I'll check out TwinkleMobile. Most of my editing is done on mobile so that could be useful A1-K (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalisms by ~2026-19128-83

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has vandalized multiple Eurovision related pages today, as their user log shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-19128-83 AdamantiosK (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect Category Target for ICQ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"On the page 'Category:Defunct social networking services', the system is incorrectly listing 'Talk:ICQ' instead of 'ICQ'. The category tag is buried or misapplied, making the directory layout messy. Please remove the category from the Talk namespace page so it only displays the clean main article link.

- Me ~2026-33542-83 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Done; it needed to be linked as [[:Category:Defunct social networking services]] instead of [[Category:Defunct social networking services]] to avoid including the talk page in it. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

revdelete theese

also log delete the page creation log summary for both RD1 and RD3 located at first log, second log, third log because no one did it at the logs but it is needed as the text is essentially the exact same as other revdeleted edit summary made by the 3 accounts ~2026-31625-14 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is revdel needed? It looks irrelevant, but isn't it just video descriptions in Russian? Fences&Windows 19:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There are WP:BEANS reasons in support of revdel. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:LTA/SB1's modus operandi. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There aren't any links or offensive words visible on the text, even if this is an LTA do they really need a revdel? Most of us wouldn't even have known about these if they weren't posted on a noticeboard. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Zero Contradictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have brought this appeal as part of the appeal process, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 

Statements may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Zero Contradictions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite sitewide block, imposed at WP:AE#Zero Contradictions, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Zero Contradictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sennecaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zero_Contradictions&diff=prev&oldid=1357839463

Statement by Zero Contradictions

The block was the first warning that I've received that my edits are problematic with how contentious topics should be handled, contrary to WP:BEFOREBLOCK. The CTOP box posted on my talk page was not a warning because it says it does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

Sennecaster judged me entirely by my talk page comments and one non-representative mainspace edit. On Jordan Lasker, I made two honest mistakes (1, 2) when I genuinely misread a source, which I later conceded on. I also now condemn this big edit since most of its sources were unsupported due to WP:RS/SPS, although a few were RSs. Aside from those three, the consensus rules that my other 20 mainspace edits were positive changes. This is my only change out of those 20 which didn't survive into the current article version, although it's supported by its sourcing. Overall, my mainspace edits demonstrate that I care about following policies and procedures.

Jordan Lasker and Talk:Jordan Lasker are simultaneously the first BLP and first Race & Intelligence CTOP pages that I've ever edited to a great extent. I didn't fully understand what it means to follow the CTOP procedures. It was always clear to me that fringe views should not be expressed on mainspace pages. But I had no idea that fringe views should not be expressed or defended on talk pages either, otherwise I never would've written what I wrote. I simply didn't know any better. Now that I do know better, I will not defend any of my past fringe statements on Wikipedia. I regret writing them.

I always knew that I cannot link to my website outside my userpage. But I didn't know that I shouldn't refer to it either. If I am unblocked, then I will make every effort to avoid mentioning my website. Instead, all wordings or ideas that I want to convey will be expressed on-wiki.

All my problematic edits on contentious topics occurred within the last two weeks on Talk:Jordan Lasker, the AfD discussion, and Wikipedia talk:No Nazis. Given my overall editing history, contentious topics are clearly not something that I usually edit about. I don't oppose having a topic ban placed on my account regarding R&I. I could easily follow a topic ban because I really have no interest, patience, or desire for such tiresome discussions on Wikipedia anymore. That's why I stopped talking for days before I was blocked, besides a final statement that I made for closure. Sennecaster was unwarranted to rule out warnings, questioning, and topic bans. She recklessly resorted straight to blocking me.

If I am unblocked, then my foremost objective will be to finish and mainspace User:Zero Contradictions/Freiland, and expand related economics articles. I will also strikeout every inappropriate reference to my website and all the text that I've written that's not sanctioned by WP:FRINGE. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sennecaster

If it's not obvious, I'm not accepting the appeal outright as the enforcing administrator. If this is overturned, the minimum sanction I argue for is an R-I topic ban. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 13:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger; This is an AE block. It cannot go through normal unblocks procedures for a year, hence why it's being appealed here. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701; I don't want to downplay the seriousness and importance of CHILDPROTECT, but that was not why I blocked. CHILDPROTECT blocks are an entirely different thing. A block where we'd have to say "it could have been childprotect" wouldn't even be an AE block, it'd be a block for childprotect. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 02:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't actually read the blog; I'd rather not read opinion blogs that others have informed me have hateful statements on them, and clicking on someone's blog where a clarification is about how they don't believe in eugenics is almost certainly going to be that. Plus, their onwiki behavior was disruptive enough for me to AE block. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by theleekycauldron

There are some fringe beliefs you can sweep under the rug. Anti-vaxxers and pro-acupuncturists can walk away from POV pushing in those topic areas and go do something else. There's nothing inherently disruptive about that – they were trying to push wrong information, but nothing more.

Zero has argued on his blog, which he's repeatedly pointed people to, that some races have been naturally selected to be more intelligent. He seems to be very good at writing paragraph upon paragraph with big sciencey words to dress his belief up into something nicer than average-Joe racism; he'll tell you that he doesn't think race causes variance in intelligence, pointedly ignoring the fact that his real belief – that common factors cause both genetically – is not much better, if at all. He'll tell you that he's just talking about the truth, not assigning value, while casually dropping statements that every admitted racist and non-hereditarian would immediately pick out as value judgments like increased intelligence ... and paler skin color were naturally selected in Western Eurasian populations; [s]ome races have innate dispositions to commit more crimes; and bad people [criminals] make bad neighborhoods.

Barely-disguised racism is never something you can just sweep under the rug or downplay as a "fringe view"; whether Zero Contradictions is lying to himself about that or lying to the rest of us is immaterial, because hate is disruptive regardless of intent. It is the height of entitlement for Zero Contradictions to conduct himself the way he has and then ask the people of color on this project to just let bygones be bygones and comfortably collaborate with him in other areas. I wholeheartedly endorse this block. (Oh, and if anyone's still looking for the reason people of color often don't feel comfortable editing here, maybe start with the fact that (1) Sennecaster needed to make this a CTOP block in the first place and (2) Riposte97 tried to wikilawyer around this block with an amount of grace and AGF they do not extend to people they actually disagree with and will probably walk away from that scot-free.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nyttend and GiantSnowman: per WP:CTOP, an arbitration enforcement action can be appealed to AN, where it can be accepted only by a clear consensus of uninvolved editors (emph. in original). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Riposte97: I don't think even ZC contends that the current scientific consensus is amenable to his beliefs, since he refers to them as fringe. I think the R&I CTOP dexists because when people of color speak up about their experiences – like a guy who says that some races have an innate disposition towards murder – they have to deal with not just those people, but the editors who seemingly have more empathy and sensitivity for people accused of racism than they do for people who have to endure the racism. Not all allegations of racism should be actioned, to be sure – but calling an explicitly race-based value judgment "racism" is not an unhelpful escalation and anyone who disagrees with that should get their priorities in order. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Riposte97

I came here to repeat what I said at Sennecaster’s talk page. I see my comments have preceded me, though I haven’t been tagged. Although it is clearly popular with some editors, I maintain that the block was too sharp. You can call it ‘wikilawyering’ or ‘problematic’ - I was showing empathy and sensitivity to someone I know disagrees with me. A more proportionate course would simply be a ban on ZC linking to their blog, even in userspace.

Leeky, part of the reason R&I is a CTOP is because the scientific literature is amenable to interpretations that are uncomfortable, even offensive. To come in and call ZC a racist (and incidentally call me the same by implication) is exactly the kind of unhelpful escalation that the designation is designed to prevent. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I agree with you, as far as what you’ve said goes. The uncomfortable/offensive interpretations I refer to are primarily that there are observable differences in average tested IQs between self-reported racial groups, which might imply an interpretation of differing intelligence (this doesn’t imply a genetic cause - the literature clearly attributes it to environmental factors). I don’t think that’s ’race realism’. In fact, I think ‘race’ is a junk category. Nevertheless, editors have been more than happy to call for me to be blocked in this thread for perceived wrongthink. Similarly, none of ZC’s mainspace edits appear to deviate from our policies. This firing squad has assembled itself due to their personal philosophical opinions. If we keep blocking editors with whom we disagree, even on things we self-righteously put in a special category (like ‘hate’, as if ZC has been caught burning a cross on Wikipedia’s front lawn), then the echo-chamber effect that we all recognise as a problem will only get worse. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Katzrockso

Endorse the block. The views openly expressed by this editor (including in the AfD where their comments waxed towards WP:NOTFORUM issues) are not compatible with contributing to the encyclopedia.

• Riposte97 (talk · contribs) - the scientific literature is amenable to interpretations that are uncomfortable, even offensive is manifestly false. If you are insinuating that the scientific literature supports "race realism" or anything in Zero Contradictions blog, that is not correct in any sense. There are indeed WP:FRINGE unreliable sources that are supposedly in the 'scientific literature', but they are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources or a meaningful part of the scientific literature, largely published in fringe outlets like Mankind Quarterly or OpenPsych.

Katzrockso (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Zero Contradictions

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

This is the administrators' noticeboard. I don't think it's the right place to make any arbitration-related appeals, and even if it is, I can't say that I've ever seen one here before. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Block and ban appeals states that The Arbitration Committee hears appeals from editors who are blocked or banned. GiantSnowman 20:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions suggests this is a valid place as long as ArbCom hasn't heard it yet. Sesquilinear (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Riposte has two culture war tbans in addition to the above behaviour, does this have to be filed at AE or can someone just indef him. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seriously. --JBL (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  What rubbish, Riposte was clearly not referring to 'environmental factors', mainly because that would’ve been a non-sequitur to ZC's block, and they’re not "uncomfortable truths" by anyone’s measure. In addition to arguing that blatant and dehumanising racism is acceptable in what’s meant to be an inclusive collaborative environment, ZC's block could have easily been based on WP:CHILDPROTECT, which makes Riposte's CPUSHing here all the more insidious. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701, what's the CHILDPROTECT issue here? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  On ZC's website he has an essay by Adam Lanza that argues in favour of pedophilia and against age of consent laws, he says himself Most pedophiles are not monsters, although some are. Most arguments against consensual pedophilia are contradictory or fallacious, except for a few. I don't support legalizing or normalizing pedophilia. and I have to emphasize for the fifth time, I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE. My position is that children would not be harmed by consensual sexual interaction with adults any more than other adults are, unless their culture forced them into being ignorant of it and manipulated into being horrified by it. I recognize that my anti-pedophobia was only a futile retaliation against culture, so I will never have the motivation to improve any of this., which may fulfil the off-wiki advocacy criterion at CHILDPROTECT Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Worth noting that that second quote is from Lanza, not 0C, although 0C's analysis of Lanza's writing still reaches similar conclusions in the end. Arguably they reach a worse conclusion (somehow...), because it seems the only reason they disagree with Lanza's defense of child abuse is by applying fascistic principles about sexual degeneracy to the victims of said abuse. (In other words, to paraphrase Community, they're saying I can tolerate child sexual abuse, but I draw the line at consensual kink.) And like... come on. No one innocently stumbles their way into citing Tom O'Carroll (a name I only know from securing a WMF ban against a user who was promoting him). Were 0C not already indeffed, I'd certainly be comfortable making a CHILDPROTECT block here based on their own self-disclosed off-wiki comments. I'd shoot an email to T&S regarding 0C's global account, but we already have arbs watching, and they can probably get that handled faster. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• not an admin and am also confused by this. There really is no compelling case to lift sitewide ban. Riposte97 has remained fairly problematic as well, i would not be opposed to an indef for him as well User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Cannot say anything about article mentioned in decision (being unaware with), but would mention about non-contentious topics being presumably free from problems. Witnessing them initiating an investigation against other editor, who were cleared from the accusation charges there in result, and then "excusing" for it by saying that as they are "probably" innocent, they would now "forgive" them for it then, despite "all those observations are still true", don't put much confidence in overall conduct (while this particular example is too outrageous on its own, it's outlier only in it's level of severity, there are many).~2026-33554-45 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Zero Contradictions's unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, including via referrals to his off-wiki writings (which cover not only his support for scientific racism within WP:CT/R-I, but also his support for reshaping views outside of WP:CT/R-I to create conditions for enforced eugenics), indicates a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", which is an example of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Zero Contradictions can submit an unblock request per appeal under the standard offer after taking a break from the English Wikipedia for at least six months, and in the meantime make constructive contributions to sister projects or non-English Wikipedias that can be used to build a positive track record which would support a future unblock request. — Newslinger talk 19:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC); amended after reading Tamzin's and Sennecaster's replies 22:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  As an admin on both a sister project and a non-English Wikipedia, I will politely disagree with that last sentence. People who are too racist to edit enwiki are too racist to edit any Wikimedia wikis; the fact that we don't globally block them all is more an economical matter than a reflection of any community sentiment that they are welcome elsewhere. I also don't think the standard offer is well-suited to cases of hateful conduct. Instead I proffer Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive § Atonement as a standard more specialized to cases like these. One of the greatest editors in Wikipedia history was a reformed racist; perhaps Zero Contradictions can be as well. But that requires a change in outlook, not just some time off and some Wiktionary edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  OK, I recognize that participating in other Wikimedia projects isn't necessarily going to strengthen a future unblock request in this situation, and could potentially lead to negative cross-wiki consequences, so I've struck the second part of my last sentence. Zero Contradictions appears to have operated their website since 2022, per the copyright notice at the bottom, so a credible change in outlook would probably take some time. My mention of the standard offer is intended as a suggestion for Zero Contradictions to refrain from immediately submitting another unblock request (which would likely fail). However, the standard offer is not an entitlement, so I am going to emphasize that waiting six months is not going to lead to an unblock if the next appeal is also unconvincing. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Pennecaster: Yes, of course. I've changed "unblock request" to "appeal" to be more precise. — Newslinger talk 22:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Riposte97, you say that the scientific literature is amenable to interpretations that are uncomfortable, even offensive. I get the impression that you and Zero Contradictions are the type who follow the facts to their logical conclusions, however uncomfortable they may be—that's how I see myself as well. Now here's the problem. The facts have definitively debunked and discredited the theory, and it is not amenable to the uncomfortable interpretations you're implying. So I'm going to follow that fact to its logical conclusion: anyone who entertains "race realism" is either starting from a mistaken premise because they were misinformed and are led to an incorrect conclusion, or they are starting from a point of inherent racial prejudice and then selectively accepting facts (consciously or unconsciously) to support their prior beliefs. In both cases, it would be unethical to welcome the person into a group because that would do a disservice to the people whose intelligence they are denying. Zero Contradictions, I know you can't reply, but I ask that you think on this as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse block I've spent a while thinking about this and was going to posit that they could be allowed back with a topic ban. Then I re-read the appeal and realised that they still hold the same beliefs - their apologies are for not providing reliable sources and a regret for having written their beliefs down, but there's nothing to indicate that they've changed what they believe to be true.

Then there's the possible scope of any topic ban & if one can realistically be placed. Their belief system involves a huge portion of the human race - even the article they want to return to (User:Zero Contradictions/Freiland discusses race. We know that their belief system is strong enough that they've created their own website and mentioned it multiple times during discussions. We also know it's strong enough to affect their editing behaviour.

Since they still hold those views, I don't think they will be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally and I also wonder whether their presence may make other editors feel unwelcome or unsafe (considering they've freely confirmed creating a website about "race realism").

Honestly, even with my AGF cranked up to the max I don't think I can get myself over the hurdle to endorse their return right now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse block, decline appeal. I saw this at AE and had read through much of the evidence when Sennecaster placed this block. I share her conclusions about the evidence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request change to discussion after unjustified false claim made

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Webb which as usual says "No further edits should be made to this page," however shortly before the decision was made and discussion closed someone made a comment stating or implying that I was using false accounts or sock-puppets. I felt it was justified to make an exception to correct the record, but this was reversed. Both the person making the comment User talk:George Ho and the one reversing my reply User talk:pburka seem to accept my claim that these temporary or anonymous accounts weren't me, and I would like a correction, possibly allowing my last Edit or if George Ho is willing if he acknowledges he was mistaken, which he already seems to have done on his talk page If it matters the administrator that closed it is User talk:Spartaz although this will be the first I've commented to him about it. If this is accepted I will of course accept it as a misunderstanding, and, as I indicated in a related conversation, I'm not opposed to having "a checkuser, who can look at technical data behind the accounts" check to see if the accounts are from the same approximate location, which I doubt. I'll leave notifications for those mentioned. I initially assumed that since both the people involved seemed to accept this was a mistake this would be easy to resolve. I know most sincere users recognize that reasonable discretion should be applied when enforcing rules, but when one of them was informed of this conversation at another location instead of agreeing to resolve it he expressed more concern about the proper location, but when people at other articles level act with reasonable discretion they don't have to take disagreements here. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To set a precedent like this may encourage others to make smears just before discussions close. I hope that's not the objective for some Wikipedians. Zacherystaylor (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You should chill out and find something to do other than fret about this incredibly unimportant point. Mostly what you are accomplishing is drawing a lot of negative attention to yourself. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Misplaced comments seemingly meant for § Anthony Lister. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You are failing to grasp the central and very important point that we are unable to edit. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No new 'precedent' has been set, since AfDs have been subject to rules against editing after closure for many years, and I'm quite sure that some of them will already have included unjustified suggestions of sockpuppetry. Anyone with any sense will understand that accusations aren't proof, and just who is going to be trawling through closed AfD discussions looking for such things anyway? This seems a trivial issue to make a fuss over, and certainly not one that would justify setting a new precedent. Not liking what someone said about you in a discussion is clearly insufficient grounds to modify long-standing rules that have been created to ensure that processes terminate in a timely fashion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Misplaced comments seemingly meant for § Anthony Lister. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I respectfully and entirely disagree. This does deserve precedent when the subject is unable to be edited by anyone. This is not a matter of not liking what people say. This is a matter of maintaining a factual and accurate entry by means of editing. Thanks for your response. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a gravitas to this issue that you do not appreciate. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, are you Zacherystaylor? I'm not quite sure why you feel I'm wrong on this matter and Zacharystaylor should have their last edit reinstated - you're also talking about an artist, but this discussion is about an author. Are you replying to the right person? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll also encourage letting this matter rest. Unless it's confirmed by an admin (usually via WP:SPI) then the vast majority of editors won't see or pay attention to it.

Honestly, if anyone did being it up in future it'd be seen as rather unusual and they'd definitely be asked to provide much more solid evidence than an old, unverified allegation/suspicion.

By bringing this to AN you've unfortunately doubled the footprint and made it easier to find, so I'd suggest just letting it sink into the annals of Wikipedia history and move on. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Misplaced comments seemingly meant for § Anthony Lister. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The artist nor I are unable to make our edit. What you have said does not justify our inability to edit.

I do commend your impressively prompt response to this matter. You must be a very good typist. Well done ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Good, and no, this will not sink into anything except for the truth. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We only seek to give this accurate information including, but not limited to, fact checked, verified and published news articles. We are unable to do this. This is the issue we areseeking to discuss, thank you. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere and informative reply. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• In this particular scenario, I'm not sure if this was really grounds to edit a closed discussion. But the "no further edits should be made" is a standard practice, not an absolute rule. If it was an absolute rule we'd just have a bot lock old pages. If someone really did start casting aspersions immediately before a discussion closed, I would say that dropping a line on their talk page asking them to remove or strike the accusations would be in order, and if they did so to the closed discussion, that this should not be reverted as a post-close edit. (And in severe situations, for admins or third parties to just remove the content directly, and again for it to stay removed.) Just so that the moral of this discussion is not "never ever ever edit a closed discussion" which is not the case. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure discussion

@Tamzin: The addition you reinserted was reverted (diff). This doesn't affect the closure of this discussion, does it? George Ho (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well that's baffling. I don't even really understand the edit summary. @Scope creep: An AfD close is an administrative action. A user posted to the administrators' noticeboard requesting administrative intervention because their comment had been reverted. As an uninvolved administrator, my view is that there's no harm in allowing this post-close comment; this is the sort of determination admins make all the time in moderating XfDs. If you've never seen a post-close comment before at AfD (which I think is what your edit summary is trying to say?), then I don't know what to say; they're not particularly uncommon, especially in the context of replying to a late-breaking comment with implications beyond the scope of the AfD. More to the point, why does it matter? What benefit is there to the encyclopedia to keep someone from getting to post a single comment saying they're not a sock? Can we please just let this guy edit in peace and focus on building an encyclopedia? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I see it was accusation was made. I didn't see it before. Please ignore my message your talk page @Tamzin: scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@scope_creep: Sorry for any miscommunication. I didn't notice till after I made the above comment that you had previously edited the AfD, and thus weren't finding this through the AN thread. I should have linked to this thread in my original edit. Hopefully all's well that end's well though. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Tamzin and Scope creep for resolving this. Oddly another separate account seems to have commented, 2026-33646-13, which I know nothing about except what I see in this conversation, nor do I know anything about Anthony Lister. I can't imagine why one or more people would create temporary accounts, but my impression is that they're created when not signed in attributes to one computer account, if that's the case these come from numerous computers and possible locations which I'm certainly not using. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's just an unlucky coincidence involving someone who mistook which thread they were in. They say bad luck comes in threes, so watch out I guess. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Anthony Lister

Unable to make edits using info directly received from the individual artist who is the subject of this Wikipedia entry. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33646-13 - I find that you have have a temporary partial block that will prevent you from editing Anthony Lister for edit warring. Your comment above indicates that you want to make edits to the article based on information you received from the subject of the article. However, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, privately received information from the subject is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's as reliable as any other source, and there is no option to edit at all. The fact that edits can't be made is the issue I am seeing to discuss, thanks. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33646-13 - Please see your user page. You are currently blocked from editing that page. When that block expires, you will be able to edit the page again. However, if you continue to make the same edits, you will be blocked from editing. Your assessment of the reliability if the source is not the issue here; you must comply with Wikipedia's policies on what is Wikipedia considers reliable. Also, if you have a dispute with content of a page, you need to take it to the article's talk page; you should not engage in edit warring. — ERcheck (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your post above, you've inferred that you know the artist, or know that he wants to edit the article that's written about him.

Can you please let us know if this is the case? If you know him personally, you likely have a Conflict of interest.

You're also incorrect on the sourcing; Wikipedia requires sources that meet our Reliable sources guideline - if it doesn't meet that set criteria, it cannot be used on this website. Original research is not permitted. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your history and I note that your edits are purely focused on promoting Anthony Lister and removing any mention of legal issues .

This has been your entire editing history at Wikipedia.

I am rather concerned that you have a significant conflict of interest and are only here to promote Anthony as an artist, instead of building an encyclopedia.

Can you please respond to this concern, as I'm worried they you'll go straight back to edit warring as soon as the block expires?

You'll also need to follow the Conflict of interest guidelines, so I'd appreciate if you can confirm that you've read this and understand what's required. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see you asked if I was using another account in the discussion above, which is now closed, I am not the temporary account, nor do I know anything about Anthony Lister, which I just said in the portion of this discussion still open. I have not done any edits while not signed in recently, or ever, that I remember. This conversation was closed, and resolved satisfactorily while I wasn't signed in. Thank you. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought as much, this just appears to be a different editor who got rather confused but it was worth checking - thanks for confirming! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Unprocessed CfDS from March

I discovered Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to Czechoslovak with an old CfDS tag from March that was never renamed. This was in the process of cleaning up CfD-tagged categories that were never nominated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The right thing to do here is to add it back to the list at WP:CFDS. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Unprotect Neil Simon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the 26 of August 2018, the page Neil Simon was semi-protected by User:Ronhjones to prevent spamming, which was meant to expire September that year. The protection level was then immediately lowered to pending changes protection. However, it appears that by doing so, it accidentally caused the protection duration to be indefinite. Given that the last human edit was in March, and the last vandal edit was in June of 2023, I think it is safe to unprotect the page. Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 22:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 22:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misrepresenting company history (CEO successfully prosecuted as felon for misleading investors)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This dispute concerns convicted-and-presidentially-pardoned felon Trevor Milton and the company he founded and ran as CEO and that is at the heart of his criminal conviction, Nikola Corporation. For brief context, Nikola Corporation spent years passing non-working prototypes off to investors as fully operational, had Milton resign as CEO under the resulting cloud, and was then rescued by a new team of automotive professionals and made into a "real" company producing actual battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

The lede of Trevor Milton has for years represented the state of the legal case against him and the company, and does so to this day, stating in the second paragraph, "In 2020, Milton resigned as executive chairman of Nikola following regulatory inquiries. In 2022, he was found guilty of securities and wire fraud. He was sentenced to four years in prison, a US$1 million fine and $168 million in restitution."

So the conviction is very much on Wikipedia record.

The problem is in the first sentence, which represents Milton as "the founder and former executive chairman and chief executive officer of Nikola Corporation, a manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles."

Why problem? Because when Milton was actively involved with the company, it wasn't manufacturing battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Notwithstanding the possibility that persons at the company were attempting to make a real product, the predominant effective activity at that time was presenting fake prototypes to investors and suggesting they were operational, which is what led to the legal case and Milton's departure under a cloud (all sourced in the article, e.g. NYT headline reading "[...] quits amid fraud claims").

I suggested changing the wording to "a largely fraudulent company during his tenure that after his resignation went on to become a manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles", and provided a source even though the information was already reliably sourced in the rest of the article. The source was challenged, and an additional link to a relevant US federal document added.

Daniel Case enacted unilateral semiprotection on the article, which resulted in the predictable restoration of the problematic status quo that misrepresents the company history as plain sailing and leaves the first sentence without any indication of the overriding reason for the subject's notability.

~2026-32340-15 (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Procedural notice: I cannot leave the named party a notification of this discussion as they indefinitely semi-protected their talk page sixteen years ago. They are pinged above. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute so why is this here? Continue the discussion on the article talk page and if the two of you can't come to an agreement then use some form of WP:dispute resolution. Since this is a biography of a living person, opening a thread on WP:BLPN is an option. Although the talk page discussion is new enough that it seems premature to try to do anything but continue to discuss and see if anyone else joins. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As regards the protection, see this. As noted by Nil Einne, the protection does not foreclose the possibility of other methods of dispute resolution besides edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPBE Grant

Please grant UserNath (talk · contribs) IP block exempt per ACC ticket 368140. — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Asian user

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACHUNYINCHAN&redlink=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATandumodegaard&redlink=1 (possible sleeper, if not more)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG_Hekari_FC (and several more club articles with same mistakes, user refuses to accept so report with hope for ban is made) Эльдар Шукоров (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Эльдар Шукоров: Can you explain more clearly, with diffs? It looks like Tandumodegaard (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sockpuppetry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PNG_Hekari_FC&diff=prev&oldid=1358580202 (more examples) Эльдар Шукоров (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The editor has already been blocked; if you're seeking page protection then that's done at WP:RFPP, but it usually shouldn't be necessary if the offending editor has been blocked already. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACHUNYINCHAN&redlink=1

block needed here Эльдар Шукоров (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

URGENT REPORT+ Upgrade Block request

Hello Wikipedia administrators,

I have a request to extend the block for User:~2026-34013-28. Although it may not have been seen, this user has made physical threats against me. The worst was in his talk page, when he responded to my level 4 warning by saying “i want to end your blloodline”, basically threatening to kill me.

MarioWonderExpert (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the editor. Do consider the header for the future which says to report urgent issues to WP:ANI, not here. Izno (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Request

Can someone redirect 𓂝𓃀𓅱𓄿𓃡 to Abuwtiyuw? Thanks, Yacàwotçã (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Woof. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: Translated:  Done

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 07:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 07:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BAG nomination notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Zackmann08 (2nd attempt) regarding my request to join the bot approvals group. Posting the required notification here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All the redirects listed at User:Mdewman6/Red Army redirects were created by user:Crucabuloso, who has been blocked for socking, and all of them should deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Consensus and details are at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 2#10th Cavalry Division (Soviet Union). Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thryduulf,  Done KylieTastic (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for fixing the double redirect issues on redirect pages Henry the Green Engine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, everyone... Please fix the double redirect issues on redirect pages Henry the Green Engine by changing the target redirect into List of The Railway Series and Thomas & Friends characters. Thanks. ~2026-33790-00 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unresolved Notability tag and stale discussion on Giuseppe Palamara

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone,

I am seeking assistance or a third-party review regarding a long-standing {{Notability}} tag on the article Giuseppe Palamara.

The tag was placed over a month ago (41 days ago to be precise). A request for a Third Opinion (3O) was opened in order to resolve the matter, but unfortunately, it received no responses and the discussion has since gone stale. I also left a message on the article's talk page opening a 7-day window for any policy-based objections, but no users have come forward to discuss.

The article currently contains multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources that, in my view, fully satisfy the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE).

Since I want to strictly avoid any edit warring or disruptive behavior, I am refrainining from removing the tag myself. Could an administrator or an uninvolved editor please review the sources currently present in the article and help determine if the cleanup tag can finally be removed?

Thank you for your time and help.--Kasper2006 (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Palamara, you could try giving reasons why you support its stay over there? ~2026-34327-86 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry and block-evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following users are Sockpuppets and block-evasions of User:Didicher/User:Supermohi. The person behind these accounts is abusing Wikimedia-projects (mainly dewiki) since 2005 (POV-pushing, harassment, doxing, sockpuppetry, incivility/insults, account-sharing, see de:Benutzer:NDG/SG-A)

• Supermohi (talk · contribs)
• Altaschtädtnr (talk · contribs)
• Şahrazade (talk · contribs)
• Ungereimt (talk · contribs)
• Wienerschmäh (talk · contribs)

Please consider to block them, most of them were inactive for years but it is possible that the accounts might be reactivated. Thank you NDG (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIV backlog

Hi admins! There is a pretty decent Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism backlog including some accounts that have needed to be blocked for a little bit now. If any admin could take a quick look (or at least look at recent reports), that'd be great. Cheers! – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course once I say that, the immediate blocks get handled. Still a large backlog, just not as immediate. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

History merge on MacOS Golden Gate required

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! Please forgive me if I am in the wrong place. I haven't done one of these before, or if I did it was a long time ago.

The page MacOS Golden Gate requires a history merge performed. It's been a few days since the template was added.

Could an administrator please fix this issue for us?

Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

A history merge is not needed, just attribution repair. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for fixing the double redirect issues on redirect pages Kuppusamy Annamalai and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HBA/Hirsch Bedner Associates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, everyone... Please fix the double redirect issues on redirect pages Kuppusamy Annamalai and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HBA/Hirsch Bedner Associates. Thanks. ~2026-34718-10 (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible sockpuppetry involving Dance Master Vikram, previously blocked accounts, and blocked IPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Involved accounts/editors:

Dance Master Vikram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected sock)

~2026-31522-03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

~2026-31519-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

Deakin Macquarie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

I am requesting admin review of Dance Master Vikram due to concerns that the account may be connected to the previously blocked IPs and the blocked account Deakin Macquarie.

Following the blocks of ~2026-31522-03 and ~2026-31519-60 on 27 May 2026, Dance Master Vikram account was created on 28 May 2026 and subsequently became active on Karuppu (film), another article related to Suriya, the same actor involved in the earlier disputes surrounding Retro (film). The timing and editing pattern raise concerns that this may be a continuation of the same disruption under a new account.

Relevant prior discussions/incidents:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive380#Editor_once_blocked_from_a_page_still_edit-warring

2.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1220#Harassment_and_Suspected_Sockpuppetry:_Deakin_Macquarie_and_IP_~2026-23236-22

3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208#h-Abusive_language_by_IP-20251203154700

Reasons for concern:

• Dance Master Vikram was created immediately after the earlier IPs were blocked.
• The account is editing within the same topic area, namely articles related to Suriya.
• Reverts appear disproportionately focused on my contributions across those articles.
• The editing pattern resembles behaviour previously reported and sanctioned.
• The earlier ANI discussion resulted in administrative action against the IP accounts for disruptive conduct and personal attacks.
• After I attempted to discuss the reverts and seek consensus regarding Karuppu (film), Dance Master Vikram responded with "Get lost" on their talk page rather than engaging with the concerns raised, making dispute resolution difficult.

I am not asserting that Dance Master Vikram is definitively the same individual as the previously blocked users. However, the timing of the account creation, overlap in topic area, apparent targeted reverts, and conduct concerns appear sufficiently similar to warrant administrator review and determine whether any connection exists between these accounts. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tonyy Starkk, FYI sockpuppetry investigations usually take place at WP:SPI so that administrators with the right tools can look into these concerns, it also means that you don't need to notify the other party and the issue is dealt with less publicly. Admins will look at the case here now that it's been raised, so this is just for future reference. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Riposte97

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

By community consensus, Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia.

Per WP:CBAN, site ban discussions can be closed after 24 hours in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious. That is the case here, the community supporting the proposed ban almost unanimously. Sandstein 14:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

---

An AE thread about Riposte97 (talk · contribs · count) has been referred here, and it is not a difficult case: Riposte97 is sapping community time because they are not here to build an encyclopedia. That was already becoming clear two years ago, when the community banned them from editing about indigenous peoples of North America for downplaying genocide with a rag of a magazine for a source. Then, AE warned them to abide by BRD after they restored their own edit on Hunter Biden, claiming that their edit had consensus just because it survived three whole days before getting reverted. Then, they got warned again for speculating about Imane Khelif's biological sex, without sourcing, in the lead of her article. That got converted to a GENSEX tban when Riposte insulted someone on Khelif's talk page for being American (they weren't) and did an "I'm-sorry-you-were-offended" apology.

That brings us to the past couple of weeks, where Riposte97 has been active in the race and intelligence CTOP; they were wikilawyering for Zero Contradictions, an editor who got indeffed because he said racist things like [s]ome races have an innate disposition to commit more crimes. Riposte said at ZC's appeal that it was "unhelpful" to call ZC's comments racist. (That appeal was declined otherwise unanimously, and several editors suggested there that Riposte should be indeffed as well.) When asked how they got to that conclusion after being taken to AE yet again, they decided that actually, they'd never read ZC's sentence – which is a bit fantastical considering that they responded to a direct quote of it. When Riposte was asked at AE how they decided that hereditarian views of race are not about genetics – a POV they've been pushing re: Jordan Lasker – Riposte responded with [h]ereditary != genetic, which is hard to see as anything but a contortion of language. Then Riposte edited their own comment at AE just to insert the word niggardly in place of "uncharitable" and said it was ridiculous that they were asked why they did that.

Riposte has done nothing on this site but find hot topic after hot topic to troll about. Even though every AE admin in the most recent thread who commented on the substance shared that concern, they have referred it here, for discussion of the one sanction AE cannot impose – a sitewide ban. I support as much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, should this be here or WP:AN/I? TarnishedPath^talk 03:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: AE referred it here, and AN is commonly used for discussions like these, so I don't see a reason to move. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support community ban. Riposte97 continually inflames discussions and sucks up community time to deal with their disruption. Katzrockso (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have been increasingly unhappy with the frequency with which Riposte97's behavior in a variety of subjects has come up at admin noticeboards. TLC has provided an accounting of the discussions which led to sanction for Riposte97, but the tally doesn't end there. I encourage anyone commenting here to read the following discussions, and some of the evidence therein:

• AE, November 2023
• ANI, December 2023
• AfD, June 2025
• AN, July 2025
• ANI, September 2025
• AN, February 2026
• AE, February 2026 (This was another logged warning for Riposte97, not covered above)
• ANI, April 2026
• AE, May 2026

I want to be very clear that Riposte is not the subject of most of these, and in a couple of cases the community's conclusion matched what Riposte was advocating for. But there are very clear patterns here: across a swathe of hot-button topics Riposte has gone to considerable lengths to defend or excuse editors engaging in conduct the community disapproves of. They have also engaged in selective interpretation of both behavioral and content guidelines to suit their POV, and their participation in noticeboard discussions indicates either a competence issue or, more likely, a lack of good faith. At the AE report that was referred here, the specific diffs brought forward didn't appear worthy of sanction in isolation. Taken in toto, however, I must support a CBAN, because this is disruptive behavior in a fourth contentious topic (AP2, BLP, GENSEX being the others) together with subpar conduct related to indigenous people and also race relations in the UK, all in fewer than 2,500 edits. This user has had a number of chances to recalibrate (two TBANs, three logged warnings) and has not taken them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support cban wikilawyering consistently at the edge of what is acceptable conduct for years on end suggests someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Vandamondes evidence is more than enough for a cban. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

i see wp:snow User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think these sorts of discussions need to go for 24 hours minimum. TarnishedPath^talk 23:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This should have been done at the time of the ZC ban appeal thread itself, if not earlier; but whatever. Support cban. JavaHurricane 07:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support CBAN (involved): My first interaction with Riposte97 was at Hunter Biden where when I requested they remedy a enforced BRD violation, they tried to tell me that they had consensus on their side because what they had restored into the article had been there for a whole three days prior (See TLC's links above). A reasonable editor would have realised they made a mistake and corrected it. Riposte point blank refused.

My experiences, in general, with Riposte97 since then haven't gotten any better. Since then it has appeared to me that they have been following me around, in what I have assumed has been attempts to troll me. They've shown up at Imane Khelif, 2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy, Anthony Albanese, Ben Roberts-Smith, Julian Assange and Virginia Giuffre (or the article's talk pages) after I had edited them. See results from the editor interaction tool. I was on the verge or raising a report about them if I noticed that they followed me a few more times.

What really got under my skin was when they quickfailed a GAN at Imane Khelif in what appeared to me to be pushing a content dispute and trolling (they had never once been involved in the WP:GA process up until that point). While it may have been correct for any uninvolved editor to take that action, it wasn't any other editor. It was one who had appeared to have followed me to that article and who was deeply involved in content disputes there.

Recently they had seemed to be more co-operative and collegial in their interactions with me at Anthony Albanese; however, this business with ZC and what appeared to me to be sealioning in the subsequent AE discussion leaves me with the conclusion that they are WP:NOTHERE. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN (i.e. project wide INDEF) - This process doesn't sit right with me. It is spawned by an AE case where the committee could not find cause to sanction under AE so arbs are bringing a broader case here, with a one-sided (but not inaccurate) broadside against Riposte97, and we are at once !voting on sanction, without so much as waiting for a right of reply? This is a process that will invite everyone and anyone to post up gripes against Riposte97, but the !voting itself will present a framing effect. I don't think that's a fair process.
  Now, to be clear, I've had my own frustrations with Riposte97 - and quite frequently. I have not been surprised in the least that they were referred to AE, but if we are to CBAN them from the whole site, I think the cause needs to be better than this. Riposte97 takes positions I tend to find objectionable, but it is not true they have done nothing for the site. Their East Shield page, for instance, is interesting and useful. What the real issue seems to be is that they take a forthright and overly bold view in hot topic issues, on a side that many of us have little sympathy for. And although I object to what I perceive to be some of Riposte97's views, I am not actually sad that someone is here to express them. Wikipedia needs contrarians, even when (especially when) they are nearly always on the losing side. Because it is in the disagreement that the questions are asked, and if we never ask the questions, we will never know how to write for the readers who ask those same questions, but that we have not answered. All the same, I think Riposte97's strident behaviour (perhaps deliberately playing to their national stereotype?) may warrant a break from the hot topics. A community topic ban may well be called for, but a project wide INDEF will prevent them demonstrating that they are able to edit collegially - which I suspect that they are capable of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Strident behaviour is stereotypical for us Australians? TarnishedPath^talk 08:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  riposte continuously dances at the edge of decorum in race and intelligence, sexuality and gender, and other topics. Apparently was defending a blocked editor who was a bit less tact with doing the wikipolicy dance.

  The last ae ends with admins recognizing riposte was failing to answer questions, was likely trolling them, and failing to participate effectively. The referral to an is mostly formality, admins have a rough consensus this editor shows poor community conduct, but community is final arbiter of that .

  we should not really wait to get trolled again or for nonresponses from an editor who has never improved in conduct despite constantly being brought to ani,ae,etc User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 08:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  An oppose that opens with arbs are bringing a broader case here, with a one-sided (but not inaccurate) broadside against Riposte97 and starts winding down with Wikipedia needs contrarians, even when (especially when) they are nearly always on the losing side in the context of WP:CT/R-I is possibly more damning than a simple support would be.

  a project wide INDEF will prevent them demonstrating ... – Good. They've done enough demonstrating.

  Support CBAN, At 11:48, 11 June 2026 they quoted on their userpage Rabelaq listened to more incoming reports, each more damning than the last, and knew that his career as a soldier in the Emperor’s armies was finally over and then their next edit two minutes later at AE (which concerned R-I) changed an uncharitable view to a niggardly interpretation . What a lame way to fall on one's sword after unsuccessfully running defense for a scientific racist, and with no follow-through to boot. Enough pot stirring. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  This process doesn't sit right with me. It is spawned by an AE case where the committee could not find cause to sanction under AE [7] so arbs are bringing a broader case here, with a one-sided (but not inaccurate) broadside against Riposte97, and we are at once !voting on sanction, without so much as waiting for a right of reply?

1. AE admins, not arbs, sent this case to AN because a group of AE admins can't impose a community ban.
2. Riposte97 had an opportunity to respond at AE, and did. Any editor can read his responses. There is no requirement that an editor reporting a case to AN first obtain a counterstatement from the editor facing a sanction anyways.

Riposte97 takes positions I tend to find objectionable, but it is not true they have done nothing for the site.

1. The issue is their disruption, not just their objectionable POV/beliefs. The fact that an editor has done things that are good for the site is neither here nor there in a sanciton discussion.

voorts (talk/contributions) 15:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide whether I count as involved here. I made a straightforward removal of a statement at Imane Khelif that objectively failed verification, which they then reverted for nonsensical reasons, and which I removed a second time per WP:BLPRESTORE; this wound up contributing to their eventual GENSEX TBAN (and btw is another case of claiming not to have read something they were expected to read as an excuse for something unacceptable). But my overall impression of Riposte, registered here, is based on watching their editing from afar for some time, not from that singular interaction. And I stand by what I said in February: Riposte isn't trying to improve Wikipedia articles, and doesn't really pretend that they're trying to. Instead they just rely on an excess of AGF to get away with serially making edits that are obvious culture-war BS, but which some people hesitate to call out as such.

My support for a CBAN will come as no surprise. But a CBAN doesn't fix the core problem here, which is that this community is too willing to engage in a charade where we pretend someone is a constructive contributor when they aren't even trying to rpetend that they are. Paradoxically, this gimmick only really works in CTOP areas, and I assume that's because in CTOPs we tolerate a lot of constructive POV-pushers. We get AE threads where someone clearly has a POV to push but also does a lot of good work and so we have to balance those two things. I think sometimes that makes us forget that sometimes someone really does just have a POV to push. That's why I wrote the essay WP:PARTISANS last year, in response to a situation where the arbitration enforcement process had been unable to distinguish between these two kinds of editor. I'd encourage anyone who's wondering how we got to this place with Riposte to read that, and consider how Riposte fits into the typology I propose there, and consider what sort of message our community is sending to admins, ArbCom, and itself when a blatantly partisan editor is repeatedly treated in a way that assume they are here in good faith, when all signs point in the opposite direction. We need to normalize siteblocks and sitebans as the default outcome in situations where people are just here to culture-war; topic bans are meant for people with redeeming contributions we want to preserve. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Statement by Riposte97 - Obviously, I have issues with this filing. I don't think it fairly represents my words or motivations. Nevertheless, I recognise that it is not in the interests of Wikipedia for me to return fire on it. That would soak up a huge amount of time on a fight that will not change anyone's views. I am deeply grateful to @Sirfurboy (an editor with whom I have robustly disagreed in past discussions) for suggesting the creative alternative that I take a break from 'hot topics'. To that end, I volunteer to be banned from all CTOPs for a period of six months. That will give me an opportunity to prove my doubters wrong that I am WP:NOTHERE, and do productive work in areas of my other interests. Riposte97 (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I cannot help but feel that if the community decides a user is so disruptive that a TBAN from all 31 CTOPS is needed, then a much simpler solution is a full CBAN from the project; I cannot support your alternative proposal. EDIT: Support CBAN; enough has to be enough after a while and it is clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. CoconutOctopus talk 09:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

3+ CTOPs is problematic enough that admins at ARE will cut the knot and non-enforcement indef the person being disruptive in that many places. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support CBAN, I strongly agree with Sirfurboy re needing savvy users who edit against the grain and challenge systemic bias, and AFAIK Riposte has done lots of constructive work at Talk:Donald Trump, but defending blatant racism is a WP:ZT issue imo (combine that with the trolling at AE). They’ve also earned two TBANs for pushing other POVs hostile to groups of people, from which we have some editors. The effect this has on the editing environment is insidious and harms editor retention from those groups, several of which are greatly underrepresented on here. It’s a textbook case of paradox of tolerance. (though edit count is crude metric, it’s also worth pointing out that Riposte has earned this sanction record while making only ~600 edits in mainspace and ~2400 total) (FWIW I’d rather WP:HID be retitled, "hate" is too problematic a term) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Riposte97 is a culture war junkie who hops from topic to topic where they can stir up controversy, while in each (well, many) instances staying just on the benefit-of-doubt side of disruptiveness. We are building an encyclopedia, not hosting a playground for edgelord activities. I agree with CoconutOctopus that any editor who requires a blanket ban from all CTOPs to be digestible, won't ever be. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN We tend to use WP:NOTHERE as a criteria to block and ban obvious vandals, trolls and other timewasters, but we don't use it enough for its genuine purpose here. Riposte97 does make (some) useful edits, but is not here to improve an encyclopedia, instead being here to engage in multiple bouts of contentious culture-war editing. When they are banned from one area, they move onto another. Less than 600 of their edits are to articles (and a lot of those are reverts or were reverted themselves); over 1,400 are arguing on talk pages. I have said previously that if we have to topic-ban editors from more than one area (and this is something that takes some doing), we should simply block them because they'll inevitably start causing problems somewhere else. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Reluctant support, and potentially involved. I've definitely been involved in the Imane Khelif issues so noting involved in case, although I don't think I've sanctioned Riposte. There are too many topic bans in play for Riposte to edit effectively here. I can't tell how much of this is genuine and how much is concern trolling, but I do not think them editing here is good for them or the community. It's time to find another forum for their culture war editing. Star Mississippi 14:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - All-CTOPs% speedruns need to be nipped in the bud. If you've got topic-bans in multiple CTOPs, at least one of which is one of the "major" ones (GS or one of the intractible ethno-political hellholes) there's no strong argument you can make that you're anything but an account that's only here to cause trouble. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 14:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support: By the time I realized how much trolling was going on I was already administratively involved enough that it would not be worth the procedural kicking and fussing that Riposte would surely raise to block. Trying to wikilawyer someone else's block on my talk page with more good faith than I saw in every other AE thread they participated in was so hypocritical I laughed in disbelief. I do encourage, if anyone has questions of just how poorly suited this person is for Wikipeida, to read through Zero Contradictions's AE block appeal. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 16:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support CBAN: there is a persistent and clear pattern of POV-pushing, advocacy, tag-team editing, and stonewalling in several contentious topic areas. Topic-specific sanctions were tried and have not worked. Arcticocean ■ 17:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: Supporting those who are in a difficult situation when facing sanctions can be laudable, but Riposte97 has been very selective in those they wish to support - including those with controversial views that they implicitly advocate for at times (e.g. ZC's recent AN appeal). If they fought for underdogs equally across topics, in a way that also kept the needs of the Wikipedia community in the picture, then perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad - although the other evidence presented and number of AN/ANI/AE reports is still worrying. Having so many sanctions despite only meaning ~2.5k edits means we have to ask whether Riposte97 is a net benefit or a drain on the time of volunteers here. In an ideal world we could perhaps try a ban from more than two dozen CTOP's, but in reality that's just not feasible or realistic. We have to draw a line somewhere, I think it's right here & now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. This is just too much across too wide an area over too great a span of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support CBAN per Vanamonde93's evidence above and comments by Bluethricecreamman and CoconutOctopus. I'm reminded by Elli's support vote for Dronebogus' indefinite banned during the SchroCat Arbitration case stating It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to give someone their fifth editing restriction... at this point, enough is enough. Of course we are the community here, not ArbComm, but the point is at some point we have to stop adding new restrictions and start considering if a site ban is necessary. We are on the fourth contentious topic according to Vanamonde93, and their evidence leaves me unconvinced that their behavior has changed in almost the last 3 years. Riposte97's suggestion of being banned from every CTOP is even more egregious in this regard by taking the repeated restrictions to such an extreme that, to quote CoconutOctopus, a much simpler solution is a full CBAN from the project. But to refute the central point of this suggestion, I don't think this would fundamentally solve the behavior illustrated by Vanamonde93 as that behavior continued despite the sanctions. Bluethricecreamman hits it in the head by saying riposte continuously dances at the edge of decorum in race and intelligence, sexuality and gender, and other topics, so to have Riposte topic banned from every single CTOP would only further prove that their behavior can get as close to the edge as they want without it crossing the line of decorum, which Vanamonde93's evidence suggests is why we are here today. A site ban at this point is the only remedy to curb this behavior from continuing. Gramix13 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. I'm no fan of kicking out people with controversial opinions but this goes beyond that. My personal experience of Riposte has generally been that of behaviour that is usually teetering on the edge of what can be assumed good-faith and consistently entering the territory of being disruptive, and evidence shows that's also true for other editors. Sure, Riposte tends to make sure not to stay there for too long, but that's not really good enough when you've been repeatedly told to stop crossing into it in the first place and you keep doing it in a wide variety of topic areas with no indication that you're going to change how you act. I've been following this case from the sidelines and while I was at first skeptical about sanctioning an editor over going too easy on someone who should clearly get kicked out, even when it's not a kindness that they usually afford to other editors, but in that AE discussion Riposte did a great job at digging their own grave and then also putting the nail in their own coffin by changing "uncharitable" to "niggardly". There is no assuming good-faith on that. If you insist on trolling at an AE discussion about whether or not you should be allowed to remain on the project the answer to that very question is obvious. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Per discussion above, particularly Riposte's suggestion of banning from all CTOPs. If there are that many places they can't trust themselves to edit, they need an imposed break. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• In regards to the one sanction AE cannot impose – a sitewide ban, putting aside the scoping issues of the AE thread, couldn't the thread have issued an indefinite block for the same effect as a site ban (other than the appealing/removing of said sanction)? Gramix13 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Indefinite blocks lose any Arbitration privilege after a year, per policy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 03:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mornflake

Courtesy blanking of this AfD from October 2025 prevented auto-archiving at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom. The username of the nominator was oversighted in the page history, but the pre-blanking AfD and some other instances of the username were not. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello? This needs urgent action regarding an oversight decision. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have emailed Oversight about this issue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have contacted user PhilKnight (talk · contribs), who did the oversight action and blanking. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In case you are wondering, the bot that archives delsort pages requires that the entire discussion be wrapped between {{subst:afd top|'''outcome'''}} ~~~~ and {{subst:afd bottom}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why {{xfd-privacy}} wasn't used instead, but I am satisfied now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes people just actually blank an AfD courtesy-blank. If I recall correctly, there were some like this from very long ago (early 2000s) that I found and fixed with a database query (e.g. select from page where ns = blah and title like 'articles_for_deletion/%' and page_len < 30 or some crap like that). A good sort of bubble-wrap-popping task for anyone who is into that sort of thing. jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

About an user uploading non-free child entity logos under different file names.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Spektono is uploading non-free child entity logos in violation of the non-free content policy. Non-free logos under a different name. I reverted his edit on the Portugal national football team page. It even had a hidden message written by me, but he disregarded. Take a look at him. Reprimand him here.

Delete the files in question and make them redirects to the already existant files.

The proof is here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. What do you mean "child entity" logos? The logos seem to be those of the national men's and women's football teams. Mostly they seem to be tinkering with logo sizes. They have been uploading non-free files (because of course these football logos are non-free). (see Ghana national football team) They have been replacing logos with their own. I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, but it doesn't look like vandalism. However, I'm concerned regarding removal of non-free-logo designations (File:Croatia national football team.svg). @Spektono:, can you explain what you are trying to accomplish? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

For the flat version, I've decided to change the license to PD-US. But for the gradient version, I kept it fair use as some gradient logos have been ruled copyrightable by the US Copyright Office. I presume Croatia has a lower threshold of originality than the United States. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55: I share 78.26's confusion about your edits here as well. In your edit summary you mention that the "federation logo can't be used here under Wikipedia policy" but the logo for the Croatian Soccer Federation (HNS) and the logo for the Croatian national soccer team are actually two different logos. The difference is subtle but there: (black outline detail, white outline detail). You mention that you "decided" to change the license. What is the actual license of the logo for the national team? Are you able to work with Spektono to get it uploaded properly? Peripteros (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is moot, as Spektono is blocked as a sock. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know about this. I've only run into one sockpuppet before here, Levi Kambai, from Thailand. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no way you could have known. I didn't know either, the sock was discovered independent of this discussion. Happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_National_Defense_(El_Salvador) years 31 March 1945 14 Dec 1948

From family history and letters and pictures I am of the understanding my Grandfather Manuel Antonio Castaneda was Defense Minister. Mauro Espínola Castro is the person listed. ~2026-35328-58 (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You want Talk:Minister_of_National_Defense_(El_Salvador), not this board. Morwen (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please also be aware that Wikipedia articles require need verification of claims from reliable sources, which means that original research isn't acceptable proof. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Requesting removal of AWB perms for User:Will229

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Will229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not sure if this is the right place for this, apologies if not.

Last fall this user got AWB permissions, which should never have happened as the near-entirety of their edit history was a large swath of rapidfire AI-generated edits -- unambiguous given the presence of stuff like WP:OAICITE (Special:Diff/1316932642) and markdown indicating a lack of review.

They haven't edited in about 4 months so I'm not sure whether they're going to come back, but if they do, they probably shouldn't have AWB. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done (); I'll notify Pppery. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

... and they never seem to have used AWB. How odd, Anyway no objection to the removal. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 22:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Sutyarashi is threatening me.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask you page administrators to go to the history of the user @Sutyarashi . I am impartial in saying that this user makes ethnic edits and most of his edits are in northern regions such as Gilgit Baltistn-, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and also Pashtunistan. The user believes that Pashtuns do not have the right to express themselves freely on Wikipedia. Please look at this user's Narikhche page. He makes ethnic edits and threatens to block other users. I ask you to warn this user.The user who declared the official language in the news is Pashto. Their native language is Pashto. They change it to Urdu and English. Where does all this incomprehensible contradiction come from? I ask you to look at this link from a user on the talk page for the article Pashtunistan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pashtunistan#h-Illogical_map_of_unsourced_edits-20260221200400>. The user blocked it after he objected. I ask you to follow up on such people on Wikipedia. Practical6 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,Practical6,

Please follow the instructions posted several times on this page and notify the editor about this discussion on their User talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Practical6 one month for edit warring in a contentious topic area and characterizing other editors by their ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal for a block on a certain page

I’m doing an appeal for unjustified block for a month on Vince Mcmahon page even though i was the only user giving actual arguments and points why

the block was by @ToBeFree and there was no edit war since it wasn’t the same exact revert every time

we are also having a discussion on the talk page so not allow people to ruin that page

Thank you MichaelJames98 (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO you should just appeal this like any other block on your talk page but since Wikipedia:Partial blocks#Unblocking does mention AN, I guess it's up to you. However you've either failed to read or to understand Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, as your appeal fails the basics of a block appeal. WP:Edit warring is edit warring and not allowed, even if it's true that you "was the only user giving actual arguments and points why". There's no requirement for it to be the exact same revert to be and edit war, indeed the bright line of more than 3 reverts in 24 hours automatically justifying a block applies even if you revert completely different areas of the article each time. The big red box in 3RR says this within about 20 words "whether involving the same or different material". Whatever others may have done wrong and whether they should also be blocked, doesn't mean we should unblock you per WP:NOTTHEM. Also while ToBeFree has threatened to extend the block to the talk page, this hasn't happened yet and I'm confident won't happen if you only edit the talk page appropriately. If you use it to make accusations against other editors, then you'll likely find yourselves blocked since that isn't the purpose of article talk pages even putting aside such accusations might be WP:personal attacks if you fail to provide sufficient evidence. But technically there's nothing stopping you from continuing to use the talk page appropriately to discuss the changes you want to make. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the extension of the block to the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I was the one who started discussion on the talk page and he blocked me for one month knowing very well no one will discuss the matter afterwards. MichaelJames98 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

He literally said on my talk page to basically disengage or go do something else

when i was discussing the matter with other users MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes because you were misusing the talk page. The talk page is intended to discuss changes to the article only. You stopped doing that with your latest edits. Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

But there is another user @Czello who did the same thing and was basically replying to me and that user wasn’t blocked. MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I was replying to your points about the article and when you got off-topic I tried to steer you back on-topic. I will also add that I did warn you that you were replying excessively - which is the issue ToBeFree raised - while I was trying to keep one, brief reply for all of your extensive comments, where I only focused on the parts relevant to the article.

Please drop this now. Remember that WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. If you keep beating a dead horse you might find further editing privileges removed. — Czello ^(music) 08:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

But the page looked disorganized either way

i was actually the one who was trying to start a new thread instead of just replying and you basically can’t read them messages because we were engaging in one long thread MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No Czello did not misuse the article talk page to discuss other editors, admins or administrative actions. The only thing which came close was ToBeFree warning you to stop misusing the talk page, and mentioning your block but that was reasonable under the circumstances. Also even your earlier talk page comments were problematic. You kept bringing up irrelevant stuff like your personal opinion or analysis which is irrelevant per WP:OR. What we care about is analysis in second or tertiary sources, not your own analysis. Also note the loss of talk page editing is fairly separate from losing the ability to edit the article. As for the partial block for the article, while you didn't break the 3RR bright line, you made quite a number of reverts over several days including 3 times hitting the 3 revert wall, and against multiple other editors. And so a block from the article seems well justified. Again even if some other editor like Czello could have been blocked too, whether they were blocked is not a reason to unblock you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, there were some warnings for you to stop edit warring in the talk page earlier. These are also generally okay provided they are kept limited since they are fairly relevant to the article. Long diatribes about the unfairness of you being blocked but not other editors are definitely not appropriate though. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Before the block,ToBeFree didn’t want me to have a discussion on the page anymore which doesn’t make sense,he could have just said to continue but in a civil watch and no long comments

we have stopped the edit warring,that’s why I went to the talk page and opened the discussion

the edit warring was stopped.

As soon as ToBeFree chimed in,he wanted me out of the talk page discussion (that i started) and to go do something else. MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay I'll say one more thing. I'll be very blunt, it does you no favours when you say stuff like "we have stopped the edit warring" which makes it sound like you suddenly started to behave. When we all know and indeed the reason why you're here and you even basically inadvertedly acknowledged it when opening this thread, the only reason you stopped edit warring is because you were blocked. If you want to continue to edit here, you need to clearly acknowledge your own wrong doing instead of acting like it didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC) 09:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably a final point before I leave this for others. Besides the irrelevance of your own personal opinion or analysis, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS what other articles say or do is also generally irrelevant. But that seems to be another thing you kept doing in the article talk page which also made your talk page comments problematic.

Finally there comes a point where further discussion is pointless. The length of discussion on that talk page suggests to me you were well past that point. Therefore there was not much point you or Czello for that matter, continuing to discuss anyway. Since it looks like it only involved 3 editors (although with more reverting you), in the general case it might have been appropriate to use some form of WP:dispute resolution to try and involve more editors rather than continuing the fruitless discussion. And since this concerned a living person, posting on WP:BLPN might have been appropriate in the general case.

In my opinion, it was never likely to be useful here. While I have not and will not assess the general strength of your arguments, the fact you kept littering them with irrelevant stuff like your own personal opinion or analysis and comparisons to other articles suggests they were weak. Too weak for it to be useful to get more feedback. However, if you'd done so, and accepted whatever feedback you received (which given the earlier factors were unlikely to support you IMO) without edit warring or posting lengthy responses and demanding answers or complaining about editors, IMO you probably would have been okay.

By this stage it's way too late. While you are not topic banned, since you cannot participate in the article talk page discussion there's no reason for you to ask for further feedback and any attempts to do are likely to be seen as a continuation of your problematic editing and lead to an extension of your block.

Also I'll be blunt that the way you've handled yourself in the article talk page, in the article, on your talk page and here; leads me to believe any attempts on your part to seek help will lead to equally problematic messages. So yes, please edit some other area of the vast encyclopaedia where you care less since I expect the strength of feeling you have on this matter is leading you to miss some very basics. Which is especially bad when you're so new you barely understand the basics.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the talk page block, by and large your recent edits weren't actually a "discussion on the talk page" about the article which is what the talk page is for. Instead they were complaints about editors and admins and administrative actopms which is isn't something the article talk page is for. . You were warned by ToBeFree to stop that but didn't, so the loss of talk page access seems reasonable. I suggest you follow ToBeFree's advice, drop this whole thing and go edit some other article. One where you do not feel so strongly that you will fail to follow such basics before editing. E.g. reading and understanding the edit warring policy before you confidentially say you were not edit warring but give reasons it so clearly says are incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

MichaelJames, you are obliged to notify a user if you are starting a thread about them. I have done that for you now.

I am involved in this controversy, so I'm going to try to keep this as brief as possible. MichaelJames, starting this thread is a bad idea. We're well into WP:STICK territory; please just take your licks and move on. And yes, there was an edit war on your part. You even reverted again this morning. I think you should let this go now and rather than relitigating the point endlessly. — Czello ^(music) 08:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello hello. Thanks for the notification. I think everyone else has already thankfully explained both the issues that led to the block and reasons for my own actions. I acknowledge that my messages at Talk:Vince McMahon have been at least slightly incompatible with the dispute resolution policy's requirement to focus on content, but I responded to a ping asking for me to join the discussion, I saw behavioral issues that needed to be mentioned (and later actioned) in my view and I don't want to get involved with the content decision.

My messages towards MichaelJames98 have been harsh but justified, and the user is currently running at full speed towards a wall instead of wondering about the reason behind the large warning signs they passed on their way so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I just think the block was unjustified and respectfully ask you to remove it so i can continue with the discussion which we want to end and find a resolution for and not come back to it one month later. MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@MichaelJames98, blocks are only intended to prevent disruption, this was placed to give you time to calm down and familiarise yourself with the policies of this website. I also strongly encourage you to read this essay as soon as you have a moment.

When we feel strongly about a subject, that can easily affect the way we see it or behave around it - that's normal and entirely human.

Learning how to spot when we are doing this, and understand how & when to step away from a situation when we're no longer being objective and neutral, is an incredibly important and valuable skill. It's especially important to be able to do this when you're editing an encyclopedia.

Some people can learn this skill quickly, others are naturally passionate people and may find it harder to do. Others can do it naturally. Whichever one of these you are, it's still a skill that you'll need at Wikipedia and one that I hope you'll spend the next month or so learning.

If you feel angry, upset or stressed when editing, that's a sign that something is wrong and you need to take a step back. Open a new tab and edit something else, go for a walk or watch TV/play a game. Break the mindset that you have and return to the subject with a fresh view. If that feeling returns quickly, stay away for longer or drop it entirely - there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors and it's not your responsibility to fix errors, someone else will come along and sort it out in time. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate what you mentioned and i’m glad to discuss it with you

I just don’t think that part of Vince Mcmahon should be left like that Because what happened to that page could be done to any personality on Wikipedia which is basically bringing a negative quote from an interview from people who does many interviews to build a narative

this didn’t even go for 24 hours

i’m not angry or upset,it is just i’m looking for a resolution because i’m not going to it one month later

i’m literally arguing with all of you that those other users are arguing with me that I don’t want to use a quote from an interview that describes/compare someone to Jeffery Dahmer,Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein

3 of the worst criminals in modern american history in terms of assault and abuse and one of them is a serial killer. MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you aren't angry or upset by this, the problem is that you broke this website's policies and now you must unfortunately deal with the consequences of those actions.

The consequences are that you're unable to participate in any discussions about that one topic for a short period of time.

If your feel that the issue is still there when the block expires, you're welcome to participate in a new discussion, providing you're able to stay calm, clear and objective. You made so many posts and arguments that it's extremely difficult to understand the point you were trying to make (less is more, in this case).

Another essay that might help is this one, written by a very experienced editor who's experienced this situation many times. Wikipedia works by consensus - that usually means that the majority get the day, providing they have well-reasoned arguments that are based on existing policy. Everyone reading this thread will have been on the "losing side" at some point, it's normal here and isn't unusual at all. To be a good editor, you'll need to learn when it's best to let things go (we sometimes call it "dropping the stick"). This is the first time you can learn how to do this and (since I hope you stay at Wikipedia) it won't be the last time either. It's just part of the normal community-driven process here, and something we all have to get used to at some point.

You'll be on the "winning" at times and "lose" at others, but the important thing to do is move onto new things when it's time to do so. If you only ever stay in one place and can't let things go when it's time, you'll never grow as an editor. It's your decision - do you let this dispute go, edit other articles and grow in experience, or will you stay stuck in the past debating this one edit? We can't make that decision for you, all we can do is manage the consequences of that choice. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't stress enough how important this advice from Blue Sonnet is. I've been in a few heated disputes in my time and, sometimes, consensus ended up against me. One of the best things I've personally done to keep my nose clean and avoid blocks is to recognize when this situation is the case and to disengage and find something else to edit. There is always something else to edit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Can’t you join the discussion yourselves and determine if the other users broke any wikipedia policies anyway that i’m not familiar with? In wikipedia,i always thought we deal with facts,When you go to the territory of the legacy or opinions from other people in interviews on famous personalities.it gets tricky

It is like Michael Jackson type of sensitive issue

you have people calling him the worst things in interviews but he was never convicted MichaelJames98 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Just look at the legacy Section of Michael Jackson here,not one negative thing,i remember every once in a while there were edits about this,he had a documentary watched by 25M viewers so far about his famous child abuse trial which was huge during the time

should we put any quote from someone in an interview as part of the legacy when they didn’t evenn mention the word ‘legacy’ or were talking about legacy at all? MichaelJames98 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you think that it made sense atall to block the person who started the discussion on the talk page about a subject in the article? How would you block me for a month from my question and then say let other people discuss it? ( which we know won’t happen) MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It made sense to block the person who was being disruptive and violating Wikipedia policies. The more you argue here the more justified the block (which was justified to start with) becomes; I strongly suggest you take the advice you have been given to move on and edit other things before you talk yourself into a more extensive sanction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Upcoming migration to Parsoid

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Upcoming migration to Parsoid. , with instruction for its migration next week MSantos (WMF) (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Offwiki push to promote a streamer

Not sure where best to put this. Was going to go with RFPP when I thought it was only one page, but anyway there's nothing particularly disruptive going on at the minute.

A bunch of seemingly completely unrelated accounts, many with independent activity on Wikipedia, are creating and editing many drafts about a streamer called "Joe Bartolozzi", see;

• Draft:Joe Bartolozzi
• Draft:Joe Bart
• Draft:Joe Bartolozzi (streamer)
• Draft:Joseph Bartolozzi

Given that all of the activity seems to be uncoordinated and somewhat recent, I'm thinking maybe J.B. has told (or at least insinuated to) his fans that they should do this. So far there doesn't seem to be any malicious attempts at forcing this through to mainspace or anything, but I thought it was worth noting. Athanelar (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Notability#Standards for notability prevent many famous people from having an article on Wikipedia for a previous discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It has also affected Bartolozzi and Talk: Bartolozzi. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Partial Block of My Account.

Hi Team. First I would wish general welfare of all here. I would like to bring to everyone's notice of partial blocking of my account for some reasons. The action of writing article in main space was not done deliberately but following policies of notability. This process to me is unjustified and demotivational considering my long term association. I would hence request for last chance before implementation of above restriction.Thanking all.Gardenkur (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You should appeal your block on your talk page. Since we're here, you are still allowed to create pages in draftspace and submit them via WP:AFC, which would allow you to demonstrate that the (entirely justified, given your history) block is no longer needed in six months or so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

To their credit, the block notice on their talk page specifically instructs them to appeal here. tony 02:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

TIL! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I might also be misreading the block log, but it seems they're also blocked from creating new pages and uploading files, which would apply to every namespace. IIRC there isn't a way to block new page creation only in certain namespaces. Right now they're blocked from editing any mainspace articles or creating pages in any namespace, but judging by the block message they received, it was supposed to be only a block from creating mainspace pages. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also pinged the blocking admin, Anachronist, about this. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. It was not my intent to block editing of mainspace articles, only creating them, either directly or via page moves from another namespace. Removing the autoconfirmed right would accomplish the same thing, but that isn't an available administrative action, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately I don't think there's a good way around this (the WMF has been aware of this for years now). If we want to allow them to create drafts while blocking mainspace article creations, we'd have to block mainspace altogether. If we want to allow them to edit mainspace, we'd have to block page creation in any namespace. A third alternative would be getting community consensus to topic ban them from mainspace article creation. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That ticket's been open for five years! And implementing it would solve this problem. In any case, for now it's a mainspace block. A page creation block would be counterproductive because that would prohibit creating draft articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the additional restrictions because they apparently apply everywhere, not just to the namespace I selected for blocking. I changed the duration from indef to 6 months also. I am not convinced, after at least a year of article draftifications and deletions, that this editor understands what is needed for an article to be publishable in mainspace. Practicing getting drafts approved by reviewers would be a net benefit for Wikipedia in the long run. It is unfortunate that one cannot restrict actions more surgically. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Why does the template instruct the blockee to appeal here? That seems unusual. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like that change was made last month by Awesome Aasim. tony 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And I reverted it just now. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't that the case since WP:PBN was merged with AN years ago? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 09:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear all.while I thank all editors for their comments here,I don't think any editor would like to work with remarks on their page while working genuinely on the interest of Wikipedia.I don't have any specific interests to create new pages or do editing unless permitted. Gardenkur (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding amendment to Contentious topic procedure: awareness, warnings, renewal, and banners

The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

To conform with these changes:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
• The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
• Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
• Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
• Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

  1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

  All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

• Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

  13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

• Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
• Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

— Motion regarding replacing awareness with warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

— Motion regarding repeated warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Duration of restrictions is amended by removing (or last renewed, if applicable)
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging is amended by replacing Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry with Administrators who change or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is amended to read as follows:

  All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed according to the standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions, with one exception: When a restriction is imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, only sitewide blocks become ordinary administrative actions after a year. Other restrictions imposed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard must be formally appealed before they can be modified.

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Procedural summary is amended by removing However, page restrictions may be renewed.
• The first bullet point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity (beginning Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions...) is amended to read Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with #Duration of restrictions.

— Motion regarding eliminating renewal

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 18:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding amendment to Contentious topic procedure: awareness, warnings, renewal, and banners

Edit filter trip

I was patrolling the semi protected edit request queue and came upon a request at Talk:Starfall. The request looks fine, but they mentioned it was tripping the edit filter, and the log mentions an LTA filter (same temp account has tripped it on other articles too, full log here), so I wanted to ask if this is a false positive or if it'd be okay to go ahead and implement the request. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The best place to report (possible) edit filter false positives is WP:EFFP where the people who maintain edit filters will see it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk page misconduct

• Revision as of 12:10, 30 May 2026
• Revision as of 12:00, 1 June 2026 (this made it so much more palatable!)

Cyanmax (talk · contribs) has blatantly violated WP:TALK guidelines, which they were quoted in order to strike . They have not edited Wikipedia since my comments on their talk page but were active before that. I had hoped that by now they'd strike the unacceptable remarks, in a contentious topic no less and within a move discussion of all places, but I shouldn't have expected much from someone with a racist "Armenian lobby" userbox . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Battleground to me as well as aspersions and should be stiked, but as you said, they have not edited for 2 days, give them time to respond. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

They were quick to respond to a move comment but when I raised the concerns on their talk page, they became inactive. By all means, let's give them time. However, a user competent enough to edit contentious topics (or Wikipedia for that matter) shouldn't have posted such remarks in the first place and then doubled down. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

At minimum, the "Armenian lobby" (linking to the Armenian diaspora article) and "This user opposes the so-called Korean wave" userboxes are unacceptable, IMO. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It's been over a week; no activity from Cyanmax since I left the comment on their talk page. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeff proposal

It’s been 2 weeks since I made this report and 16 days since I asked Cyanmax to strike their WP:ASPERSIONS . One has to assume Cyanmax has a severe case of WP:ANIFLU. They have been given an ample amount of time to strike their aspersions, way more than one would usually get for such, yet nothing, not even an acknowledgment of their own behavior. The issue of custom userboxes that violate WP:NORACISTS also hasn't been addressed (he apparently "opposes" to 8 million Armenians just for being Armenian).

This is why I’m proposing an indefinite ban for Cyanmax. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support as the nom. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: By looking at Cyanmax's recent inactivity, I think they've understood and learnt their lesson by holding back. By restraining from uncomfortable scenarios, they're putting themselves in safe hands, which thus makes an indef ban unnecessary. 🌻 A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 05:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• I've blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. The "Armenian lobby" line on its own could be ambiguous with a healthy serving of AGF, but piping it to Armenian diaspora makes it a flat-out attack on ethnic lines. (The Korean box seems to have originally been a critique of South Korean LGBTQ rights laws, rather than something targeting Koreans by ethnicity, so that didn't play a role in my decision.) Two weeks was more time than most people are given to explain themselves for promoting hate; but if it's all somehow a big misunderstanding Cyanmax can of course explain that in an unblock request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for fixing the double redirect issues on redirect pages Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MSLGROUP

Hello, everyone... Please fix the double redirect issues on redirect pages Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MSLGROUP. Thanks. ~2026-35507-51 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Bad sources added by GideonEkam

Earlier on today I had to warn GideonEkam (talk · contribs) for adding irrelevant sources to articles. He has previously been blocked by @Rsjaffe:, and unblocked by @PhilKnight:, for LLM use. His new activity seems to be to find content tagged as requiring a source and then to add a source. The problem is that the sources added are mostly garbage. They are either not RS or they fail to support the claims made in the text. I warned him of this and briefly advised him on how to do it properly (diff). He acknowledged this (diff) but then blanked his User Talk page and continued to do exactly the same thing. The latest example (diff) has both problems. That Scribd document added as a source is actually just an old copy of the Wikipedia article itself, so obviously that's not RS, and it has different numbers for the church members anyway. "Sources" like this are worse than no source at all because they can look legit on a cursory glance. I don't know how he is finding these bad sources. He might be using an AI based search given that the bad sources are vaguely in the right topic area, and have plausible titles, but not to the point where they are actually useful as sources. I don't think that that matters. If somebody was using an AI search, checking what it found carefully, and only adding the good stuff then that would be OK. What matters is that he is adding stuff without checking what it actually says or whether it is RS. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I was warned early that I should avoid adding bad sources and I assured that I will recheck and ensure corrections were made, I also recently added this reference as mentioned and I honestly checked it and if I could screenshot what I saw before adding it, I didn't see or note the part you just mentioned and I apologize for my actions. I also blanked my talk because the last time I had issues, after resolution, i was told that I could delete, and this happened today, I apologized and i thought to remove thinking it won't happen again. Well, I apologize for all this that has happened and I really wish to contribute and to share knowledge in Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you GideonEkam (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@GideonEkam, how are you finding these sources? Once you've found them, what criteria do you use to decide if they should be incorporated into the article? Meadowlark (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I use the citation hunt tool to locate articles that needs citation, then I do copy the text on quotation marks to the search engine (chrome), it will show me pages that talks about it.

Going through the pages I do check is, either it appearing word for word or has the same meaning/idea. GideonEkam (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to be careful if you are doing that, as searching for an exact quote match of text from a Wikipedia article is likely to return sources which have copied the text from Wikipedia, leading to citogenesis. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright sir GideonEkam (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Scribd diff linked above is particularly problematic. Not only is it copied from Wikipedia, it's copied from Wikipedia in a way that it's very obvious that it's copied from Wikipedia since it's literally a screenshot of Wikipedia.

• The source added to Ringworld (role-playing game) literally is a screenshot of the Wikipedia page for Ringworld (role-playing game) , .
• The source added to History of Romania to support the contention that the 1568 Edict of Turda was the first European decree of religious freedom at no point mentions the Edict of Turda. And that's not surprising, because the source cited is to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for a noble who was born in 1572.
• For Great Leap Forward, Gideon added a cite to support quotes from a 1962 conference criticizing the Great Leap Forward. They supported it with a Communist Party document from 1981, that only briefly mentions the 1962 conference, and has at least misquote that comes from the 1981 document, not the 1962 conference .
• For Guam, to support text about three native bat species of Guam, Gideon simply dropped the frontpage of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, so it's in there...somewhere I guess.

This is not an exhaustive list of poor sourcing. These are just the first four I found, all of which were made over a 22-minute period. Gideon is rapidly citing these sources, mostly two-to-four minutes apart, and I would submit it would be very hard for a bonafide expert in this area to read the Wikipedia text prose, find a citation that supports the text prose, read the source to confirm text-source consistency, and make the change this quickly. Either Gideon is giving their citations nothing more than a cursory examination or they simply don't understand the purpose of citing information. Either option would be extremely problematic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, of course, it should be noted there is a consensus that secondary sources are preferred to WP:BRITANNICA, though that's not the primary problem here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree that secondary sources are preferable to tertiary sources, but I think a tertiary source is preferable to no source at all. I'll also opine that when searching for sources about something that happened in 1568, it seems highly likely that solid secondary sources may exist but they may not be online. While I'm aware that online is not a requirement, a reader interested in checking sources would typically prefer, all other things being equal, a source accessible online to one that is not accessible online. I'm not arguing this makes a tertiary online source preferable to a non-online secondary source, I'm suggesting that if both exist, I would support using both. However, this is an interesting exchange, it's not exactly on-point because I looked at the source introduced to the history of Romania article, and it is clearly flawed (now reverted). I'd like to encourage anyone who wishes to search for citation needed tags and find citations but much more care is needed when I see evidenced in these four examples. While substandard citations such as tertiary sources are better than no sources whatsoever, that's only true if they happen to support the content. Replacing a citation needed tag with a citation that's not supportive is a step in the wrong direction. I urge User:GideonEkam to slow down, and take more care. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright I will be more careful. Thank you GideonEkam (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have brought it up since it was kind of a side issue that clouded the bigger issue. The big problem with, say, the History of Romania source is that the Britannica source given said nothing about the text it was supporting, not that it was a Britannica source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I’d like to discuss my topic ban if that’s OK. I made it to 500 edits a few days ago, but I wanted to wait for today because I was told to wait six months after I did that Iacowriter (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Iacowriter, which topic were you banned from, when did that happen, what were you banned for, can you link to the discussion that led to your ban, what changed since the ban, what do you intend to do if unbanned? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

conditionally unblocked subject to prohibitions on (a) editing box-office figures and (b) rounding numbers.

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/108790

I was told to do 500 constructive, non-trivial, problem-free edits within six months. I have been practicing rounding numbers. But if I’m not entirely sure, I’ll gladly ask questions on how to do this correctly. Iacowriter (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the very premise of the topic ban. As I expressed back in 2024, why were you continually rounding numbers even as you acknowledged that you did not understand how rounding worked? Why would you do that? Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been practicing. $115,071,463,061 is $115.1 billion. Iacowriter (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And I haven’t been rounding for six months. Iacowriter (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s good to know you’ve got better at rounding. Would you like to answer the questions about your judgement? Morwen (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: May I suggest on their behalf Dunning–Kruger effect. If they didn't know they were bad at something, they could have confidently made incorrect decisions. This can impact the best and brightest of humanity. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is IMO that quite a number of editors approached Iacowriter and told them they were doing it wrong before the block. So they were given ample chance to learn they were doing it wrong and should have taken that lesson before the block. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not how it happened. Editors told them that they were doing it wrong, and their defense was that they didn't actually know how to round numbers. They refused to actually stop until a block and topic ban forced the stop, well after they were notified. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please. Iacowriter (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I know how to round numbers nowadays. But if I’m not sure which number I’m actually supposed to add, I’ll ask questions. Iacowriter (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question about why I kept rounding when I wasn’t sure how to do it, and now I forget. And I apologize for that. Iacowriter (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean you've forgotten why you kept doing it so can't explain, or you kept forgetting you didn't know and so kept doing it? Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I forget I kept doing it. I admit I should’ve practice before I first got blocked. It’s possible that I thought I could just teach myself but I see why that was an issue. Iacowriter (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

$115,071,463,061 is $115.1 billion. It is? Hmm. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the "500 constructive, non-trivial, problem-free edits within six months", I'm afraid I'm not seeing that on your Talk page - there are warnings about adding unsourced claims in the past couple of months, and one or two edits that were apparently scraping the edges of the topic ban at best.

There are other issues that indicate a problem with source verification, such as removing figures that are explicitly stated by the source - this edit removed a $5-6 billion valuation claim, despite the source stating Valuing the property at $5 billion to $6 billion.... In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm leaning more towards "the topic ban is necessary" more than "needing to be removed". Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1328253955 Iacowriter (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the Simpsons edit, I didn’t know that counted as rounded, so I apologize with that. Iacowriter (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the Simpsons edit, I didn’t know that counted as rounded, so I apologize with that. Iacowriter, the problem with that edit is not to do with rounding. Can you tell us what made you make that edit? I am not asking you to apologise for the edit or trying to make you feel bad, I'm just confused about what your reasoning was. --bonadea contributions talk 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I said it was only $5 billion. But that got reverted. This is what it said: 01:38, 28 May 2026 Timur9008 talk contribs 83,271 bytes +14 Reverted good faith edit by Iacowriter. not according to the source Iacowriter (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Iacowriter Looking back at your talk page, a consistent theme I see is other editors being confused at why you made a certain decision, and you responding with an apology; but not an explanation.

The point of edit summaries (which i see you also have a history of being warnrd about) is exactly this: to tell other editors why you're making a certain edit.

It's the same thing here. Bonadea is asking you why you changed it to say just 5 billion instead of 5 to 6 billion. What was the reason? I noticed you said you have autism: is one of the manifestations of this that you feel a certain compulsion to simplify numbers? Athanelar (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No. That’s not the reason. The reason I did that was because before the numbers site was down, I calculated how much The Simpsons is actually worth, and I got $5.13 billion. Because the page didn’t do the video sales for the franchise. I didn’t put that on the page, I just put that in my notes. Iacowriter (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. We do not calculate ourselves what "The Simpsons is actually worth," but we report what reliable, independent sources report The Simpsons is actually worth. And this case, the citation said Fox's crown jewel is its 13-year-old annuity, The Simpsons. Valuing the property at $5 billion to $6 billion, Byrne says, "We're fortunate to have the premier licensee property. It is unique.". You didn't come to that $5 billion by quoting an even better source, you came to it by mischaracterizing what the cited source actually said. Breaking source-text fidelity is a Very Big Deal on Wikipedia, for reasons that ought not need to be spelled out for any experienced editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose lifting the topic ban at this point, and I think the user should be prohibited from contesting the topic ban for a full year. That timeline is not universal, but it's also not unusual in such cases. The discussion above raises further really serious concerns about this editor. Nobody is pushing for a site-wide ban yet, but frankly I think the discussion is closer to that than to lifting the topic ban. I just don't see a topic ban on rounding numbers as all that significant. For most editors, it's hard to believe that would affect more than 1% of their edits. This user also made no fewer than ten WP:UTRS requests, too, which is exceptional, and had UTRS access revoked. That said, the last UTRS request was granted. --Yamla (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Between their talk page, and their explanations here, I'm not particularly convinced the topic ban should be repealed. I think it's beneficial. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - After reviewing most of Iacowriter's recent history, I do not feel that lifting the topic ban would be beneficial to this project at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand why my original edits were a problem. At the time, I was making changes without fully understanding how rounding worked and without verifying that my interpretation matched the source. Since then, I’ve changed my approach. If I’m unsure about a calculation, a source, or a formatting issue, I stop and ask questions instead of making the edit and hoping it’s correct. My goal is to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to the topic ban. Iacowriter (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like we’re going round in circles here. Morwen (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t want to wait a whole year. It took me one year to get unblocked from the site. I haven’t done those edits since I got back on. Iacowriter (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I hear what everyone is saying, and I understand the serious policy concerns regarding source fidelity. Because I want to prioritize the accuracy of the encyclopedia over my own editing preferences, I would like to formally withdraw this request. I am content to leave the topic ban in place so I can focus on building a completely problem-free history in non-numerical areas. Iacowriter (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent! My comment below was written the same time as yours, but I'll leave it, as it should give you hope--that was the intention. There's a lot out there to do, and I'm sure you'll find places where your abilities can do good work for the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It has. But I still want to want to get off the list. Iacowriter (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Your current topic ban only affects a tiny tiny part of Wikipedia. You have so much other stuff you could do that would suit your skills and knowledge better. Why bother with something that has caused you and others so much trouble? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I still want to get off the list though. I realize the reason I actually was doing that was because I thought I was doing it correctly. Iacowriter (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You know what? Keep track of my edits, and you tell me when you think I’m ready to get off the list. Iacowriter (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect another volunteer editor to monitor your edits and let you know when they think your topic ban should be lifted (I presume this is what you mean by "the list"?)

You need to take time to understand how the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy works, because a lot of the issues I saw were due to you either not using sources, or ignoring them entirely in favour of doing your own research. That's not how Wikipedia works, so it's really, really important that you take extra time to understand how verification and sourcing are done. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually meant the topic ban list. And I am realizing that. And I promise that I will show you. Iacowriter (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irrelevant past revisions

Not an urgent matter at all; more of a puzzle.

In this edit of 7 Sep '25, the creator in his sandbox of a draft on a Belgian art expert (an editor since indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet) deleted that draft and replaced it with one about a trend in photography. This he moved in October to the article New topographics (photographic genre). After the March removal (by Vanamonde93) of alleged LLM slop, the much shorter result isn't bad (and its subject is definitely notable). But the article's history immortalizes a draft about the Belgian art expert (about whom we don't have an article), and before that, another draft (later converted to Gente di Fotografia) about an Italian periodical -- whereas abandoned drafts normally evaporate after six months.

I'm inclined to delete the revisions. But on what grounds? I think it would be a stretch to label it "RD6: Non-contentious housekeeping"; and WP:RD doesn't mention courtesy blanking (which, as far as I know, the subject hasn't requested). Or should these "New topographics"–irrelevant revisions live on? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

i would say do a WP:HISTSPLIT to remove the irrelevant revisions back to the sandbox from whence they came? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. (Why didn't I think of that? Perhaps because I've never previously split a history. Or indeed merged histories.) Thank you, theleekycauldron. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done a "history split". The versions that are about "New topographics" live on (deleted, and four minutes later undeleted); the others, I've simply left deleted. If their creator–editor couldn't be bothered to move them to Gente di Fotografia (for the earliest of the deleted edits) or User:ThomasToo/sandbox (for the rest), I too can't be bothered – at least as long as no admin censures me for breaking us admins' oath of diligent drudgery. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I would've moved the earlier revisions back to the sandbox, but given that the user is indefblocked, meh about their deletion. One problem with deletion/undeletion though is that it breaks a page's link to Wikidata, so I've restored it in this case. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

My account has been blocked redirecting.

Hello everyone and User: CambridgeBayWeather, I don't understand why I'm being blocked from redirecting pages on Wikipedia? I redirected the pages about a place name in Vietnam without any intention of causing disruption, for example: Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp ==> Mỹ Tho (ward), because there is only one place in Vietnam named Mỹ Tho. And redirected to distinguish it from the old Mỹ Tho (city). For other places like Sa Đéc, Hồng Ngự, Gò Công, and Cai Lậy, I did the same thing to distinguish them. But they were all redirected by the User:CambridgeBayWeather. I even wrote down the reason for the redirection, but it seems this user didn't notice. For example, the place name "Bình Phú" exists in many places such as Đồng Tháp province, Vĩnh Long province, and Ho Chi Minh City. Therefore, it should be written as "Bình Phú, (the name of the province or municipality)". Finally, I would like to ask the administrators to consider lifting the ban on redirecting pages on the English Wikipedia, because my redirection attempts are not intended to be destructive. Thank you and have a nice day! Vietic2 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to move a bunch of pages at once you really need to get consensus from other editors. (Though, as a minor note to CambridgeBayWeather, I don't think this is move vandalism since I think it's good faith lack of understanding of en.wp practices) Sesquilinear (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

They're going directly against the consensus I link below. They would need to change consensus at the talk page for naming conventions. They were warned on their talk page, several times, and didn't respond. See User talk:Vietic2#Page moves, User talk:Vietic2#June 2026, User talk:Vietic2#Movec page. On top of that they were warned about problems with disambiguation pages, linking multiple words an not responding. See User talk:Vietic2#Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I can accept a misunderstanding the first couple of times but continuing and not responding is plainly disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I am Vietnamese, and I understand how that place name should be titled and its administrative role. The User:CambridgeBayWeather ban preventing me from moving page is completely unreasonable. This ban has made me lose interest in contributing more to the English Wikipedia. Vietic2 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The point is that the English language version of Wikipedia is not required to follow the rules of the Vietnamese language Wikipedia or the Vietnam government. You need to follow what the agreed on consensus is on this Wikipedia or start a discussion to get it changed. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 16:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Naming places in Vietnam doesn't necessarily have to follow the Vietnamese Wikipedia or the Vietnamese government, but it's important to name them correctly! Vietic2 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Liked below. Reply at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Places_in_Vietnam. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 15:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies as something came up and i wasn't able to respond in a timly manner. I believe that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Vietnam no Vietnamese place name articles should be in the format of "Name (something)", especially (ward). As in the example above, Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp, is the correct disabiguation. I felt that as they hadn't responded blocking them from page moves was needed. I'm going to be away for the rest of today and tomorrow but will be home again on Saturday. If anyone feels action should be taken please don't wait for me. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 16:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

In this case, the obvious solution is to discuss at WT:NCGN. The Vietnam section needs to be updated because it does not reflect the 2025 Vietnamese administrative reforms. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Places_in_Vietnam. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

A similar discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#RfC on WP:VIETPLACE. I admit Vietic2 wasn't noticed about this until recently. That discussion is about changing primary topic and naming convention with the result: no proposals (maybe). However, their problem is that they keep changing the name back and forth as you see at Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp, not much difference from Mỹ Tho ward or Mỹ Tho (ward) and changing the primary topic without changing the link to (which creates a real burden). They have received notifications and complaints from other users regarding these matters on their talk page. Henrydat (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Appleton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to edit about page creations of pages which only can be created by administrators.

Would anyone mind creating Christopher Appleton with that page redirecting to Chris Appleton if they think that's necessary? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Shouldn't have been salted in the first place.^[self-cite] I've been meaning for years to put together a list of all the not-uncommon full names at Special:ProtectedTitles and propose we mass-unsalt them, because I'm sure it's silently blocking a nontrivial number of article creations. If someone who's been here 9 years isn't certain of the process of what to do in this case, think of how many people never try at all! If you or anyone else wants a project, feel free to steal that idea. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to the functionary team, June 2026 (4)

At his request, the checkuser permission of EdJohnston (talk · contribs) is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks EdJohnston for his service as a checkuser. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team, June 2026 (4)

Disorganized talk page archives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I discovered that the archives of Talk:Vatican City is out of chronological order, and I am trying to clean it up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Voorts: Where is the correct forum for this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you can't fix it on your own, I'd try the help desk. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson, has been now closed. The final decision is available at the link above.

The following remedies have been passed regarding this case:

• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs), TheWikiholic (talk · contribs), Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs), Jimcastor (talk · contribs), and MraClean (talk · contribs) are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs), TheWikiholic (talk · contribs), Israell (talk · contribs), Episteme Aletheia (talk · contribs), Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs), Jimcastor (talk · contribs), Mr Boar1 (talk · contribs), MraClean (talk · contribs), Never17 (talk · contribs), and PinkSlippers (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
• NE0mAn7o! (talk · contribs) is warned that future misconduct in the Michael Jackson topic area will result in restrictions under the Michael Jackson community contentious topic.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 21:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

Next appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When can my next appeal be? And for the record, I realize the reason I kept rounding numbers because I thought I was doing it right, and I wanted to show that I could. Now I know that you’re not supposed to do that. Iacowriter (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfc archiver

Hello, I'm writing because I submitted an old ANI that seems to have been unsuccessful and archived. I would appreciate it if a solution could be found to avoid an endless editing battle on Daghaghra, please. Mhmdgrd (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean this thread? The link you provided just points back to this page. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes exaclty, thank you. Mhmdgrd (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see an "endless editing battle" when the last edit was two weeks ago. You sure this is a problem that needs addressing? Edit: Apparently there is something that needs addressing. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC) (Amended on 07:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)) (Non-administrator comment)

Yes, I'm just saving that. Mhmdgrd (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that is endless actually is what you try to make, re-write history. Your behavior is really tiring, you are not here for the decorum of the encyclopedia, but only to spread your ideology. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder why this complaint is taking so long to resolve. What's the point of what I'm doing? What am I supposed to do? What's wrong? Mhmdgrd (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Since I responded once, I guess I should do so again. What we have here is a content dispute. Both yourself and Al-Hilali Z want to include different text in the article. AN isn't for deciding content disputes, but is for things that Admins might want to be aware of. ANI is for incidents between users and would have been a better choice than here, but they also don't deal with deciding content disputes. They do deal with chronic user disputes. Additionally, neither of you have provided diffs of the dispute here. Instead, it is just a link to the old discussion, which another user has provided as your link just pointed here. So anyone who is willing to look into this needs to go to another thread to try to resolve this. Except. That discussion barely has any diffs at all. In fact it had no diffs until a user told you to stop bringing Al-Hilali Z to AN/ANI without notifying them and without providing diffs. So all we have is three diffs that barely cover your point and no diffs from Al-Hilali Z. On a different discussion. And that has yet to consider that this has some ties to the Maghreb region. A region that I want to avoid after an incident this year that went before ArbCom and I doubt that I am the only one.

So, we have a discussion with limited evidence, started for the third time by a user who has for the third time failed to notify the other party of the discussion, that involves a region in Africa that has been troublesome at least this year, if not for a few years now, and that is posted to a noticeboard that isn't for content disputes. (Additionally, the English Wikipedia is different from the French Wikipedia. This will make sense later.) But, since I was willing to write this up, then here we go:

⛏⛑

• Al-Hilali Z created a draft article for Daghaghra in April of last year and moved it to the mainspace on April 26th. (1287224808, 1287528400)
• The article receives a few minor-ish edits over the next months.
• In November, Al-Hilali Z made their first major expansion to the article since moving it by expanding the history section. (1320814006)
• On December 1st, Mhmdgrd made their first edits to the article, significantly rewriting it. Notable changes include cutting down on a good portion of the existing text, adding a Tamazight spelling before the Arabic spelling, changing the Ethnicity from Arab to Berber, changing the Subdivisions section to use different spellings for the sub-fractions, and changing the short description from Arab tribe to Berber tribe. (1325223245, 1325223245)
• Less than 24 hours later, Al-Hilali Z edits the article, calling Mhmdgrd's edits Vandalism in the edit summary and proceeding to make some additions to the article while mostly undoing Mhmdgrd's edits. (1325322202)
• 3 hours later, Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z (and AnomieBOT) by going back to the revision of Mhmdgrd's last edit. (1325345054)
• We now go forward two weeks to December 16th, when Al-Hilali Z returns to the article, where they significantly change the history section and remove a few additions made by Mhmdgrd. They follow it up with a second edit where they switch the article from being a Berber tribe to an Arab tribe, among similar changes. (1327822786, 1327823102)
• While Al-Hilali Z makes changes to the article for the rest of December and into January, Mhmdgrd decided to make their own article called Deghaghra on December 28th. They follow this up with our first discussion at Talk:Daghaghra to propose a merger of the two articles. User:Jay8g resolves the situation by making Deghaghra redirect to Daghaghra and correctly notes in the edit summary that Mhmdgrd's article was a duplicate. (1329857607, Talk:Daghaghra#Merge proposal)
• Now back to one article, we move from the first week of January to March 12th as Mhmdgrd decides to PROD the article. User:4meter4 reverts the PROD. Mhmdgrd improperly reverts, but now tags the article with an AfD notice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daghaghra is created which gets a speedy keep in about 38-ish hours. (1343138584, 1343138584, 1343386791, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daghaghra)
• Now before we go any farther, it is important to note Al-Hilali Z's comment from the AfD: This page have many sources and already had a debate on the Wikipedia French page where it was kept. The Daghaghra page have nothing in common with others pages under AfD who don't have sources for many. Also, the user who asked for this AfD have already background with this page. We had together a long debate on the french side of Wikipedia where he try with any force to delete this page. (...) (2 an entire debate was made on the page, and Mhmgrd was also banned [3] for Edit warring and many other things, like he did on the Daghaghra page, and try today on the English version to continue his fight against this page, it's not a personal offense against him, but a warning to other users what he is trying since some months) (Emphasis mine) It should be noted here that Mhmgrd has not been banned on the English Wikipedia, but this is the case on the French Wikipedia. If we go to the "Application to administrators" page we can find this archived discussion from December 29th to its close on January 8th: fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2026/Semaine 2#Mhmdgrd : Refus de comprendre, signal bruit élevé, pov-pushing, TI, etc. where Mhmgrd's account on the French Wikipedia was permanently banned with a comment that they can do the French Wikipedia's equivalent to a Clean start on their user talk page. This also does explain why Mhmgrd seems impatient above. For the French Wiki, it seems that they have a system where normal users can make requests to the administrators, which get examined, processed, and resolved or rejected. We don't have a system exactly like that, but it seems that Mhmgrd believes that this is the exact equivalent. And for the final point about this and the main reason for emphasis: This is a content dispute that has also being going on at other projects.
• Back on track, with the RfC failed, we get the back and forth at Talk:Daghaghra:
• March 24th: Mhmdgrd creates a discussion called Origin. Al-Hilali Z calls Mhmdgrd's edits vandalism and neither agrees with the other.
• March 27th: Mhmdgrd creates an RfC called RfC about The origin. This RfC attempt gets procedurally closed.
• April 5th: Mhmdgrd creates an RfC called Rfc about the origin. Both Mhmdgrd and Al-Hilali Z make up a good chunk of the discussion, but the RfC closes against both of their positions: "There is no consensus for A" (Daghaghra are a Berber tribe) "or B" (Daghaghra are a Arab tribe). "There is some support for C which would report Ibn Khaldun's statement and attribute it to him, but the option is somewhat nebulous in nature, and given the limited comments on this RFC I recommend further discussion to more clearly define the other suggestion." (Additions mine)
• May 18th: Mhmdgrd tries to create an RfC called Talk:Daghaghra#Consensus final about origin that goes nowhere.
• May 21st: Mhmdgrd creates an RfC called Rfc for a final consensus on the origin of the Daghaghra which gets a formal "PROCEDURAL CLOSE" with a request in the closing to let it go that points to WP:DROPTHESTICK.
• This doesn't cover the edits made to the article in the meantime where both continue to revert the other's edits:
• March 26th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd, March 26th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z, March 27th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd and then tells Mhmdgrd to "Stop your biased vandalism", April 12th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z, April 13th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd, May 5th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z, May 8th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd, May 15th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z with the edit summary "final rfc consensus", May 20th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd with the edit summary "You are lying, there is no consensus, the previous RFC didn't have one and the last you posted also. And I repeat it WHY ARE YOU DELETING THE SOURCES OF A LEGEND ? AND ALL WHO DESCRIBED THEM AS ARABS ???", May 24th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z with the edit summary "This source is unreliable and not accepted by the RFC consensus. Especially since you yourself acknowledge that it is false.", May 26th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd with the edit summary "You are lying.", June 16th - Mhmdgrd reverts Al-Hilali Z with Nemov restoring back shortly afterwards. (1345484642, 1345540635, 1345626487, 1345627692, 1348464569, 1348500650, 1352754744, 1353117330, 1354388313, 1355234260, 1355957010, 1356215653, 1359674737)

I don't care if this gets collapsed, but I do believe that both users have likely earned Yellow Cards at a minimum. If this gets moved to ANI and action is taken against both users, then I would be supportive of that. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC) (Amended 03:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC). See this diff for prior version or see this diff for changes.)

You deserve a medal for recapping all of that. Nemov (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Even if this leads nowhere, hopefully it convinces both of them that they would do better to work together to a compromise than either of them trying to get the other punished. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for your effort and these clarifications. I am well aware that administrators are not here to handle content-related disputes; however, as stated in my Annual Report, the disagreement could very well have been resolved with a person acting in good faith. By acting as my opponent did, I could do the same on other, off-topic pages, resorting to sophistry, finding contradictory sources, and then dragging the thread out until it becomes incomprehensible to other users.

As I mentioned, my primary wish is for this page to be written with greater rigor and seriousness, like many other Wikipedia topics. Given the breadth of the encyclopedia and all the sensitive subjects that exist, I doubt this minor conflict is the most difficult thing to manage.

Being afraid to intervene in the face of behavioral problems will not solve the issue. The ArbCom you mentioned should serve as an example of increased vigilance, because as you've seen, this is a problem that has dragged on for several years despite numerous reports. If you think I should also be sanctioned, fine, as long as it helps the page be well-written. However, I'd like you to tell me what I could have done to resolve the issue? I made every possible effort, I gave it my all, and despite that, I'm being asked to move on and leave the page as is, even though it's obvious from the details I've provided that it's problematic. Furthermore, my interlocutor has made absolutely no effort and has simply agreed with their version of events, which is just nonsense.

I don't particularly want them to be sanctioned; I just want the page to be written with rigor and professionalism. The bad faith is so obvious and caricatural, I'm going to give you the latest example which is as big as a mountain:

- He speaks of the Ait Demmer as a branch that supposedly integrated Arab tribes, which, according to him, renders my statements obsolete.

- I presented him with another, more detailed source that explains who the Ait Demmer are, which in turn traces their origins back to a Berber ancestor named Demmer, especially since the source contrasts Arabs and Ait Demmer.

- he replied to me:"You can spam any sources you want, the debate is not on the Ouerghemma, Ait Demmer or the Ouderna, but on the Daghaghra, and there is a lot of sources telling that they are Arabs and many sources show that there is Arab tribes in the Ouderna confederation. You are just coping at this level." How do you expect to reach a consensus under these conditions? I'm convinced that if it had been a user with more renaming privileges, the problem would have been easier and faster to resolve.

I can see a similar problem right below my complaint that seems to be resolved. Why not fix it just as easily by sorting the sources and checking which ones are usable and which aren't? The problem would be solved quickly. Mhmdgrd (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Question regarding Annual Report, can you clarify your meaning there? To me, an annual report would be a document created yearly that gives some sort of analysis, which I don't see in your edits, and a significant majority of your edits are from this year.
• That aside, I don't see any reason for ArbCom to get involved in this. It was an example about why some users *might* avoid this subject. And no, this is a problem with the article Daghaghra and two users not working together and acting in problematic ways, not a problem that has dragged on for several years.
• By acting as my opponent did, I could do the same on other, off-topic pages, resorting to sophistry, finding contradictory sources, and then dragging the thread out until it becomes incomprehensible to other users. Do that and you will be sanctioned. Please don't suggest this again nor suggest that the other user in this dispute is attempting so without sources and an explanation of how.
• So far as I have see, you two are just auguring two sides of things without considering the other side(s). Personally, you two should be trying to resolve your "minor conflict" by attempting to resolving the content dispute between you two instead of coming here for possible sanctions. And I think that this should be put to rest before either or both of you are sanctioned.
• Finally, looking at the thread below, it seems there were concerns that an AI and/or a LLM was used, which is why that thread was resolved so fast. (Plus again, the opening user posted their evidence in their first post which meant that no one had to dig for it to understand what was going on. Not only that, but the sources used were Wikipedia clones to my understanding. I doubt that either of your sources are problematic to that degree. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Recent disruptive content removal in related articles, might be a sockpuppeteer

So a few days ago, I was looking on recent changes when I reverted this unexplained removal. Just now I found out that temporary account came back on another temporary account and removed that content again. After reverting them again, I realized that they were apparently doing this unconstructive series of edits for over 3 months. Most prominently on the articles Boston Strangler and F. Lee Bailey. I also found on the contribs page that all the related temporary accounts 1 2 3 have around 6-10 associated IPs, a very likely sign it might be the same IP user. I ask that the IP behind all these temporary accounts is blocked for repeated disruptive content removal and general unconstructive edits. Thank you, SHSR _{T • C} 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

All three map to the same ASIN subnet designator and same physical location. Agreed that they all seem to be from the same or very similar user location. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked all three anon-usernames for 2 weeks focusing only on the two articles that you've highlighted. This means that the anon-users can contribute to other parts of wikipedia but cannot edit either of the two highlighted articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

History-merge backlog

Category:Candidates for history merging is now up to 11 entries, some of which date to the beginning of this month. I have one at Equal temperament that may be affected by an ongoing RM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still six left. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I took care of the ones that definitely merited merging. I left the others for another hist merge admin to look at since I wasn't convinced that a hist merge was appropriate. I would say that we don't have issues of people tuning in, and that if you really want to get attention you should leave a comment at WP:HISTMERGE. Izno (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My Question for the user TFA Protector Bot about indefinite semi-protection for the article due to an upcoming today's featured article

Do TFA Protector Bot semi-protect the article (e.g. Super Mario Maker 2) indefinitely due to an upcoming today's featured article? The answer is No! ~2026-36459-16 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Super Mario Maker 2 isn't scheduled to be TFA. In fact, it isn't even a Featured Article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Change to the functionaries team, June 2026

At his request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of TonyBallioni (talk · contribs).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the functionaries team, June 2026

Request for fixing the double redirect issues on redirect pages The Spectrum (Sirius XM)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, everyone... Please fix the double redirect issues on redirect pages The Spectrum (Sirius XM). Thanks. ~2026-35816-53 (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recreations of Carlossuarez46 geostubs

I've come across a number of articles which were part of the 2021 batch deletion of Carlossuarez46's Iranian "village" stubs and recreated in 2025-26, once again sourced only to census records. For those not familiar, CS46 had created thousands of "village" articles based on the Iranian census and many of them turned out to be things like factories, wells, individual farms and other entities which are used as census-counting points but are not villages and do not meet WP:NPLACE. I don't have a complete list but my prod log for May 2026 gives a good idea of what we're dealing with.

My question is, what is the most expedient way to handle these recreated articles? I PRODded this batch (they're ineligible for G4 Speedy Deletion since there was no AfD discussion) and the creator User:Brightkingdom will let them stand, but I'd like to have a better way than hundreds of PRODs if this turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg. –dlthewave ☎ 00:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The story of CS46 seems to be a well-worn legend and I've familiarized myself with as much of it as I think necessary to understand the history of his mass-production, tied with an apparent contest of some sort back in the day in order for him to obtain administrator status.

My own history in looking for some way to make a difference in this vast area was to try to understand as much about the administrative structure of Iran as possible and attempt to make some sense out of a somewhat complicated system–and whether or not I could untie various knots and problems arising for anyone else who wants to understand what Iran was all about.

I only came across CS46 after he had apparently left the picture, simultaneously realizing he had done a lot of damage along the way, but had also, on the other hand, provided some insight into transliteration, at least some reasonable coordinates, and one or two other tidbits that gave me clues as to how complicated this was going to get. But his work was uneven because of possibly using a robot or something.

Along the way I discovered that many changes had taken place in deciding whether or not a geographic location was "notable" enough to have its own article. Old parameters suggested that at the very least, administrative divisions could be considered notable, since they delineate the structure of all governments, and the encyclopedia contains articles on virtually every administrative division in existence, and many former ones as well.

So I started there several years ago and I believe I have built a truly outstanding set of tables for every level of division for Iran: province, county, district, rural district, and city. This entailed such extensive research as to make a paid editor's head swim, never mind one is unpaid and contributes to boot!

But I found it personally fascinating, learned to read Persian and Arabic along the way, and felt I made a signification contribution. But once I got into making new pages for villages, I got into trouble. I made the assumption that if CS46's many undeleted pages were extant, I would try to improve those and fill in gaps where necessary. I felt for the most part that if I had a reference for its inclusion in the hierarchy; reliable coordinates that I could cite to Google or OpenMaps; populations for three consecutive censuses; transliterations; and a history of its movement among disparate administrative divisions, it would justify a page. Because there are hundreds of these pages kicking around for years with so much less information than my minimum, that my thinking went, "Geez, no one got rid of those, and after all they are stubs that can be improved as per Wiki pleas, and I can make better new ones that don't look in any different from what was already acceptable at one time. If we rid ourselves of my recent creations, I can make a very good argument with deleting those without so much as a 2006 census figure and no reference whatever to where it actually is now: because thousands of them are attributed to laughably incorrect divisions.

I don't wish to fight. I absolutely see your side of the issue, trust me. I genuinely felt I was improving the encyclopedia and it appears I was tragically wrong. It doesn't mean I'm going anywhere...there's a lot of work to do. I'm just giving my side of the story to possibly enlighten the folks who want to flush my stuff. I get it. No hard feelings. It is I who have misunderstood. I guess I took the "be bold" and "do what's best for the encyclopedia if bending the rules doesn't break anything."

Brightkingdom (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have revoked Brightkingdom's autopatrolled permission since I think this discussion shows that their article creations need NPP review. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to do this but 1) I'm involved and 2) the disruptive article-creation has stopped. I don't disagree with doing so at this stage, however.

What I would say is these articles should definitely be WP:G4-eligible, and not allowing G4 on them is slowing/stopping any effort to work on them. There was a substantive discussion on their notability - quite a lot more analysis than happens in many AFDs actually - that ended in them being deleted, and this should be sufficient.

And yes, this is yet another instance of the insane "legally-recognised, populated place" standard causing us problems. People think there's some kind of government-maintained list of villages/towns/cities for every country that can be used to generate unproblematic articles when this simply isn't true. The Russian census lists farms and railway stations! The Polish census lists forester's cottages! The Iranian census lists literal coffee houses! FOARP (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran about this.

I picked a random one to check, Larim Dahaneh, and it seems to point to coordinates somewhere outside an apparent settlement on the OSM map. When I did a check for the enclosing features, it found only the level 7 Larim-e Shomali Rural District. So it's not clear what would be the level 8, which is listed at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#Sub-national for Iran as Village (روستا / Rousta). On the Google Maps, it's identified, but there are no boundaries, and no Street View to check if the place is signposted.

If that's the best we get from current crowdsourced information, which doesn't have to be accurate but could at least be indicative, it's not clear if these apparent settlements are villages or hamlets worth documenting individually as gazetteer entries or not. --Joy (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Worth quoting the Iranian census-enumerator's guide on this:

"In this census, a settlement is defined as a set of one or more interconnected places and lands (both agricultural and non-agricultural) located outside the boundaries of cities and having an independent registered or customary boundary. Accordingly, not only villages, but also farms, coffee houses, mines, railway stations, etc. that have independent registered or customary boundaries are also considered settlements."

So there just isn't any concrete verification that this is actually a village/hamlet.

It's important to note that the Iranian census is hardly special in including things that would not normally be described as a "village" - lots of countries have such entities recorded in censuses and other official lists of settlements. They do this because their goal is to count all of the people living in the country, not just the ones living in places that we would consider "villages".

It means that a straight-forward, naïve reading of WP:GEOLAND, such as the one Brightkingdom describes doing above, results in editors generating thousands upon thousands of articles about railway stations, petrol stations, water-pumps, farms, shops, bridges, forester's huts, military camps, police stations, research institutes, railway-sidings, martialling-yards, passing-loops, mines, churches, shops, factories, hotels, prisons, camp-sites, nomad-counting-places, dams, oil-rigs, (etc. etc. etc. etc.). This list isn't made up - every one of these is an actual case we've had to deal with. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Once again: G4 is strictly for recreations of deleted content, not for different articles (even problematic ones) on the same subjects. Of course, we can G7 anything that Brightkingdom chooses to db-author. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Brightkingdom did nominate a bunch of articles for G7. Be on the lookout for ones that were created from blank-and-redirects, since some of these are being improperly declined because they still show CS46 as the original creator. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

On a different note — permanent military camps (versus temporary bivouacs) and railway stations are pretty much always notable, like villages, so I'd oppose deleting articles about them without good evidence that there's a problem. Of course, "we don't trust that this is really what it claims to be" is a good reason, especially in bulk, but one can always edit and improve a given article and demonstrate that it can be kept, independent of the rest. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NSTATION requires GNG, so a lot of train stations aren't going to be notable. In any case the station is going to be a completely different topic and would require different sources than the census. I would lean toward deleting the spurious "village" articles and let editors create new ones about the stations if they're so inclined. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Right. Hardest, hardest possible disagree with the idea that a railway station or a military base should have a GNG-defeating presumption of notability. These are ultimately all organisations/buildings/railway stations and we already have dedicated GNG-based notability guides for all of these. This is especially when so many of these are not as described.

Take, for example, Hashemabad Air Force Base (permalink) - that's CS46's translation of the Farsi name پايگاه پدافندهوائي هاشم اباد, which Google translate renders as "Hashemabad Air Defence Base". Instantly you see the problem that an "air defence base" is quite a different thing to an "air force base". One is simply a base for personnel and equipment for shooting down enemy aircraft, whilst the other is typically a base for aircraft - but which is it? I'm not a Farsi speaker so I don't know. CS46 thought that he understood written Farsi, but given what happened, and the views of Farsi-speakers who reviewed his articles, it is possible that they did not read it as well as they thought they did.

Then you look at the location - no runway/airstrip can be seen there, despite Brightkingdom including it on a list of airports. It is unlikely to have been an "air force base" in the sense of being a base for military aircraft, though I suppose it's possible that it was a base for Iranian air force personnel.

Then you look at how the location in the article is labelled on Google maps: it's a military base called Majid Askari. Brightkingdom relied on OpenStreetMap to add this location to the article, but OpenStreetMap is a Wiki-like source. Looking at OpenStreetMap and running the names shown through Google Translate's image-based translation it appears to show both the names "Majid Askari" and "Hashemabad Military Base" for it. So what actually is the name of the location? We don't know.

And this is the same problem reproduced across thousands and thousands of articles that CS46 dumped on to the encyclopaedia at a rate of hundreds a day. Literally hundreds a day - the day he created Hashemabad Air Force Base he created 500 other articles (EDIT: that's "at least 500 articles" because the ones that have since been deleted won't show up in this search).

TL;DR, these articles sets are a total mess. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The bulk nature of the whole thing should suffice to void the presumption of validity in this case.

On a more general note, the standard of WP:5P1 is already very inclusive - everything that is in an encyclopedia, a gazetteer or an almanac is already presumed eligible. But if we only have unclear primary sources and vague crowdsourced information, we're below even that standard.

A generous thing to do with the bulk information would be to assume WP:potential for a list based on these primary sources. --Joy (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joy -WP:5P1 absolutely does not say that everything in a gazetteer or an almanac is eligible. Even the briefest read of a typical gazetteer or almanac would show you why this is.

Here's just a random section in a random page of a randomly-selected Virginia gazetteer (Henry Gannett's 1904 one):

Page from the 1904 Virginia Gazetteer

This is not cherry-picked, it's a very typical example of what a gazetteer actually is, which is, as our article says "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas". That's right, a gazetteer is an example of two things that Wikipedia is explicitly WP:NOT.

For almanacs the situation is the same. Here's a randomly-selected page in Old Moore's Almanack:

Random page from Old Moore's Almanack, 1862

Again, this is a very typical almanac listing all the dates of all the fairs and farmer's markets in England. There is no cherry-picking going on here. This is exactly what an almanac actually is. The typical almanac "includes information like weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables, and other tabular data often arranged according to the calendar. Celestial figures and various statistics are found in almanacs, such as the rising and setting times of the Sun and Moon, dates of eclipses, hours of high and low tides, and religious festivals". This is exactly the kind of indiscriminate information that Wikipedia is also explicitly WP:NOT.

I'm sorry to go into detail here but the idea that Wikipedia is also a gazetteer or an almanac, when these things are - for very good reasons - explicitly not what Wikipedia is, is one that is unfortunately widespread. FOARP (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@FOARP I don't know why you have the need to argue such a red herring with someone who is agreeing with you :) the key point here is that we do not have evidence of a Larim Dahaneh listing in an almanac or a gazetteer, so it's immaterial to even ponder that route. --Joy (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, I've seen many, many, many people stating essentially this: that anything in a gazetteer/almanac is elligible. Typically it's based on never having actually read either. Apologies if you are not in that number. FOARP (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Could we just G7 CS46's articles?

We've been WP:G7'ing the recreations of CS46's articles by Brightkingdom based (AFAIK) on Brightkingdom's statement that they would let the deletions stand. CS46's last statement here was:

"Go ahead. I'm sufficiently pissed off at the blatant racism and attacks that I really don't care what more you do. You all have sullied WP. I would like to withdraw all my contributions here as you all don't want them. Please make it so. I'm gone."

I'm not planning to go wild on these articles, any more than we have been deleting all of Brightkingdom's recreations, but the above looks like a clear case of "author requests deletion" to me. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Support This will skip the bureaucracy of verifying 10000's of questionable village stubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, no-one's objected so far, so I'll run a test-case and see what people say. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The trial-run was accepted. See here. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Further trial-runs have been accepted, see 1 2 3 4 5. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

13 more accepted. See my CSD log for more details. FOARP (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. This has been a dreadful drain on editor resources for far too long. JoelleJay (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@JoelleJay - 100%. Could not possibly agree more. I just went through 25 Iranian "village" articles that had "Sherkat" (شركت , which machine-translation tells me means "Company") in the title. Every single one for which there was any way of verifying what it actually was, was exactly what the title declared it to be: a company, not a village. This is more than five years after CS46 quit and more than twelve years after he was made to stop mass-creating these things. After literally thousands of (maybe already more than 20k total?) articles deleted via prods, AFDs, speedies, extraordinary deletions etc. CS46's talk page is now on its 28th archive. Multiple editors have spent years on this, with no end in sight.

We've tested the idea that people are going to improve these articles to destruction. There is no way we can improve articles that completely fail our PAGs because they are about completely WP:MILL, WP:GEOLAND-failing census-generated artefacts that are really companies, military bases, pumps, wells, farms, shops, bridges, coffee-houses (etc. etc. etc.) for which no sourcing is likely to exist. Ever.

And there isn't any reason to either. CS46 himself said we could just delete them. Let's take him at his word. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's remarkable that there has been any resistance to mass-deleting these things at all. Perhaps a filter could be made that flags new articles where the Persian name indicates it's a non-GEOLAND entity (e.g. شركت, though this one might need some tailoring to make sure it's specific to geo articles as opposed to companies) and alerts the creator to the issue. JoelleJay (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair there wasn't much resistance. It was mostly "well, let's take the low-hanging fruit", but we never made the next step from there.

What I'm considering as a next step is putting a G7 notice on every unimproved abadi CS46 article with a population below 10. As documented at WP:ABADI, Iranian law states that localities must (amongst other criteria, such as not being factories or individual farms) have a population larger than 100 people in 20 families to become actual villages. 10% of this limit seems a good safety-margin for the next step. FOARP (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support in view of the analysis above

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Alternate proposal: Could we make an X-series CSD specifically for these "abadi" articles? Example (feel free to improve):

  Articles about abadis with population under 25 (or 10), referenced only to census records, or indiscriminate sources such as GNIS or atlases. This criterion applies only to pages created by Carlossuarez46, with no significant edits since creation.

(here "significant edits" is determined similarly to G5). Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 20:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just highlighting this, but Camp Office, Iranshahr... FOARP (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

And just to highlight this one as well: July 7 International Airport. The things wrong with this include:

1) There is no July 7 International Airport in Iran or anywhere else. Especially, there is no such airport next to the existing Imam Khomeini International Airport.

2) The Farsi name in the article (فرودگاه بين الملي هفت و تير) machine-translates as Haft-e Tir International Airport. Haft-e Tir is the seventh day of the Iranian month of Tir, a date that is 28 June in the Gregorian calendar.

3) There is also no Haft-e Tir International Airport. I checked if IKIA or Mehrabad IA (Tehran's two international airports) were ever proposed to be named this, but drew a blank.

4) Even if there was, an airport is clearly not "a village".

I just don't know how this article was even produced, except that at least 196 other articles were produced using the same methodology on the same day. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@FOARP, is there some reason you aren't batch-deleting these? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we should. The ones that have a population under 100 and haven’t had any improvement since their original creation that is. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In any other situation, a request to "please delete everything I've ever done" in reaction to a dispute as was shown here would be rejected as bad-faith throwing one's toys out of the pram. While I don't actually object to batch-deleting everything Carlossuarez46 what you are really asking for is an exemption from normal procedures not a straightforward following of them. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 14:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as G7, support X series - This can turn into a new speedy deletion criterion, but not a G7. The top thing on the G7 section of speedy deletion is If requested in good faith. This was clearly not requested in good faith. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 17:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  This sounds like a good idea. Throwback to CSD X1 for redirects created by Neelix (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to review talk page discussion closure

I am requesting that an uninvolved admin review the closure of Talk:Major Oak#Tense and either re-open the discussion, write a new closing statement, or otherwise intervene or recommend next steps. I believe this should not have required admin intervention but here we are.

Talk:Major Oak#Tense was initiated on June 19. Later that same day (UTC), a thread was initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Talk:Major Oak#Tense. I saw the MOS thread and posted there and at Talk:Major Oak#Tense. The temp account ~2026-34502-67 (talk · contribs · logs) closed the discussion Talk:Major Oak#Tense on 22 June stating in the edit summary "clear consensus, enough effort spent, closing this and removing tag". I then started a new section below the closed discussion at Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment where I expressed my opinion that I disagreed with the closure. Other editors quickly agreed and @NebY reversed the close but was promptly reverted by the temp account.

After further discussion, I re-opened the original thread. At that time, I was unaware that NebY and the temp account had gone back and forth about this already in the edits. I was also promptly reverted by the temp account and warned about disruptive behavior and edit warring.

The original closure was unnecessary, incorrectly assessed consensus, and halted ongoing discussion that had moved beyond the initial question to more nuanced approaches to addressing the content issue. When I reverted the close, I believed I was enacting clear consensus among the small group of editors who had participated. As I have stated, I was unaware that NebY and the temp had previously opened and re-closed the discussion. I acknowledge that I was INVOLVED, and that I had not reviewed the edit history before re-opening the discussion, but this seemed straightforward.

We are at an impasse with ~2026-34502-67 (talk · contribs · logs) requiring "more discussion" on the meta-issue of whether or not it was appropriate to close the original discussion. This is distracting from and impeding the continuation of the original content discussion, which the rest of us would like to see re-opened. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Clerk-y note: Redrose64 was the closer of the earlier related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Talk:Major_Oak#Tense that may or may not be interpreted as part of the same overall motion. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not consider this part of the problem. Redrose64 closed the WT:MOS discussion per WP:MULTI. I believe this was appropriate but more importantly, there appears to be no controversy about that action and editors at WT:MOS have continued the discussion there without issue. I only mentioned the MOS discussion because it is relevant to how and I and other editors became involved in the original Talk:Major Oak discussion in the first place. The issue here is the dispute over the appropriateness of your closure at Talk:Major Oak#Tense and whether or not to re-open it. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that closure of that discussion, not an RFC or suchlike, was unwanted and unwarranted. It's been difficult discussing it with someone who even rejects reference to WP:WHENCLOSE, saying "Just linking to a document in WP namespace doesn't amount to an argument." NebY (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Another clerk-y note: Aside from NebY, the other involved party notified by Myceteae is Martinevans123. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well spotted, clerky. My suggestion: re-open the discussion and ditch your close comments. Or, if you're too embarrassed, let an involved other editor re-open the discussion and ditch your close comments. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did notify Martinevans123, the other editor involved in the discussion to reverse your premature closure. Nothing strange about that. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that another editor, @User:BrechtBroBrechtBro, has requested pending changes or semi-protection due to disruptive edits by temp/unregistered users during the active Major Oak discussion. See: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Major Oak. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction: @User:BrechtBro made the request. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone who is tangentially involved in both discussions (to either support someone else's proposed solution or to point out when a phrase was added), I agree that the close was premature and would recommend the temp account remove their closure.
While there is a cluster of comments that lean towards using is, there are also some editors before and one after who support using was, with none of them entertaining the idea of using the former; I would hardly call that a consensus (at a really rough estimate I'd say it's closer to a 40-60 split between was and is).
It seems like the temp account was concerned that there could have been an influx of new editors to the discussion due to the use of a {{discuss}} tag in the article (with a significant risk the discussion will never end), which has since been removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this important context. Both me and @NebY responded in the thread indicating support for removal of the {{discuss}} tag. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we get some help here? Even just a blessing from an uninvolved admin or experienced editor that we can re-open the discussion (or a clear determination otherwise)? —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There hasn't been any new activity from the temp account over the past few days. While I don't have a stake in the discussion, it would be nice to have it unclosed without fear of getting reverted near on the spot. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanchita Basu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article was unilaterally draftified during an AfD. Should the article be returned to mainspace, or should the AfD be closed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Well within an admin's permitted discretion range during an AfD, although Deb probably should've closed the AfD itself at the same time with that as a decision. Minnow to them for not doing so, trout to you for not discussing this with them first on their talk page. You probably also want to inform them of this discussion, since it directly involves them. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 18:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-admin temporary account user comment)

Thank you for bringing that up@LaundryPizza03.

"Well within an admin's permitted discretion range during an AfD", maybe but on what grounds was it still appropriate at the moment of the move to Draft to do so since 1) a !vote indicated that at least one person who was not the page creator thought the topic was notable and took time to explain why by presenting policy-based arguments 2) the same person (myself) had improved the page to back their !vote with 7 sources.

I personally consider the Move should be undone and the discussion follow its due process. If the outcome is to Draftify, so be it but not like this. You cannot ask for community policy-based input and request improvements, on one hand, and at the same time, on the other hand, ignore the said input and improvements to the article.

Thank you. ~2026-35976-24 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, draftification was clearly controversial. Premature actions shouldn't be done at AfD unless it meets a criterion for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

An article at AfD should, under all circumstances, remain as an article in article space until the discussion is closed. If it meets the criteria for speedy keep or speedy delete, or there is a snow consensus for some other action then the AfD should be closed with that outcome first. The sole exception is that there is some urgent need to delete the article that absolutely cannot wait for the time it takes to close the discussion first, but this should be very rare (at most a single digit number of occurrences across the entire project in a year). Moving a page to a different namespace cannot be that urgent. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I've restored it as a contested draft in my capacity as an editor. Not closing this in case others want to weigh in. Star Mississippi 20:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible vandalism at Singer season 11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was just browsing Singer Season 11, and I've noticed that some of the content added do not match the content from the more through Chinese version. For instance, it claims that Anna Karina and John Cleese are participants in the show, despite the former being dead for nearly 7 years and the there is no evidence for the latter ever participating. ~2026-36797-84 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the Last Known Good Version. You can feel free to do so yourself in future — find the last good edit in the history, click the date and time, click "edit" (it'll warn you that you're editing an old version), enter a good edit summary (I just used "unsourced", because the edits were and people irrationally trust named accounts more than TAs like you; you could say something like "unsourced and says John Cleese and Hugh Jackman are appearing, probably vandalism" or the like) and hit 'save'. Thanks for pointing me to this vandalism! • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to change my Username

Hi, I placed one request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameRequest but it was rejected. I am editing with my original name and this has made many problems for me. In my original life I have many degrees (two mater of sciences in software engineering and one psychology) and in art, one Ali degree in Persian calligraphy. I am now a researcher in Natural language processing. I should note that I am an expert in software design, and I can do refactoring of code.

I have been in Wikipedia for about 6 years. You can inspect my activity.

About one year ago one of admins in Persian Wikipedia began to revering my edits by hidden political reasons, and finally blocked me in editing templates. I really think this happened unfairly, and in my opinion, it is due to serious political issues we have in Iran. I should note that I cannot compete admin group because admins advocate each other. Persian Wikipedia have 35 admins non of them knowing anything about software design and refactoring.

Another problem occurred about 6 months ago in English Wikipedia, when I made a template named Template:MergedMap. A huge discussion exists in Template talk:Infobox port. I think these two events are related.

I am editing with my original name and I cannot burn my personality for Wikipedia. So as a final request: If you disagree with changing my username, I would leave Wikipedia forever. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Why was it rejected? 331dot (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

They wrote it was due to the blocking happened in Persian Wikipedia. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Renames are a global process, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. If you would like a public discussion of your rename request, you can use m:Steward requests/Username changes § Simple rename requests instead of the private GlobalRenameQueue. But what might be simpler is to ask on fawiki's admin noticeboard if the community objects to you renaming. Generally, global renamers are willing to rename a blocked user if the local community is okay with it. Then, if you get that permission, you can just request again via GlobalRenameQueue and link to the conversation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not want to edit on Persian Wikipedia anymore, I only want to continue on English Wikipedia. I should note that admins of Persian Wikipedia have made such a huge damage to my original personality that after one year, I have many problems in my original life. So I can not place any message at fawiki's admin noticeboard, this action is like spreading salt on wound. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say that blocked users can't be renamed?

We do that all the time: when a new user 'Acme Inc' gets hard-blocked for 'promo name & promo edits', it often happens that they request renaming to 'Joe at Acme' or whatevs, and that gets done before their block is lifted (if at all).

Besides, Hooman is only blocked on fa.wiki in one name space, it's not even sitewide.

Obviously, far be it from me to question Stewards' mastery of the rules, but I for one wasn't aware of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Me neither, absent evidence that the person might br attempting to evade the block or scrutiny. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see the part of Hooman's request (renamer/steward-only link) that made the declining renamer think this might be an attempt to evade scrutiny, although personally that's not how I read the request. Perhaps this should be a thread on the renamers' mailing list. I don't have very strong feelings here, so perhaps @DoubleGrazing or @331dot would like to start it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know renaming policy well enough. Perhaps Cabayi can enlighten us, since they handled that request? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• m:GRP#Policy, third bullet point, "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct."
• It's not a renamer's role to second guess the intent of admins on other wikis or their local policy, nor to disregard the validity of their blocks.

Tamzin's suggestion above points to a venue where this could be considered - m:Steward requests/Username changes and it's probably a better venue than the renamers mailing list which would exclude the wider community.

Pinging the only two renamers with native level Farsi, DejaVu & Ladsgroup. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I might, but it's not going to be soon. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cabayi I didn't expect you to ping admins of Persian Wikipedia. I expect to resolve this issue locally at English Wikipedia.

See I only want to continue editing to

• Correct some typos
• Hyperlink some words
• Small changes in templates

and others, the same as the last 6 years but anonymously from now on. These edits have no advantage for me. I only aim to help people; helping people is my fun. I have not been active on Persian Wikipedia for 1 year and 6 months on English Wikipedia. Continuing this process is good for me, but certainly not for Wikipedia. I only would like to help people. Maybe it is better for me to follow my new habit of not being active at both Wikis. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

We believe that you should discuss this with the stewards, at the link Cabayi provides above. We don't understand why you weren't permitted to change your username. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you! According to here, I created a «a separate and independent new account» for anonymity reason. I think no merge is needed. You can now archive this thread. Thanks again. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Usernames have not been local since 2015. Enwiki cannot dictate to Fawiki that their blocks are worthless. I pinged the two renamers with competence in Farsi. Cabayi (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Best to get confirmation from other editors more experienced in this domain, but on enwiki, I don't think there is any reason why you can't just do a WP:CLEANSTART, i.e. abandon your current account and start with a completely new one. Obviously, you should not use that new account to edit Persian Wikipedia (or any other wikipedia site where you are not an editor in good standing), but otherwise I see no problem with this approach. Fram (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis. Looking at this as a global renamer, a denied global rename doesn't prevent creating a new account. Looking at this as an SPI clerk, I'd only be worried about evading scrutiny with respect to a sister-wiki block if someone were trying to hide a pattern of cross-wiki disruption (for instance, making the same kind of edits they were blocked for on a sister wiki, or picking a fight on enwiki with someone who blocked them on a sister wiki). As long as Hooman doesn't do anything on a CLEANSTART account that connects to the fawiki block or any other sister-wiki conflicts, there should be no problem. That said, Hooman, be aware that some wikis like Wikidata do not allow undisclosed alternative accounts even for good-faith reasons, so be mindful where you use the account. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin@Fram Thanks for your response. Also in my opinion, WP:CLEANSTART is a really good strategy for me. Be sure that I wouldn't continue editing on Persian Wikipedia anymore, being such an extremely toxic (illiterate and rude) environment. I should note that until now I have experienced many damages to my real personality by Persian Wikipedia community.

If you agree, we could close and archive this thread.

I wish I could promote English Wikipedia in the best way. I should note that I want to continue editing anonymously for small changes on articles (like typos, hyperlink, etc.) and also making articles related to my research area. Best regards! Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Continued vandalism following indefinite block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Weeks ago User:Olafrangnar was blocked following this discussion for repeatedly adding the same fabricated footballer to multiple articles. Since the block, the same edits have resumed from an anonymous IP, again inserting the same non-existent player despite previous reversions as seen here.

I'm not sure whether this is more appropriately handled as a sockpuppet investigation or simply as block evasion. Given the continued disruption and repeated insertion of the same hoax content, I believe an administrative review of the IP and whether an IP block or other measures are appropriate would be helpful. JayFT047 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It's fine to leave it here since it's been reported, FYI really clearly obvious block evasion can be reported to WP:AIV - just remember to give some diffs because those reports have to be done rather quickly & the admin won't have any history. If there are a few and/or it's not really obvious, then WP:SPI is the way to go. They also have the advantage that you don't need to notify the editors you're reporting. BTW You've not notified them yet so I'll do that now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review at Talk:2026 Iran war

A recent RfC at Talk:2026 Iran war was closed with the effective result of A. Switching the |status parameter in the military conflict infobox to |result, and B. Having that |result be "Iranian victory".

@Locke Cole described the issue better than I can:

I hate to say it, but I think the closure of the RFC was a WP:BADNAC. WP:RFC says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The closer also invoked WP:AVALANCHE (a stronger WP:SNOW), even though there was clearly disagreement, as well as disagreement with the formulation of the RFC itself (which presented as a false choice). SNOW implies a near unanimous consensus, and this wasn't that. RFC discussions shouldn't be closed while comments are actively being made, and this one was, and well before the 7-day minimum recommended at WP:RFC.
I think a better RFC would be a 3-part question: 1) Do we use the |result= or the |status=? 2) If we choose |result=, what result do we choose (the infobox suggests this should be either "X victory" or "Inconclusive"); "Iranian victory", "United States victory", or "Inconclusive"? 3) Do we want to have an X-day moratorium on future RFCs on this topic absent major developments?
Let the RFC run until there's either been no significant discussion for 48 hours or up to a week.

With a note that the opinions expressed should be based on the WP:RS, not our personal opinion on whether this event is over or our personal opinion on who the "victor" was (all of that would be WP:OR).

I also may repeat that @MWFwiki seconds the points raised.

I'll note that a couple of users reached out to the closer with concerns, relatively recently. There's been no response yet, but in any case I think that the high visibility of the page and the possibility of having to restart the RfC means it would be good to have broader input (i.e from here) about how best to proceed—in other words I think I am unable to resolve the issue [adequately] through discussion with the closer Placeholderer (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: At Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, it says you may use {{subst:RfC closure review}}. "May" implies being optional; I feel like the template is unnecessarily antagonistic here, and the underlying RfC is also at issue, but I've saved a reformatted version of this using the template offwiki and can convert this to use the template if that's better Placeholderer (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a better RFC would be a 3-part question why don't you start that RfC, then? Consensus can change. I maintain that there was clear consensus for an avalanche closure in this RfC (>2/3rds by raw vote count, clear by argument strength) to answer the second question. I don't think reopening the existing flawed RfC would be a productive outcome, and I don't really care about semantics, so I'd accept an overturn to "no consensus as bad RfC" or something similar if it'd make you feel better. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In your close, you wrote "Supporters point to reliable sources that call it an Iranian victory". Could you please provide these sources? In addition, you also wrote that "opposers bring up WP:NPOV". MWFwiki states that they only recall seeing neutrality brought up once, and not seeing NPOV at all. As such, can you link the comments that point toward this as the main argument of the oppose side? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Feeglgeef, I would agree that this was prematurely closed. I would also agree that this was a bad RfC because it assumed that the war was over and it assumed only two possible ways to describe the result (Iranian victory or inconclusive). There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2026 Iran war#The war isn't over yet and See Aftermath is another option per MOS:MILRESULT. There was also repeated reference to [a majority of] sources but these were not presented as evidence. Consequently, it is an opinion as to what [a majority of] sources actually say. I was in the process of looking at the sources (several which are paywalled) and find that some have not been accurately represented. This source is cited in the infobox to support an Iranian victory. It poses a question, "So, who actually won?" and answers, "The answer depends entirely on who is being asked". It states that, from an Iranian perspective, it was a defeat for Washington but from Trump's perspective a decisive victory. It continues, "Independent analysts are similarly divided, and many conclude that nearly everyone lost something."

Unit the questions identified by Placeholderer are resolved, I recommend that the result should be substituted with status. The status to read: Islamabad Memorandum and Ceasefire extended until date. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

During the RfC, I referred multiple times to the Aftermath section (which another editor has since moved) and sources therein. Those sources have also been explicitly listed (by me) in the ongoing Talk:2026 Iran war#The war isn't over yet discussion, along with the paragraph summarizing them in the article body. entropyandvodka | talk 00:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Entropyandvodka: Sorry if I'm blind or something, but you don't appear to have left a comment at Talk:2026 Iran war#The war isn't over yet? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. I conflated that one with the related discussion, where my comment listing the sources is near the bottom: Talk:2026 Iran war#MOS:VICTORY entropyandvodka | talk 01:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time or energy to respond to all of these comments/complaints/questions, so I've vacated my closure. I maintain its merit, but as I won't be defending it I don't think it's reasonable to keep it. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the bigger/root problem was the setup of the RfC itself, which isn't your fault. Sorry if this was a drain Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, don't close things unless you are prepared to answer questions and/or defend your closure. If you "don't have the time or energy to respond to all of these comments/complaints/questions[...]" then you should not have the "time or energy" to make the closure. I don't think @ARandomName123, @Cinderella157, and @Placeholderer were acting in bad faith and framing their points merely as "complaints" - even just in-part - is hardly appropriate. They have as much right to question your closure as you had to make it.

If you maintain the closure's "merit" then you should not have vacated your closure and you should be able to verbalize justification for it (and to be clear, I recognize and appreciate that you acknowledge that your lack of desire to defend your position led you to vacate the closure). People disagreeing with a closure is almost universal. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong or that the closure should be vacated. If your first response to pushback is to get defensive ("[...]why don't you start that RfC, then?" - even if it's not "defensive", we're here to examine your closure) and you make no attempt to answer the questions posed to you, I have to opine that perhaps this was an inadvisable close. That's not even touching on WP:BADNAC, which advises that a NAC may not be appropriate if, per point 1: "The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial." You acknowledge that the RfC was "flawed", so I would additionally argue that a NAC is ill-advised per point 1 of WP:NACPIT.

Regardless, it's moot, now, anyways, so, I won't beat the dead horse any further. I appreciate you vacating the closure.  — MWFwiki (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• There would appear to be a number of discussions at the talk page that are working at cross-purposes, noting that we now have two open RfCs operating in competition with each other and other discussions addressing the same issues. At the infobox, there has been well intended but disruptive editing around what the infobox should say while the matter is being resolved (ie, what is the status quo in the interim). I would suggest that full protection of the infobox would be appropriate at this point. I would also suggest some admin intervention that would resolve the multiple discussions into one centralised discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Admins familiar with WP:CTOP practices might also be interested in chiming in here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#1RR_WP:CTOP_restrictions_and_templates —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hopefully most discussion that seems to fall under the new RfC can migrate there. Would it suffice to leave notes under them to direct to the RfC? I'm hesitant to suggest that apparently redundant discussions be closed, since when that was done (in good faith) for the last RfC there was stuff (namely the status v. result thing) that I thought was left unresolved—Idk if other people see stuff that would be unresolved here.

  I think it'd be worth adding a subsection under the RfC to discuss what should be up during discussion—but I'd just want a second opinion before contributing to discussion bloat I say, as I discuss how to discuss what should be up during discussion... Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  My understanding is that the status quo was"ongoing." I am assuming that the change to "Iranian victory" was what led to the RfC starting in the first place, so shouldn't it be changed back to ongoing until the RfC is over? Slava570 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the status quo would be debatable if we switched to the new RfC, but given that we're still on the old RfC at this point the status quo is unambiguously a |status parameter.

  The debate if we switch to the new RfC would be whether or not to grandfather in the existing violation of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS given it's survived so long Placeholderer (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I would really appreciate if an admin can do something about this. It still has not been resolved and people keep switching the infobox to "Iranian victory" which is not the status quo. I have changed it again, but how do we know no one else will put it back in? We really need admin input here. If I have incorrectly reverted the infobox, please let me know as well... Slava570 (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Admins, acting as admins, can only address behavior, not content. Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior tells you how to deal with edit-warring. You can also request page protection to inhibit edit-warring, but be aware that the protected version is always the wrong version. Donald Albury 16:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: New, three-part RfC

Given that reopening the IMO-bad RfC doesn't address my own main concern (the skipping over of discussion on whether to use |status or |result) I figured I'd more explicitly propose to use start a new RfC with Locke Cole's suggested structure. Presumably this would mean re-closing the old RfC as "bad RfC" Placeholderer (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, preparing for work, so will be brief. Yeah, I think the three-part RfC is best, with hat-note to state "Replaced by below", etc. I'm in support of the new RfC, as written. (Moreover, I don't think any of us meant to distress Feeglgeef.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer (and others), I have proposed a Moratorium. If the end of the war is disputed, then I don't think we need an RfC to go back to the long-standing version of "ongoing". We can revert it, put a moratorium for two months, and then see what's what. There is no deadline. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I just tried reverting to the status quo ante, but it was now changed back to "victory" by Entropyandvodka. Regardless of any other considerations, shouldn't it just be the status quo per WP:ONUS until the RfC is over and there is a new consensus? Slava570 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted it back as the prior RFC decision was vacated by the author. I've also started a new RFC, I'm hesitant to touch the old one, if someone uninvolved would like to close it as malformed or incorrectly stated it would be appreciated. As Placeholder said, the RFC wasn't Feeglgeef's fault, it was just a false choice that basically assumed the event was over and left participants choosing how to list the outcome instead... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, could you also add the options to have something like "See Aftermath section" (or analysis/June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding in this case), and to omit the parameter entirely? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If we're talking about |result=, omit means going back to |status=. From my understanding if we use |result= the guidance is to have a very no-nonsense entry (X victory or Inconclusive). —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Omitting result doesn't mean we have to use status. These are both optional, and the infobox docs say to "Omit [the result] parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation". Regarding the "See..." parameter, the docs say that "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section").". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it, I'll go add those as options. =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me know if my changes addressed your suggestion. Also, feel free to modify it yourself as long as you aren't making significant changes (and since nobody has !voted yet). =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A yet more explicit roadmap

With the new RfC currently closed, either until the closer reverses or someone else finds consensus to do so, I suggest this:

• Close the old RfC
• Reopen the new RfC
• Start a subsection in the new RfC to discuss what should be in the infobox during the new RfC: status quo (which one?) or a compromise. This is preferable to whatever's going on at the template's page history.
• Leave notifying comments in talk sections that are covered by the new RfC to direct them to the new RfC, without closing them (for now)

Can we get an efficient consensus here so we can drop the meta-discussion and move on to actual discussion? Placeholderer (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just as a reminder of the issues caused by premature RFC closures and RFCs that present false choices, we're currently a "source" for a Newsweek piece that says Wikipedia called the war for Iran (and they're not the only one saying similar things). It's almost literally a case of citogenesis... Wikipedia should report what other sources say, not be a source on its own. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's true, but the fact that the Newsweek is endorsing the result shown by describing the Wikipedia as echoing "what several military experts and geopolitical watchers have told Newsweek," should be taken into account. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Newsweek agreeing with "Iranian victory" should be taken into account, but we don't lead, we follow, so Newsweek endorsing it should not be taken into account. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 12:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Avalanche close

(moved from User talk:Feeglgeef where it was blanked)

Hi, I had wanted to reply to the Iran War RfC, but you closed it after only one day. If I had known that would happen, I would have commented yesterday. You linked to WP:AVALANCHE, which assumes the RfC had a snowball's chance in hell of failing. I think there was more than a snowball's chance in hell. The arguments for change were far better arguments, though there were fewer of them. I also have at least three sources I wanted to cite for the change side, including the BBC. And the standard for proving something is conclusive is much higher than inconclusive. To be conclusive there has to be clear consensus among RS. Whereas a minority opinion can be enough to prove something is inconclusive. (PS. the RfC tag hasn't been removed, so it is still listed on the RfC page.) Slava570 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it was incorrect to close the RfC, especially after one day; most RfCs go for a week, at least, if not longer. I also object to the fact that it was a non-admin closure to a controversial topic, and clearly more time was needed for a consensus to develop, or not. After all, I did note in my vote—the last one, for the record—that recent events (such as the closure of the Strait yesterday) might yet still derail the possible peace itself. Such things still might occur, so even declaring an outcome would be hasty. After all, we should be following the sources, not trying to impose our will (collective or not) on world affairs. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've opened a thread at AN discussing the close/potential things to do. Your contribution is welcome Placeholderer (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

See my comment there, courtesy pings @Slava570, Javert2113, and Placeholderer. As for some of the specific points that you made.

1. The arguments for change were far better arguments.

   No, no they weren't. At least, I found them to be worse.

2. I also have at least three sources I wanted to cite for the change side, including the BBC.

   From skimming them, it seems like the BBC article is about public perception of victory, not actual victory. The CSIS article states Iran gets most of what it wants, and it gets it up front—before negotiations on a final deal even start. The United States gets very little. The Hudson Institute is a conservative foreign policy think tank, so I'm not surprised they believe we won. Factoring in their opinion (even as "Inconclusive") in the infobox would be undue.

3. And the standard for proving something is conclusive is much higher than inconclusive.

   The standard for putting something in an article is that it's not forbidden by policy or consensus.

4. most RfCs go for a week, at least, if not longer

   What happens to most RfCs is irrelevant.

5. I also object to the fact that it was a non-admin closure to a controversial topic

   See WP:NACRFC.

Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to #4, it's actually not irrelevant. It's exactly what is described at WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. You must also consider the logistics of editors around the world, not everyone has the ability to respond and participate on short notice. Closing it less than 48 hours after the topic was opened, while conversation was clearly still continuing is the opposite of when a close should happen. Especially as you cite WP:AVALANCHE.

With regard to #5, I don't think @Javert2113 was objecting to a NAC of an RFC, but rather to WP:BADNAC #1: A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations: 1. The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial.

All that being said I don't think reopening the RFC would be helpful, but editing your closure to indicate the deficiencies described above and that the result was still in flux when you closed it would help make the transition to a new RFC better. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to #1: A majority of votes for the keep side were not based in any policy. You said so yourself in your close.

Responding to #2: the CSIS article literally says [Iran] Lost the War in the title and in the body. It also lists several things the US won. Ultimately the article says neither side had a decisive victory. Hence inconclusive. Second, it's irrelevant that the third source comes from a conservative outlet. See WP:BIASED. These sources are valid. If you are excluding a source for this reason, that is a POV issue.

Responding to #3: WP:NPOV says: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views. Even if the argument for a US victory or inconclusive is a minority view, it needs to be reflected in the article in proportion to the preponderance of that view in sources. If you want to exclude that view entirely, that is another NPOV issue. "Inconclusive" would reflect a broader array of views, while "Iranian victory" excludes the minority viewpoint. Slava570 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is any editor approaching this from a perspective of "we won" or "we did not win." We didn't participate. The United States and Israel are engaged in a war with Iran. Wikipedia is not a party to that conflict, nor are many people who edit Wikipedia in countries that aren't a party to the conflict. Looking at this from outside, it doesn't look like anyone has won anything yet because the negotiations to end hostility are ongoing and what little peace there is in the region is incredibly tenuous. I think most of the sources are prevaricating on whether this conflict is even over, let alone who won. And even then, I would prefer Wikipedia wait for the academy to weigh in before declaring a winner. There's far too much risk of propagandistic bias from literally any news source supportive of either side of this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@MWFwiki, Slava570, Javert2113, Placeholderer, and Feeglgeef: Feeglgeef doesn't have time to justify their RFC closure, and ignored my advice in this thread taken from their talk page to simply edit their closure (instead vacating the closure and effectively reopening the RFC), but does have time to try and derail the new RFC. My good faith is getting a bit exhausted here. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 04:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, a little strange, particularly given that their first reply was "star your own RfC." However, I think what they're getting-at is that perhaps we should permit the first RfC (the one they re-opened) to conclude before touching this one. The two are slightly at-odds. That said, they should probably remove themselves from these discussions just as a courtesy now that they're involved to the level that they are; just as we would expect a closer to not be involved in the RfC or indeed too involved on the page, I would expect a closer to not turn-around and involve themselves in the discussion... but that's just my opinion.  — MWFwiki (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just weighing in here - I've been watching this discussion and both the RfCs, but yet to comment on either as I was concerned that having multiple open proposals might happen and muddy the waters, as I mentioned to TurboSuperA+ and Placeholderer. While I can understand Redrose64's closure of the most recent RfC on procedural grounds, I wonder if they were aware of this discussion? I'd be interested to hear their thoughts as an admin on the best way to proceed here. I am also concerned by Feeglgeef's intervention in the latest RfC given their previous assertion of WP:AVALANCHE as a reason for closure. But I'd like to hear their rationale before making assumptions about their motivation. As there appears to be considerable support for the notion the initial RfC was flawed, or at least that a third option is necessary, I'd appreciate some advice from RedRose or another uninvolved admin on the best way to proceed here for the sake of stopping this situation from becoming messier still! Dfadden (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Let this be a cautionary tale of the dangers of doing things too soon. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 10:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just got back from work and all—another reason why we shouldn't do things too soon. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grilledcheeseisgreat @Javert2113 I think I made this clear to them. Certainly don't close things if you're then going to assert you don't have time to defend your position. Which, again, in all fairness to them, they did withdraw their closure.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

And it looks like @Redrose64 has closed the discussion without seemingly considering everything else that has gone on... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 11:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think people are being far too hasty to call the war with Iran over. I know that most people in the world (certainly myself included) would like to see this costly, pointless and unnecessary conflict end. However the evidence we've seen so far fills me with absolutely no confidence that the war has ended until such time as American and Israeli troops withdraw from their positions. We should be waiting to see that the war actually has ended before declaring a winner. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I closed it because, as was already pointed out in that RfC, there were two ongoing RfCs at once to answer the same question. We do not need this sort of behaviour one bit. One problem, one discussion. I have no opinion whatsoever upon whether the war is "over", resolved, on hold or whatever. I'm just a schmuck who hangs around the RfC listings looking for misuse of the process. Having two RfCs on the same issue is such a misuse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Did you miss the part where there was concern over whether to include the status parameter at all? The false choice the original RFC presented? The fact that it had been rapidly closed in less than two days by a NAC, and when challenged instead of simply modifying their close they completely reversed it, reopening it to new comments despite a growing consensus for a neutrally formulated set of questions? I'm guessing you missed all of that. The original RFC is a WP:TRAINWRECK. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 14:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I will say that the open RfC is not at all good. I just went there and logged a !vote that was not an option in the poll because the options were grossly insufficient requiring a choice between Iranian victory and an inconclusive resolution. These are both WP:CRYSTAL violations until we actually know that this war has ended. Again, I understand wanting this war to be over. I also want this war to be over. But it's not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you miss the fact that when I procedurally closed it, that left one on the page that was still open? Here is what WP:RFC/POL looked like when I arrived at it this morning. The first and third entries cover basically the same issue. That is why I closed the more recent one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The broken RfC should be the one closed on procedural grounds, not the fixed one Placeholderer (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering, is it too late to procedurally close the first RFC though? I'm asking because now that this discussion has come up, I feel like I need to change my vote to Inconclusive or Remove the parameter. And what I think will end up happening is that after the first RFC is over we will have to immediately open a new RFC to clarify this. Whereas if we close the first one and go to the second one, I think it's more likely we will come up with a binding consensus... Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ideally, we would close the first RfC, reopen the second RfC, and ping everybody involved. As for the options, you're able to edit your vote, even if it doesn't fit the options presented. Editors participating are not bound to follow the options given, though they usually do, as its not always clear that they're able to propose their own option. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You procedurally closed a well-formatted, structured RfC and left the broken one that didn't address that the

war might not be over and that explicitly was described as a vote open. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. I mentioned in my previous comment I understand the rationale for your close. But I had been hoping with your experience you could provide some advice on how to resolve the situation please? As the original RfC remains open, a growing number of editors are expressing they believe it is a flawed choice. I have now joined them formally as I dont think there has been any helpful advice yet from uninvovled editors or admins yet despite extensive discussion here at AN on how to approach these concerns. I am certainly not asking you to express an opinion on the war being over or not. However I do think the opening of the second RfC, while misguided was a genuinely collaborative attempt to fix the issues with the original RfC, that was previously closed and reopened in questionable circumstances. Some advice on the correct way to approach addressing the concerns raised in this discussion would really help a lot more than admonishment. Dfadden (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we'll have to accept that it's possible we'll have to break some procedural rules. When a building is collapsing, you aren't trying to follow zoning laws or anything; you're trying to live. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 22:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

To use your analogy, I would say this is more a case of the authorities ignoring our repeated requests to send a qualified engineer to inspect the cracks and tell us if we need to evacuate. If the engineers dont come, or seem more concerned with isuing fines to the people who reported the cracks, those same people arent going to wait around to see if the cracks get worse, nor will they be inclined to ask for help in future... Dfadden (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I swear you just talked over me. Did nothing I mentioned in my reply resonate at all? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Locke Cole was that directed at me sorry? Dfadden (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, that was for Redrose64. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok sorry. Editing on mobile so the nesting looks funny, and the bit about overtaking threw me off! Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at the RfC as an uninvolved admin, and despite coming very close to procedurally closing it as a TRAINWRECK, I don't think I can justify that position based on the discussion to date, and ultimately to do so would be a supervote on my part as I don't really believe that the war is over, arguments notwithstanding. New comments are continuing to come in that continue to affirm support for "Iranian victory", and a large chunk of the "change" comments do not actually argue that the war isn't over, but simply disagree with the verdict that Iran got the upper hand.

There has been an undesirable level of chaos and back-and-forth over the result, which seems to have been the product of individually-policy-compliant-and/or-reasonable but collectively incongruent edits: "Iranian victory" was introduced at a point when there genuinely were enough sources that, for a normal article, could justify inclusion without need for a drawn out discussion. As it became clear that there was some disagreement, an RfC was opened, but given that at the time it appeared that sources were still overwhelmingly supporting "Iranian victory", it was not immediately clear that there was a need to revert back to a prior status quo ante. Continued fighting in Lebanon on the 19th-23rd then made the assertion that the war was over more dubious. Ultimately, I think that the current de facto status quo of Iranian victory[dubious - discuss] is adequate for the time being. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the problems is that, while it's true "Iranian victory" was introduced at a point when there genuinely were enough sources that, for a normal article, could justify inclusion without need for a drawn out discussion, it was, I think, added too quickly for such a high-visibility/contentious article (i.e not "normal"), and only afterwards did the expected standard of a drawn out discussion kick in. The |result change got through on a green light and all objections have been stuck on red, for the arbitrary reason that the |result change was fast—and arguably afoul of NOTNEWS.

And while new comments are going for "Iranian victory", the badness of the old RfC gets in the way of determining consensus. Is every comment weighing whether or not the war is completely over—i.e should the |result parameter, which was never a product of consensus, be there at all? Unless the commenter specifies, it's unknown.

(Thanks for the outside input!) Placeholderer (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill Thanks for looking into this but what it shows that by moving forward quickly with a half-cocked idea and edit warring, it's possible to bypass WP:ONUS. The entire change to what you describe as the de facto status quo took place in just a day or two. This was barely any time for opposing sides to weigh in. Sorry but this is totally unfair. There was no new consensus established, de facto or otherwise. Slava570 (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this objection would be more valid if it weren’t for the extensive participation on the talk page, and the addition of a disputed tag which adequately sums up the current state of dissensus. I would feel empowered to revert back to Ongoing (or just removing the param) if either there was no discussion, if there was discussion that demonstrated a clear consensus in formation against “Iranian victory”, or if the contested text wasn’t clearly tagged with {{disputed-inline}}. But given that none of these conditions hold, intervening at this point in time seems like it would serve only the letter of ONUS without following the spirit of the consensus policy more broadly, and would be taken as an overly bureaucratic objection that would likely just result in additional, ultimately unproductive meta-discussion rather than helping editors or readers.

All that having been said, I agree with your underlying assertion that our normal processes have not done a good job addressing this case of contentious breaking news on a high traffic article (and I believe this is a recurring issue), so I’d be all for workshopping new guidelines to ensure editors don’t jump the gun in situations like this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill. While I agree any attempt to unscramble the egg at this point would be met with strong objections about being bureaucratic, I would point out that bureaucracy has arguably let us get to this point. At the time when the 2nd RfC was opened, there was a growing number of contributors in the initial RfC raising concerns that the choices available were flawed and a third option was needed - eg. We were asked if the situation looked red or blue, but to many of us it looked yellow! Redrose64's close of the 2nd RfC on procedural grounds was in accordance with policy and technically appropriate, per their justification that having two simultaneous RfCs was disruptive. However it appears to have been made without regard for the already lengthy discussion here about the problems with the initial RfC. Their assertion that both RfC covers virtually the same subject matter seems to have missed a lot of the context discussed here and the article talk page. This closure effectively shut down discussion of a third "yellow" option, pushing new comments from that point onwards toward a binary choice. That is clearly going to shape how people respond - it suggests that yellow is off the table and even if it does look yellow, they MUST first choose between red and blue. I also note the close referred to avoiding a discussion forks, but simultaneously removed the venue to have the breakaway discussion continue on the same talk page, bringing it back to AN. Perhaps if we are workshopping new guidelines to prevent this from happening again in the future, we to include how closers should interpret WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page in situations like this as well? Dfadden (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Objections to the tune of "it's yellow" can, are and should be raised in the first RfC, and may warrant updating its opening question, and/or factoring this element of unfairness into assessments of consensus when closing it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The first RfC was a WP:TRAINWRECK. Trying to fix it will just make it even more confusing, which obviously should be avoided. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 22:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to make a note to closer at the top of the first RfC linking to this discussion and asking they also consider the points made here, rather than restating the detailed objections raised here? Or should we summarise this discussion in new comments under the RfC? Dfadden (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: it takes one minute to object to an inherently problematic RfC, it takes much longer to adequately defend my closure to multiple people who all have their own reasons as to why it sucks. And if I were to have edited my closure, plenty of people would have still objected. Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Look, close both if you want to. Or close one and reopen the other in that order. But don't get into a close/reopen ping-pong cycle, that's disruptive; and absolutely do not have two open simultaneously. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Except thats not very helpful as none of those who commented here can close a RfC on the topic since we are all involved editors. That would be extremely unwise given the history here. How do we get another admin to take a look at this discussion and help us resolve the issue? The second RfC was discussed here before it was opened and no admins advised against it. A bit of oversight before people take actions into their own hands and do things that are disruptive again would really help calm things down here. After all, isnt that supposed to be what this board is for? To help resolve disputes? Dfadden (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Review of collapse of talk-page comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor (FDW777) collapsed all of my comments in a discussion as LLM-generated and marked them as excluded from consensus assessment. I asked what basis and evidence supported that determination and explained my stated drafting practice. My request for clarification was not addressed and I was instead directed to ANI. I am requesting uninvolved review of whether this action and the process used to make this determination were appropriate.

Involved editors: Q3YZFU5RM4X and FDW777.

Discussion page: Mirza Masroor Ahmad.

Collapsed comment example: Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad#c-Q3YZFU5RM4X-20260625055500-NPOV and due weight: external perspectives.

My request for clarification on user talk: User talk:FDW777#c-Q3YZFU5RM4X-20260626100400-FDW777-20260625183500 Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I asked Q3YZFU5RM4X to stop with the LLN use here. After Pepperbeast made this further reply, Q3YZFU5RM4X then followed it up with "Those shortcuts contain several considerations, some of which seem potentially relevant to attributed or contextual discussion of terminology", which I simply do not accept is the result of I draft my own content and may use AI tools for suggestions and improvements as claimed on their user page. Accordingly, I collapsed their content as recommended. Suggest something is done about Q3YZFU5RM4X's LLM usage please. FDW777 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This does read like someone's cutting and pasting editor replies into a chatbot and plopping the replies straight out. AI chatbots don't have a good memory, so when the preceding plain list of contextless-links was cut & pasted into its prompt box, all it could do was try to explain what it was currently looking at. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Q3YZFU5RM4X are you using an AI, LLM, chatbot or other form of machine generated text to create your comments? Please answer yes or no, thank you. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Q3YZFU5RM4X, before you answer, see the essay Wikipedia:Do not lie about AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I gotta say, that reads as pretty stereotypical AI use. Certainly AI aided in a way beyond what is appropriate. The editor admits they are a non-native English speaker who may use AI tools for suggestion and improvements. Not that any English speaker will organically write that way, but I'd submit a non-native English speaker who would feel the need to call attention to that fact is unlikely to be able to quickly rattle off these vague, ultra-polished chunks of text. I doubt 95% of English speakers could better imitate an LLM if they wanted to.

Many of these blocks of text don't seem to really understand what the question is, and seem unable to contextualize anything that comes before them in the discussion. The diffs are from a particularly egregious discussion, that last one especially, since it's clear to me at least that the LLM had no idea what to do a list of links, decided to describe what the links were, and then Q3 lacked the ability to understand how preposterous a reply that was.

Q3 opened this discussion, and how/if Q3 responds should play a big factor in how the community goes from there with them. Q3, if you're reading this, you need to respond to these serious concerns without any "suggestions and improvements" from AI tools, and should be 100% written, phrased, and edited in your words. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Their very first edit to their own talk page looks like a good - perhaps the only - example of their own, unassisted writing style, for comparison with whatever they post next. ~2026-36909-66 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have too much to add here. It looks like LLM. It quacks like LLM. Collapsing the comments seems perfectly reasonable. Besides that, I don't appreciate the AI-assisted sealioning. PepperBeast (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm hoping this helps explain my position.

As a non-native English writer, I first think about the issue and the points I want to make, often starting with notes or a rough draft. Where needed, I use AI to help express my ideas more clearly in English.

I review and revise the text before posting to ensure it accurately reflects what I mean. The views I express and the decisions about what arguments to make are my own, and I take responsibility for everything I post.

I would also appreciate views on the question I originally raised. Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for confirming. The problem is that we have a lot of trouble with AI at Wikipedia, especially when it comes to Talk page messages. When AI is involved, messages lose their human touch at best and completely miss the point at worst.

Everyone sounds the same through an AI filter and, being very honest, we hate that.

We want to talk to you, without any chatbots getting in the way - nobody cares if it's imperfect, what's important is that we have two human editors making a connection to create the best encyclopedia that we can.

Please don't use AI here at Wikipedia, it's too risky - if you're a non-native speaker, I also worry that you might have difficulty picking up if/when it subtly changes the meaning of a phrase or claim - I don't know whether that's the case, it's just a concern that comes to mind in cases like these.

Some people use it for basic spell & grammar checking and that's ok, but the moment it changes the content we run into trouble. It uses non-encyclopaedic language and inserts phrases that just shouldn't be in an article. It can also change meaning at random if you're not careful. See WP:NEWLLM and WP:AITALK if you want details.

We don't want to talk to ChatGPT, we want to talk to you. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW WP:LLMCHAT is also helpful for explaining why your comments were hatted in the first place, if you need a bit more context. We've also found out that more machine translation uses AI & LLM these days, so that's something that's important to remember. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what Blue Sonnet has said, nobody here wants you to have a stressful experience. It's just that in order to protect this project from an existential threat, there's little appetite for any LLM use outside of very basic, specific exceptions, and that sliver of an appetite appears to be waning by the day. There are nearly 350 active Wikipedia language versions, so there's a very high probability there's one in your native language. And that Wikipedia version will absolutely need your assistance far more than English Wikipedia, the latter which has the most articles and most active editors. If your English isn't at the level where you're comfortable communicating with us directly or making edits directly in English, I'd strongly urge you to consider editing that project instead, where you will run into far fewer headaches, and make a more valuable contribution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

In response to your original question, I fully support the hatting of the comments you're asking about. The problems with your LLM use -- that it is extensive, not basic, and shows poor awareness of previous comments or comprehension of the conversation beyond the diffs presented -- are significant enough that if they continue, I would support, at a minimum, you being limited to making edit requests rather than editing articles directly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, these struck me as responses that came directly from the AI without much human review, as evidenced by the bot becoming confused by the list of contextless links. I find it very hard to believe that was a human response that was just run through a grammar/spell checker. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

One thing you are obviously unaware of, is that the Wikimedia Foundation is being paid by AI companies for enterprise-level access to Wikipedia's content, for the purpose of training AIs. I want Wikipedia to be better, and I want AIs to be better. Both are harmed in the long run if AIs get trained on their own output.

Therefore, using an AI chatbot as an author is prohibited here. Period. End of discussion. Stop using it, or be blocked. We don't care if your English is poor. We don't care if you cannot function on the English Wikipedia without it; if that's true then you're better off editing a Wikipedia in your own language. We prefer your own poor English communication over AI generated communications and article content. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partial block to my account

Dear all. Wishing a good editing to all. Mr Anachronist has put partial block to my account which has restricted my edits for corrections. I really find it very biased to do corrective edits to improve Wikipedia platform. I have to drop off from editing permanently even with my long association. Hope someone understands it.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You have instructions on how to proceed in your block message. The block message, oddly, says to appeal here.

I erred initially in the block settings I applied, thinking that restricting you from mainspace and page creation would simply restrict you from creating articles in mainspace, but it ended up blocking you from creating pages anywhhere, which wasn't my intent., I restored your ability to create pages a few days ago.

Your talk page history indicates that you have been making messes for others to clean up, and with only 200+ edits under your belt, you still have yet to learn what constitutes a proper mainspace article in spite of your years here.

I have no objection, however, if another administrator deems my partial block too harsh and decides to unblock you. My own view is that you first need to use the WP:AFC process to prove you can create a publishable draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist. I heartily thank you for the reply. Though I didnt have any malafide intentions in moving articles to main space , I do lot of efforts on researching and making edits. I accept my mistakes sometimes and never do disruptive editing. I understand in some cases these articles are not considered for main space but I do understand the principles and practices. Its upto you and other admins to understand and open the space.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardenkur (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Gardenkur, you need to show that you understand the problems with your editing before an admin will lift the partial block from editing articles. In your own words and with reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what have been the problems with your editing and what will you do differently? Fences&Windows 08:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Fences and windows. Thanks for your response. While I feel that every article may not qualify to be in mainspace though its eligible,i will observe caution before moving them. I want to correct broken links and polish articles which are not properly written. I will be cautious while starting any new article. Hence I request for last time chance. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gardenkur, you've not quite answered the question - it's in two parts:

1. What was the problem with your editing that led to the block?
2. What would you do differently if unblocked (the exact steps you would take)?

Just saying you will do better isn't very helpful, because it doesn't show admins whether anything has changed - you could still be misunderstanding very important things and we'd have no idea until it came time for someone else to clean up the damage you could cause.

Right now, you can still submit edit requests - these are suggestions that you make for other, experienced editors to submit on your behalf, if they feel agree that your edit is appropriate to make. That's a very good way to show administrators that you understand how Wikipedia works.

You want to be unblocked now, so you need to prove your competency in another way - by explaining what was wrong with your previous work and how you'll change that in future. Just saying "I will do better" isn't enough, you need to go into detail. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on p-blocks but it seems to me that the current block message of blocking the namespace (Article) with an expiration time of 6 months (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: Removed additional restrictions that seem to apply to all name spaces, not just article space. Set duration to 6 months.) is at odds with what was said at User talk:Gardenkur#Partially blocked (article creation only). If they are, and I'm not 100% sure of this, being completely blocked from article space that wasn't what was presumably intended? FDW777 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

FDW777 might have a point here, it looks the same to me. Maybe it's just not possible to only block from creating articles in main space? Besides I guess revoking confirmed which will also stop editing semiprotected pages. So this will need to be a topic ban instead. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reading the final blocking comment maybe it was understood what the effect is. That said, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the "and". It seems to me either the OP agree to an effective topic ban and has the block lifted now, or after 6 they demonstrate they can now be trusted enough to create articles directly in main space and there's no block or ban needed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reading what was Anachronist said above I think maybe what is being asked for is both agreeing to a topic ban and having one successful AFC before the block is lifted. I don't personally see the need for the latter, I feel if the OP keeps creating problems in AFC this can be dealt with as I assume sometimes is. But we should let them try to learn what is needed for new articles via AFC while allowing them to edit existing articles if the problem is mostly with their creations and not other edits Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason the wording in the block notice didn't quite parse properly in my head, then the confusion over what it was supposed to be vs. what it actually was made it harder for me to understand - apologies if my confusion has confused anyone! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@FDW777, @Blue-Sonnet, and @Nil Einne: the original intent was to block the editor from creating pages in mainspace. It turns out that this isn't technically possible to do, using a partial block. I thought that setting mainspace=article and ticking the "block page creation" box would do what's implied: block the user from creating articles. But no, it blocks all actions in mainspace and blocks page creation site-wide. There is an open ticket on this -- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T275037 -- which has been open since 2021.

In spite of Gardenkur being years old, it's still a "new" account based on number of edits, which is slightly over 200. I am not convinced that Gardenkur is experienced enough to know what constitutes an acceptable article. The editor has created numerous articles, which have been deleted or draftified, suggesting there's a problem that isn't going away, and the responses from Gardenkur have been vague and nonspecific. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the clarification, I agree with what you've said about their responses too. I've asked a couple of times but their answers are very short and don't show much understanding. I'd honestly prefer if they spent more time learning how Wikipedia works and gaining experience before asking for a review. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Blue-Sonnet, Thanks a lot for your response

What was the problem with your editing that led to the block? Moving more articles into mainspace

What would you do differently if unblocked (the exact steps you would take)?

1. I would not create any new article for few months.
2. Make edits only for mainspace article.
3. Any new article will go thru admin reviews.

I saw lot of articles with no proper grammar,not following Wikipedia guidelines and many shortcomings. I want this platform to give fair chance in case any non intentional mistake happens.I would request you to consider that it was not deliberate. I will spend time in polishing current articles as per Wikipedia policies.

I understand your feedback and will do edits carefully.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you please re-read my first question and try to answer it again? I don't think you've quite understood it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Blue Sonnet. As per my understanding the block is creating articles that were reviewed and felt not relevant for mainspace and deleted or redrafted.Gardenkur (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gardenkur, you can make edit requests to edit articles. You can use WP:ERW for this purpose. You can also work on articles in your sandbox or as drafts. I do not think it would be a good idea to lift this block at this time. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. Hope you are doing fine. Thanks a lot for the inputs. This was very disturbing to me. I will not edit for few months unless the editors and admins feel this was not correct.I have built my profile after lot of hard work in years. One non intentional issue is blown out of proportion.thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying the issue was blown out of proportion seals it: the block need to stay. There's a failure to take on board valid criticism. Fences&Windows 07:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist,Blue Sonnet,Fences and windows.If iam wrong i will refrain from editing for 6 months.Gardenkur (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Your block expires in six months anyway, so there would be no difference.

Blown out of proportion you say? Just look at your talk page, with all the comments about articles you created that had to be draftified or deleted. You are making work for others to clean up. The block was intended to prevent further disruption. You have given no indication that, if unblocked, you would even bother to learn the policies and guidelines that describe what constitute acceptable article content. You have given no indication that you would submit drafts through the WP:AFC process as a learning aid. I suggest you take some time to do that while your block is in place.

And again, I have no objection if another administrator sees fit to lift the block. As I said, it was not my intention to block you from editing, just from creating pages in article space, but unfortunately that isn't technically possible. One way or another, the disruption in article space must stop. If you must create articles, you must do it through WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gardenkur, it might be best if I explain it this way:

• You can still edit articles, another editor just has to check and make the edit for you.
  • Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests.
• You can still make new articles, another editor just has to check and move it to mainspace for you.
  • Please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

You can still edit the majority of Wikipedia, it just needs to be checked by someone else first. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Revdel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm aware they're eight months old but should've been revdeled per the she-who-shall-not-be-named rule in articlespace. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this personally, but I don't think we usually revdel mere mentions of her or the fact that she lives/has lived somewhere in that area (which is public info). Two of the reverts were by admins, one of whom is an oversighter, so I assume they felt the same. For future reference, please note the warning at the top of this page: Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possibly dumb question about community blocks

I've known for a very long time that an indefinite blocks issued by the community are considered blocks that typically only the community can reverse. But what I'm unclear about, is if there is any technical reason, some kind of nondelegation principle, that says the community cannot issue a block that explicitly grants an administrator review authority over the block? This comes up quite frequently over the years, in which people generally agree that an editor should be blocked, but aren't fully comfortable with the full community ban, so the thread just kind of meanders around in limbo until/unless an administrator issues an indefinite ban on their own. I'm not sure the community waiting around for an administrator to take a voluntary action is really a good use of time, and it's certainly not fair to the admins that are reading the discussion. Thought I'd ask here first since I don't have anything specific to propose at the village pump. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen this debated several times. There are two prevailing attitudes, both amounting to "Yes the community can". One attitude is that the third bullet point at WP:CBAN doesn't apply if the community explicitly chooses to waive it, which makes such a block only a block. The other is that when the community collectively chooses to block someone but allows an unblock by any admin, they technically are still banned, just with a special provision delegating unban authority to any uninvolved admin, much like the community could if it wanted give someone the option to appeal to ArbCom or some other entity. Personally I favor the second answer, but for the most part it doesn't really make a difference. The only difference at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF that would change between those two answers is whether the blockee/bannee "remain[s a] member[ ] of the community", which is mostly an academic question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful answer. My interpretation was close to the second answer you refer to, but I wouldn't feel like I was truly acting in good faith if I acted on this interpretation in the future without having sought guidance first. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting how it works in practice, since the most egregious cases get indeffed by an admin straight away (e.g. vandalism) but the ones that take longer have more interaction and a higher chance of editors voting for a block/ban.

In the same vein, it kind of works because the longer cases will be those that are harder to detect and more insidious - so slow edit warring, long-term POV pushing, hidden agendas of some kind.

So, even if at first glance it seems counterintuitive, the more I think about it the more I get the feeling that it's actually a benefit.

Back on topic, I've seen people say that the community wanting indef is CBAN by default, so by that extension we could logically reduce that to admin indef (and I've seen that happen) if it's specified by each individual editor, as well as any other changes to the usual process. This is a community project, after all, so the will of the people should prevail! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

From WP:CBAN: Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I've often seen people talk about CBANs and indefinite community blocks as though they are distinct things; but they're the same; or, more technically, any indefinite block by the community becomes a CBAN automatically. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the 2017 RFC that defined the indef-to-cban pipeline was at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 140#Unblocking after community-imposed block SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• From WP:NEVERUNBLOCK in the blocking policy:

Unblocking will almost never be acceptable: [...] When the block is implementing a community sanction that has not been successfully appealed. The community may choose to allow a block to be reviewed in the normal way, by consulting with the closing/blocking administrator, rather than requiring a formal appeal to the community. If there is consensus to allow this, it shall be noted in the closing statement and block log.

I do wonder if that's the correct place for that text. It seems unnecessary to me (a community block remains in place for as long as consensus exists for it; if the initial consensus had conditions that ended it, then it ends when those are met, which can include eg. "if admin XYZ chooses to let you back in.) But if people have argued over it then it can't hurt. Also that wording doesn't explicitly say that the community can choose to delegate authority to a specific administrator (it just says they can leave it up to whoever happens to implement the block) but I'd assume they can per this reasoning; they can just say "we're blocking you until XYZ says you've improved" and in that case, once XYZ says that, there's no longer a consensus to keep the editor blocked. Either way I can't imagine anyone would try to argue "no, the community explicitly said you could appeal to an administrator, but they're not allowed to do that!" That just doesn't seem like the sort of argument that would go anywhere useful or good. There's a few things that are not subject to consensus on Wikipedia, but the minutiae of how a specific block can be appealed isn't one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Am I attacking the collaborative nature of the project?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BilledMammal has made a serious accusation on my talkpage. It echoes something they've been saying for about a month, but this is the first time they've framed it in a way that amounts to an allegation of disruptive editing and by extension an ADMINCOND inquiry. Rather than continue to debate this with them, I would like to simply bring it to community review.

This is the paragraph at issue, from my essay User:Tamzin/What would an editorial strike look like?, which discusses a hypothetical eventuality in which Wikipedians go on strike in solidarity with Wiki Workers United:

The strike would be strictly voluntary. No one would be blocked or otherwise administratively sanctioned merely for not participating. However, nothing prevents striking editors from lobbying other editors to join, even in strongly-worded terms, so long as they are civil and do not harass people. Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers.

I'd encourage everyone to read all of the essay, and all of BilledMammal's comment on my talkpage, but the salient parts of their comment are:

Of the most concern to me is your support for "social consequences" for those who don't comply with any strike that is called. This is a collaborative project and proposing that editors should refuse to collaborate as a consequence of taking a different stance on a single issue is destructive to that. I asked you to remove that line, in the hope we could avoid this discussion, but you refused. ... [B]efore these recent incidents I considered you to be an excellent admin, but that does not justify ... attacking the collaborative nature of the project.

Do others agree with BilledMammal's characterization of what I wrote? Does what I wrote attack[ ] the collaborative nature of the project? If there is consensus that it does, I am happy to treat AN as a de facto MfD and delete the essay. (I don't think the paragraph I quoted is separable from the rest, so merely removing it would not be a solution.)

Notes

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of their complaint or the essay at large, I'm not up to speed enough, but re:

nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers

I feel like there's enough editors on here at best generally out of the loop with and at worst wholly unaware of WMF affairs/ANI/the entire WP-space overall that allowing that to happen could set a concerning precedent. What's to distinguish a purposeful strike-breaker from someone who only edits a niche topic and was unaware there was a strike in the first place? I myself was only vaguely aware of the recent WMF issues and wasn't even aware a strike was proposed until seeing this section. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The sentence just prior to that would be the way to distinguish the two. Ie you would assume they were indeed unaware and let them know about the strike going on. At that point, they would be choosing whether they were purposefully being a strike-breaker or not. Silverseren^C 05:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Not every unintentional strike-breaker will be noticed and notified - that'd be a virtual impossibility with how many editors we have. What's to stop [Editor A] seeing that [Editor B] was still editing during the strike and deciding not to review [Editor B]'s GA nomination on some rare insect, thinking they broke the strike, not realizing that [Editor B] came here solely to write about insects and was wholly unaware of the strike at the time it occurred? I suppose it could be rectified if [Editor A] leaves a message on [Editor B]'s talk page informing them exactly of that, but what if that decision is made entirely in [Editor A]'s own head and never reaches [Editor B]? The Kip ^(contribs) 06:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing's to stop Editor A from doing that. Also nothing's to stop Editor A from silently refusing to review Editor B's GA nom for really stupid reasons like disliking their favorite sports team, or really offensive ones like disliking their gender. That's just how voluntary labor works. In all three cases, though—refusing over sports, over gender, or over a baseless assumption of deliberate strikebreaking—Editor A would be, in technical Wikipedia policy terms, an asshole. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

So, I want to be clear: I'm not being coy or euphemistic when I say "nothing prevents it". I genuinely mean that, nothing prevents it. Nothing could prevent it because WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is both policy and a fundamental truth of human existence. I'm not sure that what I describe in that paragraph is a good idea; I'm not sure I'd personally engage in it; but it would be naïve to pretend it couldn't or wouldn't happen. It's a basic fact of how strikes, or any large social action, work. Now, were people to choose to apply some kind of policy-compliant social consequences to those who didn't engage in a strike, e.g. refusing to review GAs, I would certainly hope that they would distinguish between deliberate strikebreaking and simply not knowing, for the same reason that I've long advocated drawing a distinction between editors who say offensive things out of malice versus cluelessness. There would also be a policy question of whether it's disruptive for people to advertise that refusal, which there might be valid reasons to prohibit under WP:USERPAGE or WP:NOTFORUM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize I skipped a step of logic there. The reason that NOTCOMPULSORY is relevant there is that almost any consequences in the form of doing something to an editor, as opposed to not doing something for them, would tend to violate WP:5P4 and the various policies it references. This is why I give the GA example. On the other hand, if someone decided to always vote for sanctions against any editor who'd been a strikebreaker, that would be bad-faith participation and itself sanctionable. Even some forms of refraining from action could be a problem if they broke other policies. For instance, if someone had a rule of not responding to messages from strikebreakers, they would sooner or later violate WP:MESS or, if applicable, WP:ADMINACCT. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm vaguely aware something is going on, however I learned a long time ago that I have to conserve my energy when it comes to the number of things I can care about. Getting super involved in something like this is not rising to the top of my list, and while I don't really care what others would do (they might have a good point, I'm not really in this drama), I probably wouldn't choose to participate in this particular instance. I do view this as a threat to fall in line with the group, or else. This seems like an example of Wikipedia:Threats to Wikipedia, specifically "Targeted manipulation of Wikipedia editors and admins," or "Targeted attacks against individual or groups of Wikipedia editors (such as harassment, hacking, social undermining, blackmailing and kompromat and account-takeovers)." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a voluntary project that we choose to work on in our spare time because we enjoy it. People can choose to participate in a strike of they want to, but editors shouldn't be punished not taking part. For all you know the day of the strike might be the one day a week they have more free time to contribute and they don't want to give that up. Or they might not even know about it.

Suggestions of social consequences for those who don't take part is at best a case of WP:BEANS if it is only a warning of what some might do as Tamzin has suggested. Giulio 13:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

From a theoretical perspective, there might be a silent group of editors that is actively on the other side of the debate. Threatening consequences for not going along with the herd is "social undermining" at the very least, and one all but guaranteed to catch people in the cross fire who have no idea what is going on. If this goes through, would such threats be acceptable for other causes? What causes would it not be acceptable for? Could a group of people threaten not to work with people who supported Larry Sangers ban? Or threaten not to work with people who opposed it? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The idea of social consequences being imposed on editors who do not volunteer to cease editing is appalling. And I'm someone who signed. Why has this turned into an us vs. us thing? When did that happen? Are we talking about it now because of the essay? Remarking about it in any context besides "absolutely do not retaliate against other editors" is unhelpful; as it's written now it looks like a tacit endorsement, regardless of if that's the intention. tony 05:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I have a problem with: Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers. That goes against the collaborative spirit of the project and is blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour: "Support us... or else!" (I also have a problem with the choice of words, such as "cross the picket line", but that's a minor point)

@Tamzin Re: doing something vs. not doing something. That just sounds like the libertarian argument "forcing doctors to treat patients is fascism!" When it is an unspoken rule and everyone is free to choose not to do something is one thing, but proclaiming it, codifying it, and essentially telling editors that it is OK to do it and that they'll be supported by 1000+ others if anyone complains about their behaviour is a whole other thing.

The signatures are icing on the cake, because now it is easy to know which editors you can ignore, not do GA reviews for, etc. it's everyone who is not on the list. Conversely, anyone who is on the list can now get attention for their GAs, get support in disputes, etc.

As others have pointed out, it has created an us vs. them mentality. On a collaborative project like this one it is toxic and I would support revdeling the list. Drastic? Sure. But it isn't me who created a "naughty or nice" list in the first place and now we have to deal with the consequences of that rash decision.

I get why the whole thing has been started and it's not like I'm against it on principle, it was just done the wrong way and that's unfortunate, WP:BRIE and all that. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

There are 1,141 editors who have signed the petition. There are 258,684 total active editors, most of whom presumably are unaware the petition even exists. If the petition is making it easier to discriminate against a group perceived to have the wrong opinions on labor organizing, wouldn't that be the signatories? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it cuts both ways. For the record, I have no problem with "in solidarity," in signatures or with userboxes showing support for WWU. The list has been poorly framed. There should not have been any mention of "strike". If it was just a list of editors in support of the WWU and WMF employees, then it would have been fine.

As an aside/slightly off-topic, from a strategy point of view, I think a list of "supporters" without any threats or promises would have been much more powerful. Laying out what you're willing to do, you showed your whole hand too early and thus weakened your position. If it was a list of supporters, then that's a huge potential that can be moved to do various things. If I were the WMF leadership I'd be more wary of a group that has not threatened action yet than the one who has laid out exactly what they plan to do, which allows me to prepare and mitigate the effects. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This is really neither here nor there, Turbo, but everything I've heard from people at the WMF has been that the explicit community strike threat was crucial to the momentum WWU has had in the past few weeks. Happy to discuss further at WT:WWUS if you have further thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be better if the whole thing had never been framed as a 'strike' in the first place. Contributors are not WMF employees. As such, they cannot 'go on strike'. That's misplaced metaphor. And bullshit, since real strikes involve financial hardship etc, arguably making such metaphors downright offensive. Any contributor can of course chose whether or not to contribute at any time - and making such a choice on the basis of WMF actions is absolutely legitimate. As for 'social consequences', we are all human beings, and accordingly, anything we do in public can have such consequences. Including of course making silly comments about 'strikebreakers', accompanied by what could very well be perceived as a threat. And as far as I'm concerned, a direct 'social consequence' of Tamsin's extremely ill-advised comments is a severe loss of respect for someone who I have generally seen as thoroughly deserving it. Regardless of our opinions on the WMFs actions (which on several occasions have led me to ask whether I should be contributing myself), such divisive comments aren't going to accomplish anything beyond diverting attention from the core issue. If you don't agree with the WMFs actions (I certainly don't) feel free to make it clear, any way you like. But don't go around issuing threats, or making comments that can be seen that way. And don't pretend you are a 'striker'. You aren't. Cut out the roleplay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

These are exactly my thoughts as well. I’m a big fan of Tamzin and would not support a recall but they probably should've stepped back from matters surrounding WWU at some point (lots of opportunities), and the comment below is worrisome. Yes some unpopular people's GANs or whatever languish, and I guess you can make the argument that not supporting a 'strike' may cause temporary reputational harm/loss of social capital, but Tamzin has far, far too much authority on this site to advance that point, and even if they do only mean it as a devil's advocate (and I think they do), it comes across as plausible deniability and BEANS. FWIW I also think it’s been blown out of proportion, and BilledMammal has been less than collegial (an understatement). I think combined with how ineffective at applying pressure and harmful a 'strike' would be and the Levivich thing (FWIW I think they were right to escalate, but the charge was invented), idk whether now may have been the wrong time to return from a break. It makes me wonder along the lines of User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It was indeed not a great time to return from a break. Sadly, I don't get to decide when the WMF starts firing people for no good reason, and stepping back isn't really an option once you've taken risks that implicate other people's jobs. (Of course I would step back if asked to by contacts at WWU, but so far have only gotten positive feedback from them.) So I'm doing what I can with the brain I've got. It's not really a User:Tamzin/On mental health thing, at least not in the way one would normally mean, because grief doesn't work like depression or anxiety; my judgment isn't compromised, but my cognition isn't great, and my tolerance for bullshit is extremely low. That last one's kind of a blessing and a curse: Sometimes this community's tolerance for bullshit is too high. Anyways, all I can do is respond to things to the best of my ability, in line with community norms as I understand them, and I'm either going to get that right or get that wrong. I accept whichever the case may be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. So I'm doing what I can with the brain I've got, aren’t we all! Just imo, but I think at the very least concede on this point and socialise escalatory comments with a trusted editor off-wiki (ie. be more cautious). Noone’s raised any concerns about any actual admin actions, so that’s fine Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Laminate this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think you, Tamzin, are "attacking the collaborative nature of the project" (to answer your question directly). If you're 'guilty' of anything, it's bringing this matter to the community's attention, and making your reasoned case, neither of which is an offence in my book at least.

Having said which, I do think some of the language around this issue, voiced by multiple people (and I've no one in particular in mind), has been quite (melo)dramatic, and I look forward to cooler heads hopefully prevailing. I'd hate to see this divide the community further, we've enough fault lines as it is; for that reason alone, I also sincerely hope the threat of strike suffices and never needs to materialise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's my view. Whatever you want to call it, your language there is unacceptable, and frankly if someone were to start a recall, I'd probably sign it. I think it will be the first recall I've sign although I cannot remember for sure. It might technically be true that if an editor were to do that silently, we probably wouldn't know and so they'd get away with it. However if an editor were to openly admit they're doing it even off-wiki we should site ban them for unacceptable behaviour. Voluntarily labour doesn't mean you're allowed to use your voluntarily labour in a way the community finds so harmful to the community to be unacceptable. I'm very confident if an editor admitted offsite they refused to review the articles of Jewish editors or women editors or trans editor or whatever we'd site ban them, as we should. If you truly care about Wikipedia. I don't know why you'd write stuff which is destroying Wikipedia far more than anything the WMF has and is likely to do. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no problem if editors want to go on "strike" in solidarity or whatever. They can and should do what's right for them. The problem is when you try to destroy the community by by refusing to assist them because you disagree with their decision not do to do or in anyway suggest it's an acceptable course of action. While it might not be as bad, it's still similarly unacceptable as when you try to destroy the community by refusing to assist them because they are Jewish or whatever, or in anyway suggest it's an acceptable course of action. I was never likely to engage in an editing strike, but the fact it's being advocated for in such harmful ways makes me even less likely to do so. If you're making the WMF look far, far better than you, I really do not know what you think you're achieving. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If there is a single hill I have been willing to die on on Wikipedia, Nil, it is that there is a difference between judging people based on who they are and judging them based on what they do. I haven't proposed a course of action here. If others pursued something like this, I'm not sure if I'd do so myself. But I would support their right to. There is an obvious difference between not wanting to collaborate with someone because they've taken actions that you believe harmed the community, and not wanting to collaborate with them because you're bigoted against their identity. If someone were to say "I'm strongly opposed to paid editing, and as a result of this will not review GAs by people who have ever done paid editing, even if that particular article is unpaid", would that be the same to you as "I hate women so I won't review GAs by women"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's disingenuous. Yes, technically you haven't proposed a cause of action but you have said words to the effect of "if you wanted to do X, you could and nobody could stop you." By saying that, you're planting an idea in people's heads, just like in WP:BEANS. If you're not proposing it as a course of action, why mention it at all? It would be better if you didn't. WaggersTALK 08:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Waggers: Because talking about lobbying people to join a strike, and then saying there should be no community-imposed sanctions for not joining, and then not mentioning the incontrovertible fact that people who didn't participate might face social consequences from those who did (much as the converse is true!) would be not just disingenuous, but actually risk misleading people. I wrote this essay not as a proposal, but as a sketch of one way a strike might work. Being realistic about what does and doesn't happen in a strike is part of that. I know this from experience; I have relatives who've organized strikes, and relatives who've faced professional consequences for not participating in strikes, and I understand both perspectives, and all the intense emotions invovled. If I was going to be the one to propose a possible strike, I had an absolute moral duty to make sure people understood that strikes are an often unpleasant and nasty thing. I also talk in the essay about letting most kinds of vandals run amok. Do you think I support vandalism? Of course not. Again, it would have been grossly irresponsible to even start talking about a strike without being realistic about what one looks like.

My only regret, honestly, is that I didn't make this clear enough. I did have one very troubling off-wiki interaction with someone who appeared to be looking forward to a strike and even suggested we have one just as a show of force. I tried to get across to them just how damaging strikes are to worker, management, and consumer alike, how they are the last resort in labor organizing, but they didn't believe me because they'd already decided that a strike would be good. So if I could go back and change something with this essay, it would be to make it even more clear about how divisive and unpleasant a strike would be. But that means more details like the "social consequences" line, not fewer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

In which case, I would suggest as others have, that this isn't framed as a strike at all. It's more of a boycott; it's not a strike because we're not Wikimedia employees. Attitudes to boycotts are very different. They're often socially seen much more as a personal choice without the sorts of repercussions you describe for those who don't participate for whatever reason. WaggersTALK 09:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

A boycott is denying consumption. A strike is denying labor. Not reading is a boycott. Not editing is a strike. You are right that boycotting Wikipedia would be a much lower-stakes proposition; it also wouldn't be at all effective, because the WMF doesn't make any money (directly) from people reading Wikipedia. Whereas it does make money from Wikipedia being actively maintained: People are less likely to donate to a site in disrepair. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion with Clovermoss moved below

I already acknowledged there was a difference. There being a difference doesn't mean either is acceptable. Refusing to review the articles of editors who've engaged in paid editing would IMO likely be acceptable to the community because paid editing is something the community generally sees as something we barely tolerate. There's simply no comparison with an editor not taking part in a strike which isn't even actually a strike, which for whatever reason they do not support. I won't comment more other than to support the site ban proposal for you which I hope happens since it's clear you're not someone who should be editing here since you have such disdain for your fellow editors who may chose to see this so called strike different from you. I'd strongly encourage the WWU to cut any and all communication with you since IMO having you in their corner is actively harming their rightful cause. Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I don't intend to start debating any of your points, but can I just clarify one thing? You seem to imply some sort of 'duty of care' or similar moral obligation which would compel one editor to "assist" another. If that is indeed what you are suggesting, does this in your view apply to all editors, or specifically to administrators (and possibly, by extension, functionaries) only? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thinking about it more, I'll make this one more comment. I never said there was a duty of care. Instead, you're simply not allowed to use your editing here in ways the community find disruptive enough to be harmful. Note I've rejected myself the idea of banning editors simply for their hateful views if they do not come into play on wikipedia. However when editors do allow their hateful views to affect their editing here in such a way that is harmful, which includes refusing to review the articles of someone because of who they are, then yes we should take action against them.

As I mentioned, I'm not saying it's the same thing or as bad when you refuse the articles of someone because they did not participate in a strike which wasn't even a strike. But I used the extreme example precisely because it IMO illustrates the point the community does not have to tolerate someone using their voluntary contributions in ways we find unacceptable, in an area I felt most would agree with. I originally didn't even plan to bring it up instead simply hint at it with something like "I'm sure most editors here can think of cases where if an editor were to admit even offsite they weren't reviewing articles because an editor is X we'd probably almost unanimously site ban them", but since Tazmin had already effectively brought it up with their gender comment, I decided not to beat around the bush.

And yes, I'd say similar things if someone said they weren't reviewing the articles of editors who voted for Trump (despite my personal views on how bad that was) or whoever else, or who did not take the COVID or other vaccine for non medical or religious reasons or did receive the COVID or some other vaccine, or editors who !voted in whatever side for our deadnaming policy, or editors who !voted in whatever side in the Larry saga or whatever people come up with. (The Trump example is fairly interesting. There was a related kerfuffle around the time of the first Trump presidency. I'm sure you can find it and what I said then which I'm fairly sure is similar.) Personally I don't think editors should be refusing to review the articles of paid editors either but as I said above IMO it's something that view so poorly I'd just leave it be.

Also I'll point out I'm talking about cases when an editor admits they actively refusing to do something because they do not like who an editor or something they did. If editors do not review the articles of editors who are Jewish because they're not sure they can be fair, I would strongly oppose any sanction against them. Again, as I've said I'm oppose to taking action against editors just because or their hateful views, and this would include editors taking meaningful steps to manage their hateful views. I feel the same for all the other examples. If an editor feels they cannot be fair to editors who did not take part in the strike which isn't actually a strike, or editors who voted for Trump or whatever else then yes it's fair for them to not review articles and I wouldn't fault them for it. There's a big difference between an editor managing their views and thoughts, and an editor effectively acting against another editor because of disagreement with them or something they've done.

BTW Tazmin, if you think just because you're using a mob style "This is a lovely little shop you have here, it would be an awful pity if something were to happen to it" threat it somehow makes it okay, maybe you should consider why it's not okay for mobsters either. (Personally, I'd also wonder why I'm sound like a mobster in the first place.)

Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay real last this time. While I already mentioned several times I'm not saying they're the same thing anyway, to illustrate why the "who a person is" vs their actions is never so clear cut; let's remember when it comes to LGBT issues many bigots especially religious ones frame it in terms of actions anyway. I'm not opposed to people having same-sex attraction but if they act on it that's a problem. The problem isn't with someone being a trans but when a "man" uses the woman's bathroom, participates in women's sports, goes through affirming surgery etc. And yes we IMO should and actually I'm fairly sure we would site ban someone who says they refuse to review the articles of LGBT people because of their "actions". Yes these are actions which come naturally from who they are rather than simply what they chose to do in a certain situation because of their views etc so I'm still not saying they're the same. But the point remains the community will IMO rightfully reject editors openly admit they use their voluntary editor in a way which is harmful and disruptive. And all this made me think of other examples for what I said above. Again the community IMO should ban someone who admitted that they refused to disagreement (rather than because they didn't think they could be fair) to review the articles of anyone who received an abortion, or anyone who performs abortions for reasons besides risk to the mother's life or health or a fetal abnormality etc, or a surgeon who performs gender affirming surgery or these plenty of other cases you could come up with where on editor disagrees with the actions of another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with what Well very well said. I would urge you to strike (no pun intended) that part or remove it, though, not delete the whole page. sapphaline (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also entirely unclear who the "strikebreakers" are supposed to be. Those who didn't sign the petition? Just because I didn't leave my signature on that page doesn't mean I won't strike if WWU calls for Wikipedia editors to do that. sapphaline (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I would hope it's pretty clear in the context of the essay, which is titled "What would an editorial strike look like?" and is about what an editorial strike would look like. A strikebreaker would be someone who made edits that went against the terms of the strike. For all the flak I've gotten for the phrase "cross the picket line", I used it for a reason: It clearly analogizes the situation to going to work at a workplace that is being picketed. (I avoided the more inflammatory "scab" as, well, inflammatory.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Just fyi as someone who largely agrees with you, I don’t think it is clear at all who would count as a strikebreaker in your essay. The Wiki definition you link to is pretty explicit that anyone who works during a strike is a strikebreaker; but I can’t tell if you are applying it to the petition signers only, or everyone on Wikipedia. The former makes more sense, but that latter is what the analogy is literally saying. ExtantRotations (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Among other things, as it is important to emphasize that English Wikipedia is WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK, the passage is WP:NOTHERE. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE refers to a person, not text. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 23:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The passage refers to people doing things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You still can't singlehandedly apply behavioural guidelines to essays. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 17:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Singlehandedly what? The policy is a apt description of the activity in the passage, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that the essay and hypothetical strike described are an understandable reaction to WMF's egregious union-busting (if I understand the context correctly), and while some language used by Tamzin could be rephrased in the discussions about the strike, I do not think that any of this constitutes "attacking the collaborative nature of the project". I think it's hard to think of any actions that the highly active editors of the wiki can take in solidarity with the WMF staff fired for organizing and Tamzin's concept of a strike is one possible such action. I think a lot of the response comes from editors who might just not understand how strikes and picket lines work, which might be a reflection of our largely USAmerican editor base not having experience with labor struggles due to the heavily repressed status quo of labor rights in their country. (Non-administrator comment) — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 11:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I rather think that the charge laid against Tamzin is an understandable reaction to threatening harm on English Wikipedia. Not that people don't know what a strike is, they do know. No matter how you slice it, the position is 'we're angry with the WMF, so we are going to harm the English Wikipedia' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that not working on Wikipedia is harming it. Vacations? Lack of spoons? Serious illness? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That's quite a mischaracterisation. If I go on strike for two weeks, how am I "harming" the project, any more than if I fall off the roof (silly me, not wearing a harness!) and spend two weeks in hospital unable to edit due to broken arms? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You going on strike individually is nothing. What we have here, is expressly a collective activity literally to harm English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor, Alan. I have been frustrated by a number of comments in this thread, because they're acting like condemning me for discussing hypothetical social consequences against strikebreakers is different from condemning me for starting the strike-willingness petition—when in reality, a defining feature of strikes is the social pressure for people to engage in them. While I obviously don't agree with your argument that being willing to go on strike is calling for harm to Wikipedia, I think it's a much more logically consistent view, and reënforces my feeling that it was important for my essay to be clear about the messy reality of how strikes work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh enough. Go edit an article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

"strike individually" is pretty much a contradiction in terms. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Like, of course a strike involves social pressure. There's some classic songs about how to see strike breakers. I think the idea of trying to litigate those specific social pressures bureaucratically is frankly deeply tendentious. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You're the one, who brought up what an individual editor does, so it's perhaps good that you now realize that's not what this is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, what exactly do you mean by "threatening harm"? An editor choosing to not edit or choosing to not aid another editor, is that what you mean by "harm"? Is WP:NOOBLIGATION, therefore, not also endorsing harm? I find it hard to believe that the phrasing of it as a harmful threat is approproriate for the 'severity' of what Tamzin is advocating for. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 11:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

An editor is not choosing, they are expected to take collective action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I don't find your reply to clarify at all what constitutes a harmful threat in your view. Please rephrase or append your reply further, thanks. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Read above, the idea expressed above by Tamzin is that we can threaten harm on English Wikipedia to get the attention of the WMF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

So if I understand your statement correctly, you find that by theorizing on a hypothetical strike in reaction/protest to the WMF's A) firing of the workers organizing WWU and B) the disbanding of the CommTech team to gain WMF's attention and improve the situation both for the workers involved and the improvement of the technical tools at the community's disposal, they have engaged in conduct that merits an investigation of WP:ADMINCOND, including by beginning a recall process? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "read above", Alanscottwalker. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No. The threat is literally to degrade English Wikipedia's content, and to take actions against others concerning content. Why? She says because degrading Wikipedia content, harms the WMF fundraising. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I would recommend you use {{they}} when referring to Tamzin or take a peek at their Gender page.

They are not threatening to actively degrade the content or take active action against others regarding said content. They are suggesting that one way in which the strike could happen and be enforced is the withholding of proactively improving said content or proactively collaborating with editors one does not wish to collaborate with. Those are two very different approaches, and I believe you might be confusing the two. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the page you linked, Ixtal. No pronoun is incorrect in reference to me if it represents the speaker's genuine impression. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, I had only remembered the bullet points of that page. Thanks for the clarification, Tamzin. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

They are. Read above, the threat is the content will degrade, and that will harm the WMF. Moreover, even a deliberate failure to maintain is an active threat to content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between the WMF and Wikipedia. The WMF could dissolve tomorrow and cease operations and Wikipedia would continue to exist. Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA (4.0) licensed and neither the WMF nor anyone else owns the content. In fact, you're free to copy Wikipedia and start your own encyclopaedia, as many have done. Personally, I don't care what happens to the WMF, but I do care about Wikipedia, and I'll go on a limb and assume most here feel that way. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. Unfortunaely, we regularly see, that a problem we have is people don't put to the side whatever collective concern they have about what's beyond the encyclopedia . Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I fail to understand, then, how any administrator could voice support for a strike while remaining within the bounds of WP:ADMINCOND, Alanscottwalker. Are you suggesting that supporting strikes is incompatible with administrator behavior standards? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Since I have already said what I think the problems are including links to policy, I don't think it is useful to repeat. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The only policy I could find you linking in this thread is WP:NOTHERE, which seems like an outsized accusation to what I understand the problem with the paragraph to be. I personally strongly believe that administrators (like any other editor) should be able to be active participants in discussions about strikes or other WMF disputes, particularly when discussing hypotheticals that are (per their own words) unlikely to happen without being threatened with admin recall processes or be forced to delete essays voicing their opinions on such hypotheticals. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The plan is plain. Collectively harm English Wikipedia, by deliberate withholding, and taking actions against others here in reviewing improving content. Not for the sake of the content (HERE), but because of the editor, or disapproval of the WMF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I suppose then that we are in fundamental disagreement, I still hold to my original belief that Tamzin's essay is not an attack on the collaborative nature of the project to the extent that it requires the launch of an admin recall process. Additionally, meaningfully punishing Tamzin for what has been to my eyes many days of honest, pro-active, and good-faith discussion on their part about how the community could hypothetically respond in solidarity to WWU regarding the WMF's actions would be a massive error by the community that would stifle future discussions about collective action by editors. A warning about the particular offending section in the essay might be the most that I personally would find suiting the issue, as Tamzin is not calling for or demanding any uncooperative behaviour by the community, just stating that editors' conduct during a hypothetical strike would affect how other editors interact with them, as is the case for any conduct by any editor during any dispute. Repeating the section below for reference:

How would the strike be enforced?
The strike would be strictly voluntary. No one would be blocked or otherwise administratively sanctioned merely for not participating. However, nothing prevents striking editors from lobbying other editors to join, even in strongly-worded terms, so long as they are civil and do not harass people. Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers.

I personally do not read "impose" as a call by Tamzin for such behavior, but rather an acknowledgement of possible behavior based on their experience with the aftermath of strikes (such as the experiences of family members of Tamzin who crossed the picket line, the community reaction to which Tamzin personally saw). It would be a very different issue if Tamzin had said "striking editors should impose social consequence", rather than just mentioning it as something that could happen. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Over 50 administrators are signatories of Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity, which explicitly states "We, the undersigned [...] affirm our willingness to engage in collective action if called upon by WWU, up to and including staging an editorial strike." Are all of these admins WP:NOTHERE? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As we are not here to discuss anyone else's ideas of what a perhaps mis-named "strike" looks like, and what they think it will accomplish and how, it's best not to discuss anyone else's ideas here, besides Tamzin's ideas. We have some evidence that even signers are disturbed by the essay. I am too, for the reasons I stated, and what Tamzin has said here only reenforces the concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

And I still maintain that whatever the means, the effect sought is to degrade content by disruption of ordinary editor interaction to improve and maintain content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

👍 — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of collectively withholding editing is to disrupt. I can at least acknowledge the people who are saying that they understand this and that it's what they intend to do, but I have nothing but disdain for anyone who's pretending that it's no different than taking a vacation and insist on an attitude of "whatever happens, happens". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment This is the second instance I've seen in two days of people trying to use administrator noticeboards to litigate whether it's OK for volunteer editors to show solidarity with workers at the non-profit through which we volunteer. These threads should all be closed down and no more should be opened. Absolutely absurd comportment to suggest there's anything wrong with us showing such solidarity. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't be silly, that is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

TA, did you read the page you linked? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 23:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I did, thank you! Did you? Was there a specific concern about how I used it? ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors should be able to strike if they wish, this is a voluntary project and noone can expect anyone else to edit, but I do believe the line highlighted by bill mammal is best removed. The strike is not a harm to the project, if it was we would be saying editors must edit. But saying their will be negative consequences for not joining the strike is to far, whether you agree or disagree with other editors you are expected to work with them in a collaborative manner. That's true if you disagree other article content, matters of faith, political opinion, or if editors want to strike or not.
I'm deeply displeased with how the WMF have handled the situation, either they did not know that this would look like union busting (which isn't a sign of competence) or it's union busting. I have expressed my solidarity with their cause, but I won't be striking. That I will face "social consequences" for not following every aspect of the campaign shows some atrocious thinking and I urge the removing of the line supporting it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who does show me "social consequences" for not taking part in a strike, that I otherwise support, I will be handled per policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Since a few people have said this now, I need to reïterate: I cannot remove (merely) this paragraph from the page, because at that point I would no longer be giving a realistic description of how a strike would work, which is the essay's stated purpose. Removing it would misstate how a strike works and mislead readers into thinking a strike is a gentler thing that it is, which is bad for both sides of this issue. (See further above.) If you think the essay should be deleted, I've already said I'm willing to do that if there's consensus, but there's no outcome here of just removing that paragraph. The community can't compel an essayist to lie by omission in their own userspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You have responsibility for your edits, regardless of their content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you mean? Like obviously yes, everyone bears responsibility for their edits, but I don't see the connection to what I just said. I'm not denying responsibility for what I wrote. I'm saying I won't host an essay in my userspace that omits essential information, so the choice is keep or delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, Tamzin's essay is not a finalized strike plan. Per its lead paragraph, As I stress at VPWMF, the details of such a strike would only be finalized in the event that a strike happens; supporting the conditional commitment to strike does not mean supporting exactly what I've written in this document. However, it seems prudent to sketch out an idea of how a strike might work, which is what I aim to do here. I imagine that if the community agreed on striking, any sort of social consequences as understood by the community would not be expected to gain consensus outside of the currently standing policy of "you don't have to go out of your way to provide optional assistance to an editor when and wherever you don't want to" (WP:NOTOBLIGED). As is the case for me, I recommend waiting to see if it is even needed to state whether one will choose to strike or not. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors can come to that conclusion themselves, as you say noone is obligated to edit in any particular way but that is not what is being discussed. Encouraging editors to not work with other editors is not acceptable. Would it be acceptable for a Christian group to tell it's editors not to work with atheist, or an atheist group to suggest the opposite. No it would not, and this is not acceptable either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

To answer the question posed in the section header, yes you are. Threatening, encouraging, enabling or whatever "social consequences" for people who do not share your views on the best course of action to take regarding an issue (not even just their views on that issue, which would still be bad but this is worse) is inherently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You can hold whatever views you wish, even ones almost everybody finds distasteful, as long as your actions on the English Wikipedia are compatible with the collaborative nature of the project. The actions discussed in that essay are not compatible with a collaborative project, no matter how they are presented. If you cannot understand that, as it appears from your contributions to this thread, then I'm not sure that you and the English Wikipedia remain compatible. I would like to be wrong with that last sentence, but you aren't giving me much cause to hope. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: To clarify, by the actions discussed in that essay do you mean the entirety of the essay, or specifically the sentence BilledMammal objected to, or something in between? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The "How would the strike be enforced" section is the most egregiously incompatible but the "What would the strike prohibit" is also problematic. The "Would this require community consensus" is not, on its own, incompatible but in combination with the other sections is not good. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Is it your feeling that all 66 admins who have declared a conditional willingness to go on strike should be desysopped or banned? While not all necessarily agree with the exact wording of my essay, most discussions of other approaches to a strike have been about doing things more intense than I proposed, not less—for instance, making it so no one can edit mainspace at all—so I think one could reasonably assume that most or all of the other 65 agree with most or all of "What would the strike prohibit?" and "How would the strike be enforced?", if not with something stricter than that. At a minimum, if it's something you really think is desysoppable or bannable, it seems like something you would want to get clarification on from those involved, if 8% of all admins appear to be doing it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not seen everything that everybody has written on this topic, so I'm not going to state anything definitively or comment on anyone individually, but anyone who chooses not to contribute themselves is not acting disruptively, regardless of their reasons. It is also acceptable and (usually) unproblematic to explain their reasoning in public and encourage others to also stop volunteering. However what is not acceptable in any way shape or form is to take any action, or encourage others to take any action, that would harm or otherwise disrupt the encyclopaedia or prevent other editors from making their own choice about whether to contribute or not. Any administrator who intentionally and wilfully disrupts the project to make a point, any point, should be actively considered for desysopping. Whether they should actually be desysopped depends on the specifics of their actions in context. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The petition states a willingness to engage in collective action if called upon by WWU, up to and including staging an editorial strike. Any reasonable definition of an editorial strike involves both indirect harm to the encyclopedia (vandalism getting through, articles falling out of date, etc.) and social pressures that would discourage people from making edits beyond what the strike permits. If your definition of "prevent" includes those social pressures—which I assume it does, because you seem to view what I wrote as "preventing" that choice—then any admin who has signed the petition, assuming they did not misread it, meets your criteria for desysop. Editors are only able to sign 5 recall petitions at once, but if the petitions hit the threshold quickly enough you should still be able to churn through 66 in a week or two, I think. A few less than that, actually; some are exempt due to recent RfA/AdE/ACE, but those could be taken to ArbCom after the initial wave of recalls is handled. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this particular point hasn't been brought up here yet, but applying to be resysoped while at the same time writing something that could be construed as supporting/hinting at supporting "social consequences" for editors that strikebreak/don't participate is alarming, and I understand why other Wikipedians would view that as intimidating. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I realise I am a nobody to this project compared to the vastly more experienced and invested editors commenting on this topic. Wikipedia is just a hobby. Something i do when hyperfixated on random subjects that capture my interests to turn a distraction into something productive. I often turn to it when I feel like my impact on this messed up world is insignificant. Like all of us, there have been times when I have become a little too invested in conflict over content, but I come here intending to create things, not tear them down. Tamzin, I admire your passion and dedication. But like many others I have only a vague awareness that sections of the community are unhappy with actions taken by WMF. It doesnt factor in my decisions of when I choose to contribute, because to me editing wikipedia is a form of therapy to be taken as required. I value knowledge above all. And the integrity of the data herein is more important to me than any political cause.

I completely support your choice not to engage with bigotted editors; our circumstances at birth are something we do not get to choose and should not be held against us. On the other hand, we do decide our political positions. However, your essay implies this is a binary choice - that if we are not joining your strike and continue to edit for.any reason other than those you have listed, we are effectively, scabs who condone WMFs actions. Notwithstanding the strke is voluntary and many editors will have no awareness of it, they still risk social consequences if they do not declare a position. Not only does that approach go against the assumption of good faith, it leaves little space for a casual editor who seeks to avoid conflict, finds researching knowledge gaps calming, or who feels obligated to correct dangerous misinformation. Your approach politicises the entire project and everybody involved. And once integrity is gone, it is incredibly hard to get back.

I understand why BilledMammal interprets it as an attack on the collaborative nature of the project and i encourage you to rethink that line. If a librarian's union went on strike over the mayor's budget cuts, threw open the doors for looters who set fire to the books, they might force the mayor to resign. But that would be a rather pyrrihic victory. They certainly arent going to win over the hearts and minds of the community who donated those books if their leaders publically condone their members ostracising the volunteer firefighters. Consider that those volunteers never intended to take sides, they just felt it was their duty to ensure the decades of knowledge within wasnt lost to ashes. Dfadden (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dfadden: That simply isn't my meaning, as has been discussed several times above. The paragraph considers a situation where people are notified of an ongoing strike, and then discusses what consequences are and aren't permitted by policy if they edit nonetheless. I'd have no problem adding the word "willfully" before "cross the picket line", if that would make things clearer; as I said to Sapphaline, my intention in picking the "picket line" phrase was to clearly evoke the imagery of willful strikebreaking at a physical workplace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

When multiple different people have told you, independently, multiple times that they have all understood you meaning in the same way, even though that is not the way you state you intended it, it is best to acknowledge that and stop doubling down on your original words. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added the word "willfully" to clarify. Hope that resolves any further confusion on the "accidental strikebreaker" hypothetical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The at best, confusion, you created is a plan of disruption. And what is this disruption, what are the group you want, suppose to do: to collectively, in coordination, not improve or maintain English Wikipedia's content, so the content, the reason for our existence, suffers. Which is literally NOTHERE. Not only that, you suggest that it is fine for your group to take actions against others for reviewing, improving and maintaining the content, which is the reason we are suppose to be HERE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it would be demonstrably NOTHERE if someone basically enacted the very kind of sabotage that Tamzin articulated earlier. Striking is a form of sabotage for gain or negotiating. Struck that last as it's too provocative a statement. Striking is a legally protected collective bargaining labor action. But it's nonsensical to strike from volunteer encyclopedia-building. Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable Andre🚐 17:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

On this whole thing, please don't drag non-American editors into this. We can't fix the fact that your labour laws and employee protections are poor, and nothing we do can influence that. That's something you can only do internally through your access to your politicians. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: The first WMF union to seek recognition is in the UK. Levivich (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Assuming I am up-to-date with the situation in the UK (the last news I saw was a few days ago) it is far too early to draw any parallels. My understanding is that WWU have taken the first step towards recognition by asking the WMF to voluntarily recognise them, but the WMF have not formally responded yet (nor are they required to have responded yet, they have 10 working days). If the WMF's response is to recognise, then we should be supporting the WMF. If the WMF's response is to negotiate (perhaps to clarify some things), then we need to wait until that discussion concludes (up to 20 working days unless both parties agree to extend). If the WMF's response (before or after discussion) is rejection then we need to consider why (it's not impossible for there to be good reasons) and wait for the formal process ( suggests this will take up to 15 days if matters are simple and a ballot is not required, longer if things are not simple and/or a ballot is required). So it is far too soon to know whether matters in the UK are at all similar to matters in the US, and of course the world is a lot bigger than just those two countries. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tamzin, thank you for asking for feedback. I agree that, as somebody wrote above, proposals such as "nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers" are incompatible with the collaborative spirit of the project and, in my view, disruptive battleground-style conduct. As I see it, our only responsibility as editors, let alone admins or other functionaries, is to write a neutral encyclopedia and to help others do so within our project's rules. While that may include criticism of Foundation decisions that do not further this aim (as in this case), it certainly does not allow us to call for adverse consequences for fellow editors who see things differently or simply do not wish to engage with project politics at all. Casting the endeavor as a "strike" and other editors as "strikebreakers", while they are not in fact employees of the Foundation or members of a labour union, is similarly, in my view, inadmissible battlegrounding. Thank you for reconsidering your essay. Sandstein 15:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, this is the problem. The problem is it's a slippery slope to someone deciding they won't review GAs from someone who votes for X candidate or has X religion. This is church and state and Wikipolitics, again. Andre🚐 16:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Whilst I agree that American labour laws are atrocious, just because the law allows the WMF to do something doesn't mean we should ignore when they actually try to do it. We can still speak up when we see something we perceive as unjust, and we can still expect them to do better. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weighing in as a non-admin. Having read this thread, I think I understand what you were going for with the "social consequences" passage—that it wasn't meant to be an encouragement, but as an attempt to comprehensively and candidly describe a plausible set of events that would occur if a strike were to take place. Nevertheless, before I read this thread, that passage did read to me as an encouragement—and, more broadly, I believe the essay reads at first glance as a proposal for what a strike would or should entail. I'm not sure if that impression is avoidable (in a best-case scenario, it might be enough to add more context to the essay's lead to emphasize that it's meant to discuss predictions rather than recommendations), but I think this communication gap is probably at the root of the controversy over the essay's contents. I do also have WP:BEANS-related concerns about the inclusion of specific examples of "social consequences". ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• I think we're missing the forest for the trees with the "social consequences" bit. I was one of the initial people to point it out, and I'm regretting that as I only mentioned it because it was an example of the broader issue. The issue is that we now have a thousand editors threatening to cut off all of our noses to spite the WMF, when they haven't even agreed on what they've agreed to. The "strike" petition (AndyTheGrump ripped this apart already) is a blank check, and the organization of this petition was, in my opinion, one of the single most extreme examples of disruptive editing that any editor has ever carried out. And there's no coming back from this either; the precedent has been set, and we have now normalized the idea of sabotaging Wikipedia in the name of a postulated greater good. And if one pretends that this is just WP:VOLUNTEER and they don't actually mean to impede Wikipedia's processes, they are either blatantly insulting your intelligence or they are utterly clueless about what an "editing strike" is meant to do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Alien. You've been accusing me of disruptive editing for over a month. And unlike some of the people in this thread, you've been very clear that this isn't about the way I've gone about advocating for the strike: This is an ideologically-motivated grudge because you dislike the thing I proposed that 1,100+ people supported. I will give you credit, for sure, for being honest about that and not pretending this is about the words "social consequences" or civility or something. As you said a month ago: I don't believe anyone heading an organized 'strike' and inciting disruption in support of some union-in-name-only should have access to tools.

  Up till now, I've mostly shrugged off the stream of accusations coming from you, because when admins complain about personal attacks people don't tend to take it very seriously. But if you genuinely, seriously believe that I engaged in one of the single most extreme examples of disruptive editing that any editor has ever carried out, start the damn CBAN proposal already. If you're not willing to do that, please stop accusing me of violating policies. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Even ignoring that it would likely end inconclusively, I don't want that to be the end result. Tamzin, I admired you. I still want to. All I want is for you and the other people who put this together to step back and reconsider. I've laid out my concerns in detail at User:Thebiguglyalien/On the prospect of a strike, and these remain my concerns. The rush to assumptions and push to make this a union-busting issue instead of a Wikipedia issue only threw everything into disarray and created gravely serious problems that were easily preventable. Even just setting specific boundaries of what collective action would and wouldn't look like so people actually know what they're signing on to would alleviate what's among one of my greater concerns. I recognize that you personally know at least one of the people who were laid off, and I sympathize with that. I'd be upset if that happened to any of my friends. I also recognize that you don't want a strike if it's avoidable. But to see this threat to damage Wikipedia, and to see it coming from you? That shit hurts, and it's shaken my faith more than anything the WMF has ever done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's a very different tone than you were taking a moment ago. If you want to talk civilly about reasonable escalation and deëscalation strategies with the WMF, swing by my talkpage and let's chat. If you want to accuse me of nigh-unprecedented levels of disruptive editing, that's the sort of thing you need to sooner or later either take action on, or stop saying. That's the standard I was held to on Levivich, and it was fair: I substantiated what I could and retracted the part I realized I couldn't substantiate. So I'm saying the same thing to you. If you want to accuse me of violating policies, there is an appropriate way to do it, on this very page in fact; but I'm asking you to stop tossing those claims around if you're unwilling to take that step. Again, I'm happy to talk about labor solidarity strategies, but that isn't the conversation we've been having up till now, and isn't the scope of this thread either. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've left a message on your talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I think you need to turn down the temperature a bit. I find the wording above a bit eyebrow-raising, but Wikipedians have absolutely used their work on Wikipedia as leverage in similar ways in the past, both in discussions with the WMF and elsewhere. For example, we blacked out Wikipedia to protest SOPA and PIPA, which we felt were a threat to the encyclopedia (and therefore our mission); and during WP:FRAM, many administrators resigned in explict response to the WMF's actions, something that seems to have played a significant role in the Foundation's understanding of the seriousness of the issue and their response. This isn't something new or unusual. I think the approach was a bit off (obviously something focused on pushing editors is going to get more backlash; we need unity to accomplish things, so it's better to focus our pressure on the WMF.) But the basic concept of putting down our tools in protest is not something new and not some sort of sinster sabotage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Trouts all around and go back to editing content Andre🚐 16:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  This entire thread is largely an exercise in hyperbole and strawman arguments by all major "sides" of the discussion, and literally nothing constructive is going to result from it one way or another. I second the call to go back to doing something constructive. If you think Tamzin should be de-sysoped, that's not going to happen here; if you think Tamzin should be preemptively protected from a de-sysop petition, that's also not going to happen here; if you just want to talk to Tamzin about their thoughts on this question, that's better done on their user talk page, with a less polemical section title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Did you take into account that Tamzin asked for our responses here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the polemical framing of the discussion precludes anything constructive from resulting, and this has been borne out by the responses thus far. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but something like, 'do you think my polemic is fine?' is surely something we can examine here together. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• My two cents, I personally don't consider a "strike" (or whatever term people feel is most accurate) as an example of WP:NOTHERE "disruptive" for Wikipedia (and I agree with Andy, the proposed action struggles to meet the definition). All it really does is explicitly say "I no longer feel like contributing at this project for x reason" which is what people do here all the time. However, Tamzin's line about "social consequences" in their accompanying essay (which I had overlooked) suggesting an acceptability for negative treatment of those who do continue editing is making me reconsider my signature of the statement because I believe that is fundamentally corrosive to Wikipedia's ability to function based on mutual trust and good faith. To be rather succinct about it, I personally don't believe any person should be allowed to hold the responsibilities of being an admin if they may be altering their treatment of editors based on their participation (or lack thereof) in this (as an example, seeing two editors commit the same infraction in the same circumstances but taking lighter measures on one because they're a fellow participant while being harsher on the one they regarded as having "crossed the picket"). Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Rambling Rambler: Rather than assume that I would engage in actions that violate WP:TOOLMISUSE, would you like to phrase that as a question? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't believe I've stated anywhere that I am assuming you would engage in such actions. What I said was that I believe what you wrote (which you've explicitly asked for feedback on) implies an acceptability for such misbehaviour on the part of others which I believe is fundamentally damaging to this project and I personally would not wish to be associated with such a viewpoint, and I then further expanded that I believe if any admin was to view participation in this action as a relevant factor in judging unrelated editing activity then I don't believe they should hold the position of admin. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  if any admin was to view participation in this action as a relevant factor in judging unrelated editing activity then I don't believe they should hold the position of admin → 100% agreed. Apologies for assuming that you were assuming that I would do that. Four years ago a lot of people made a similar assumption about me regarding Trump supporters, and it took years of work neutrally adminning in fraught topic areas to prove to the community that that was not something they needed to worry about. Perhaps that makes me overly sensitive when it comes to anything about my ability to maintain neutrality as an administrator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Tamzin no harm done. I like to think after my contributions (and infractions) here at this point that it's at least known that I'm not going to be playing those playground "we all know who we're talking about" games and if I was to say something about someone I will just out and out say it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• It's a threat: in effect, The strike would be strictly voluntary, but we can impose our own non-administrative sanctions on anyone that doesn't participate, by refusing to collaborate with them. Sadly, this "discuss[ion of] a hypothetical eventuality" does not go on to consider how long such a toxic situation might last or the appeal process for sanctioned non-participants. NebY (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Tamzin, upon reading this thread, I think I am seeing mostly negative feedback in regards to your original questions. In other words, the paragraph you cited, or some lines from it or related elements, have received negative feedback. If this is the case, I would assume that you would remove the paragraph in question. That presumption is based on your editing behavior that has been highlighted in this discussion. However, it seems that you said, you would have to delete the essay if you remove the paragraph. So a conundrum is presented on how to respond to the community. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  Also, I am basing this on your opening remarks saying that your are "happy to treat AN as a de facto MfD and delete the essay." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Steve Quinn: I'm trying to parse through the sentiments expressed. It's complicated because a number of people haven't answered the question posed, and a number of people have but have then gone on to mostly complain about the idea of a strike in general, which makes it hard to tell how much they actually care about this one detail. I've slept on this, and tried to synthesize the actionable portions of the feedback I've received. On the one hand, substantive criticism of the concept I articulate seems to largely translate back to just opposition to the strike at all (see most notably comments by Alanscottwalker, Thryduulf, and Thebiguglyalien). On the other hand, there does seem to have been some word choice that was more inflammatory than I intended. I note that it was received much less so at the time I wrote this, 5½ weeks ago, at which point in time it was much more likely to be read in the context in which it was written: a sketch (I didn't even call it an essay; someone else added that tag) of the logistics of a possible strike that no one had yet called for and that, those signing the petition agreed, we would only actually decide the logistics of if the time came. In that light, I think the full weight of the third-person-omniscient conditional voice was much clearer: analysis, not proposal. But still, if as the weeks have gone by that's become less clear, then there's no reason to stick to wording that confuses people. I have changed the passage to the following:

  Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing normal forms of social pressure on those who choose not to participate, although of course the same is true in the opposite direction: Any action someone does or doesn't take in a collaborative community will affect how others see them; to the extent that this is undesirable because it could lead to division, that is not something it is possible to fix, any more than we can avoid the division that can arise from contentious RfAs or policy discussions.

  This changes "social consequences", which is a phrase that made sense in opposition to blocks/bans but out of context sounds harsher than intended, to "social pressure", which is a much more reasonable way to look at the dynamics that surround any large social occurrence. It removes the example I gave—which I'd only included to show that I wasn't talking about things like going around insulting people for the position they'd taken—and instead just put "normal forms of" before "social pressure". What counts as a normal form is of course subject to indvidual interpretation, but this is an intentional not-quite-tautology, saying that if something would be generally seen as acceptable, it'd also be acceptable here. There's no point head-of-a-pinning specific scenarios that are unlikely to happen in the first place. Finally, I've added a mention of a point I've made several times, that the social consequences apply in both directions and that this is just how a collaborative project works.

  I'm sure this won't please everyone, but I do believe it addresses the concerns raised by those whose comments actually answered the question I asked. I think this thread can probably be closed now, without prejudice against a recall petition or ban proposal if any of the people who've threatened that would like to proceed with that; but I think I've gotten the closest thing I'll get to an answer to my question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Good change. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your "strike" and "strikebreaker" metaphor or analogy was criticized not just by me or two others. It was seen as generally inapt and contrary to proper collaboration (one called it battleground, which is a form on NOTHERE, others called it other things like "attack on Wikipedia" and "bullshit"). That's not criticizing anyone for leaving or taking leave for any reason. It is criticizing coordination to degrade content. It is criticizing coordinated moves against others for maintaining and improving content. You have now done what you said you would not, which is a step in the right direction (sometimes it is hard to change) but look again at your top post, had you done that when you were asked the first time before you got here, we would not be talking here at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, Alan, I think you and I are in agreement that your objections to the essay are about the entire concept of a strike. That is why I, to put it bluntly, don't particularly care what you think: There's no useful feedback to be gotten on how to constructively express an idea from someone who thinks any expression of the idea is disruptive. You are of course welcome to MfD the essay or the petition if you think the idea they represent is disruptive, or to seek sanctions against me if you think my actions are disruptive, but neither of those is what this thread is about.

  Also, I would really appreciate if you would not say I said something that I didn't. I didn't say I wouldn't change the essay. I said that the paragraph is not separable from the rest of the essay, and it isn't. Some people (not you) happened to give some good feedback on how to express my intended meaning better, and so I took their advice. You and a few others choosing to turn this thread into a battleground over the concept of a strike is unfortunate, but please do not mistake me listening to some other people's feedback on word choice as in any way vindicating your personal pearl-clutching about the concept of a strike. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it is at least good you listen to someone else when they tell you the same thing as I. That's rather my point, had you listened to the editor who first asked you to change it, we would not be here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  They didn't ask me to change it. They asked me to remove it for being too controversial, and then threatened to recall me for declining to. I'm always happy to listen to good-faith critique of something I've said or done. I don't yield to concern-trolling, heckler's vetoes, or threats. If the moral of the story is "Tamzin responds better to constructive criticism about how they express their thoughts than to an explicit threat to weaponize an administrative process against them for having those thoughts in the first place", then I'm okay with that being the moral. I would hope the same is true of most people. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  They asked to "remove the line". You have now, after all this, removed the line, and that is changing it. The concern then and throughout this discussion, expressed by multiple people in different ways, is and was collaboration. Now, I suggest you go listen to isaacl, down a few comments. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Changing "social consequences" to "social pressure" doesn't address the problem. I agree with NebY: in an essay entitled, "What would an editorial strike look like?", the section titled "How would the strike be enforced?", if it exists at all, should simply say "The strike would not be enforced. It would be strictly voluntary." Levivich (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you'd like to write an essay that says that, you're welcome to. My essay, in my userspace, will continue to reflect my analysis of what a strike would likely look like, and that includes being realistic about social pressures. If you feel that the current version, as amended based on the feedback in this thread, is still against policy, I would recommend WP:MfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• This thread has become a massive timesink. While it is okay to provide genuine feedback when one asks for it, this thread, in my view, has descended into hyperbole, spurious accusations, and more. I understand that not all of us are happy here. If Tamzin needs a CBAN (which I think isn't necessary at all, but it was suggested here), let's decide that without resorting to near-toxic comments. While some of the feedback here is genuine, this thread has descended into chaos. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 23:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • "Forget it, AB. It's ANI." Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Allow me to ask the elephant-in-the-room question. How are you going to keep track or enforce this social consequences to the strikebreakers? By maintaining a scab list? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  How am I going to? I imagine not at all. Mentally or otherwise keeping track of such a thing feels like a lot of work to just add more negativity to my life. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  So then why bother posting a statement like that? Sounds like it's just ragebaiting. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've answered that question multiple times in this thread, at greatest length in response to Waggers. If the answer doesn't satisfy you, fair enough, but there really isn't anything more I can say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• The petition was created explicitly not as a discussion to reach a consensus, but a way for like-minded editors to voice their individual support to take certain actions. As such, I think the metaphor of strikebreakers is inapt. Editing Wikipedia is not a closed shop, and it's not collaborative to bypass the consensus-based decision-making process and yet treat those who don't follow suit as if they were failing to follow consensus.
• The strength of the Wikipedia community is having a diversity of people working together to achieve common goals. For this to work, editors must strive to put aside personal animus when implementing content-related processes. Of course, no one can be compelled to work with any other specific editor. Personally, I feel we should not be listing specific reasons to avoid a given good-faith editor or class of good-faith editors, as it encourages divisiveness. I don't agree that it's necessary to list the consequences of not getting along with other editors. People know that disagreements can lead to hard feelings that hinder co-operation, and this applies to all aspects of any collaborative project. But the commuity has generally emphasized that editors are free to disagree with each other as long as they continue to be collaborative and not obstructive, and follow consensus when it is established. I don't think it's a good idea to start pushing everyone to agree with specific points of view in order to feel able to participate fully in the community. isaacl (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Tamzin, What would an editorial strike look like?'s section "How would the strike be enforced?" could have said simply

The strike would not be enforced. It would be strictly voluntary.

Instead, with "nothing prevents ... nothing prevents ... not something it is possible to fix" your rewrite says, in effect,

Striking editors could lobby other editors to join, even in strongly-worded terms (so long as they avoid breaching civility and harassment policies), and impose social pressure on those who chose not to participate. It would cause division but there's nothing we can do about that.

Wikipedia, whether we call it an encyclopedia, a community, a project or a movement, is not unique or immune to the harms so many others have experienced. Exerting pressure to support action often stokes resentment on both sides, diminishes enthusiasm and commitment, and deters people from joining such a demanding community. The effects are often long-term and while they last, other forces can prevail in the world beyond the community (cf factionalism, passim). Withdrawal of labour already comes with risks to the encyclopedia, but the substitutes for strike enforcement that you contemplate risk much greater lasting harm to the community that builds the encyclopedia, and thus the encyclopedia itself at a time when it's under threat and facing strong competition. Please, stop putting those substitutes forward. NebY (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is an attitude, which some editors hold, that advocating for anything controversial is bad because of the division it causes. I don't hold that view. If someone genuinely thinks a course of action is best for the encyclopedia, they should advocate for it. For decades we've had people advocating for higher notability standards and people advocating for lower notability standards, and both have been right to because both believed they were making Wikipedia better. They've been right to even though the resulting conflict has been divisive and gotten a lot of good editors blocked. Because the alternative would be a world where nothing changed at all; instead, all the drama of the inclusionist/deletionist debate built the guidelines that have made Wikipedia what it is. The moment people stop feeling safe to propose controversial things on Wikipedia will be the beginning of the end of this project.

I'll take—have already taken—on board whatever criticism people have of whether I communicated what I meant to communicate here. And I acknowledge, even if I disagree with them, the views of those who think that a strike in any form is disruptive. But I don't think I can disagree more strongly with a sentence written here than Exerting pressure to support action often stokes resentment on both sides, diminishes enthusiasm and commitment, and deters people from joining such a demanding community. We are talking about the collaborative nature of the project. That is the collaborative nature of the project. We build consensus, and build our community, by trying to persuade one another, and by being drawn to do what people we respect are doing, and by being discouraged to do things that will upset our peers. That's what you're doing right now, right? You are exerting pressure on me to do something (remove a paragraph / delete an essay) because you feel that otherwise I am hurting the community. And I will do exactly what editors will be able to if there's a strike and someone lobbies them to join: Say that I respect your right to have that opinion, and wholly believe that you arrived at it in good faith out of a desire to improve the project, but that I think it is a bad and dangerous outlook and strongly disagree with it, and politely decline your request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No, people do not get to threaten vague and unspecified "social consequences" against editors that either actively disagree with them or may not have even heard of them. I'm surprised this even needs to be said. Who the hell do these people think they are to be threatening anyone with anything? Jtrainor (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

ADMINACCT inquiry to Clovermoss

Split from above by Tamzin at 18:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC), with first message duplicated and others moved.

@Waggers: Because talking about lobbying people to join a strike, and then saying there should be no community-imposed sanctions for not joining, and then not mentioning the incontrovertible fact that people who didn't participate might face social consequences from those who did (much as the converse is true!) would be not just disingenuous, but actually risk misleading people. I wrote this essay not as a proposal, but as a sketch of one way a strike might work. Being realistic about what does and doesn't happen in a strike is part of that. I know this from experience; I have relatives who've organized strikes, and relatives who've faced professional consequences for not participating in strikes, and I understand both perspectives, and all the intense emotions invovled. If I was going to be the one to propose a possible strike, I had an absolute moral duty to make sure people understood that strikes are an often unpleasant and nasty thing. I also talk in the essay about letting most kinds of vandals run amok. Do you think I support vandalism? Of course not. Again, it would have been grossly irresponsible to even start talking about a strike without being realistic about what one looks like.

My only regret, honestly, is that I didn't make this clear enough. I did have one very troubling off-wiki interaction with someone who appeared to be looking forward to a strike and even suggested we have one just as a show of force. I tried to get across to them just how damaging strikes are to worker, management, and consumer alike, how they are the last resort in labor organizing, but they didn't believe me because they'd already decided that a strike would be good. So if I could go back and change something with this essay, it would be to make it even more clear about how divisive and unpleasant a strike would be. But that means more details like the "social consequences" line, not fewer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a very misleading framing of our conversation. I asked questions because I was concerned that the WMF was dragging things out and that the union might lose their leverage. You could've explained things calmly instead of telling me my entire worldview is fucked for daring to even ask. I'm still incredibly supportive of WWU employees and whatever they decide to do, but you're going too far, and I don't think you realize the chilling effect you're having here. I know you didn't believe me when I told you that people are scared to criticize you, but they are, and I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: If your point here is that you want to "come out" as the one person in the community who thinks it's a good idea to go on strike just to flex our muscles and regardless of what damage it causes, sure, I'm fine naming you as that person. I kept your name out of this because, as hurtful as some of the things you said to me are, I don't like bringing personal drama on-wiki, and the argument you and I had was, let's be honest, only tangentially about Wikipedia.

But okay. Your stated view, when we spoke, was that Wiki Workers United should call for a strike, even if it isn't necessary to accomplish any particular goal and would in fact jeopardize their jobs, merely to show the community that they appreciate our support and to show the WMF that we mean business. As much as I've pushed back against arguments by people like @Alanscottwalker, @Thebiguglyalien, and @Thryduulf that support for a strike is inherently disruptive, I would actually say that support for a strike under those circumstances is disruptive. There's no articulated goal of making Wikipedia better—not for editors, not for readers, not for WMF staff—merely one of punishing the WMF, an organization whose execs and board members you've been contacting to say "I won't forget this" because they didn't listen to you. I've had to answer here, in an WP:ADMINACCT capacity, as to whether my views are disruptive. Could I ask you to do to the same? Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That is still a misleading framing of my position but I doubt you'll see it no matter what I say. My point in commenting here is that I'm incredibly disappointed your only regret seems to be that you weren't more vitriolic when you literally told me that no one else sees the world the way I do and that my entire worldview is fucked. Sidestepping that does not change the fact that I sent screenshots of our conversation to ArbCom because I'm concerned that your conduct is going to end up in a case about battleground behaviour and our interaction is a clear as day example of it. You are being disruptive in a way that I am not. Even if we do end up going on strike, I wouldn't hold anything against my fellow editors for not doing so. That only hurts the cause, imo. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: The fact that ArbCom hasn't reached out to me should, I hope, be a clear enough answer as to whether I violated any Wikipedia policy in the course of telling you that you fail to hold yourself accountable as an admin (something I am far from the first admin to get frustrated trying to explain to you). On that note, as I said, this is an ADMINACCT inquiry. If you'd like me to be more precise: Have you ever voiced the following opinions?

1. That WWU going on strike now would give the community something to do and rekindle the solidarity movement's momentum
2. That WWU should call a strike sooner rather than later to have more leverage, even if they don't get anything from it
3. That a strike makes sense even if WWU has no particular demands of the WMF
4. That such a no-reason-given strike would be a good way for the community to show its support for WWU
5. That all of this would be good because it would make Wikipedians feel useful

I am happy to point to exact timestamps if you can't find the messages I'm referring to.

Assuming you acknowledge that you said the five things above, my next question is, how would a strike under the terms you described be beneficial to the encyclopedia? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that ArbCom hasn't reached out to me should, I hope, be a clear enough answer as to whether I violated any Wikipedia policy

When has this ever been consistently right? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 17:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I sought clarification with you along those lines in an attempt to understand, since the WWU was being very scarce on details (which I understand, but you insisted I remove a social media post and got angry when I asked questions instead of immediately complying). I clearly don't want anyone to lose their job and it's not like there isn't some level of personal risk involved for me, either.

As for WP:ADMINACCT, no one has ever raised concerns or started a noticeboard thread about me on-wiki (something that cannot be said about you). The fact that a handful of people on Discord get annoyed when I disagree with them is not misconduct. I have never treated anyone the way you treat other people.

I didn't ask ArbCom to give you a warning or anything. I also didn't start a case myself because I feel like I wouldn't be the best person to do so. There's also a part of me that hopes that maybe you'll just realize how problematic your conduct is and for you to change course. At least I can tell myself that I did try to warn you when someone braver than me starts a recall petition or arbcom case. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ll note that the comments I made on xyr talk page yesterday were made with no knowledge of this. But I think it would be best for me to not form an opinion on this until I see the entire story. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 18:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: It's good to hear that this is your first time on the receiving end of an ADMINACCT inquiry. As you note, it's not my first time, so I'm happy to explain the procedure if you're unfamiliar with it. The relevant portion of policy is Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. I have now asked you twice about your Wikipedia-related conduct, and you have twice evaded the question, so we're already straining "promptly". I would argue that responding with the same kind of personalized remarks you made on Discord when I critiqued your refusal to take responsibility for your actions also strains "civilly", but that's less my concern at the moment.

I have asked you a series of questions. These questions pertain greatly to your fitness to serve as an administrator: You were arguing to me that the 1,100+ signatories of WP:SOLIDARITY should go on strike, which I think everyone agrees would involve a noticeable reduction in the quality of the encyclopedia, not in the name of accomplishing a particular goal and then returning to work, but because it would make (unnamed) community members feel good. How is that proposed course of action—which, to be clear, you had publicly encouraged WWU toward before I convinced you to delete your post about it—beneficial to the encyclopedia, and not about your personal interests, feeling slighted as you do by the WMF? I'll throw in a bonus question too: At any point in the push for WWU solidarity, have you cited the crisis as a reason for the WMF to give you money, only to be rebuffed? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

What Wikipedia-related behaviour are you concerned about that I am supposedly evading? I'm confused why you're going at me with ADMINACCT when you've been so blatantly incivil towards me that if you weren't an admin you would've been blocked for it. This is not a "both sides" thing. I have never insulted you or told you to remove posts you make on social media. That's not appropriate behaviour and it should not be tolerated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, my post was simply a question asking the WWU if they could share any further information because people were anxious about the lack of transparency. You're acting like I performed some horrible crime for asking questions. You can even quote the social media post I made before I deleted it if you think it's so horrible. In exchange, I ask that I'm allowed to post the full comment I keep referencing about how you think my worldview is fucked up because you had to convince me to do what you want.

And yes, people want to help the WWU, that's the whole point. I asked these questions out of a concern they might lose what little leverage they have in an uneven power dynamic because the WMF's status quo seems to be ignoring issues until they go away. Trying to understand context to try and understand a decision is not the same thing as insisting people have to go on strike now and damn the consequences. There's a reason I continue to say your framing is misleading. Trying to change this AN thread to be another attack on me is not a good look, especially when I only felt the need to say something after a thinly veiled reference to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

As for and not about your personal interests, feeling slighted as you do by the WMF? I'll throw in a bonus question too: At any point in the push for WWU solidarity, have you cited the crisis as a reason for the WMF to give you money, only to be rebuffed, that's such a blatant personal attack I'm kind of in awe. You make it sound like I'm blackmailing people, which I would never ever dare do. I did try to ask a board member to create a position where someone with a strong investment in the community try to directly engage with the community more often in the places we actually are on-wiki, like the village pumps. They didn't seem to understand what I was even proposing because they kept saying that was just MoveComms. It's true that I offered myself as a possible candidate, but I also made it exceedingly clear that I don't care if it's me if it's someone. The relationship between the community and the WMF is not sustainable the way it is, the fact that they do not realize how dire of a crisis this current situation is only makes that even worse, and ignoring the problem will not resolve it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I have also advocated for this idea months before this latest kerfuffle, so it's not some sudden thing, either. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Re your first post, you don't get to avoid an ADMINACCT inquiry by complaining that the person asking it is mean. If you feel I've been incivil, well, I'd say "take it up with ArbCom" but apparently you already have and they didn't do anything. I'm not going to agree to posting cherry-picked messages, but if you'd like the community's input, I'm okay with all of the messages being posted publicly; I've already prepared a version that redacts the few details in there that implicate your or my or others' privacy, and I'm happy to show you them by email for your review. I don't think I look great at a few points in that exchange, but if you're going to keep saying publicly that I personally attacked you, when my stance boiled down to You aren't responsible with the power you wield and you respond poorly to criticism and your stance boiled down to You're mean and everyone talks behind your back about how mean you are, then I think the community has a right to see that conversation.

Re your second post, sure, here's the post. (Transcribed by hand; let me know if I made any mistakes.)

@wwu I realize you have a lot on your plate, but I'd be tremendously grateful if we had some sort of sign regarding if collective action is being planned, especially the longer this goes on.

The morale of so many community members is so low right now, especially since the foundation seems keen to ignore what people are upset about, and it'd be nice to feel like there's something I can actually do about it. I feel like a strike would also rekindle a lot of the momentum we had going on

So, first, that's not a question; it's a request. And second, it's explicitly a request to strike; if there was any doubt that that's what you meant in your second sentence, your third sentence makes it clear. Your messages to me also weren't questions. They were you affirmatively clarifying that the reason you support a strike is to make editors feel validated, and that you support one even if it isn't tied to any demands. So now we've moved past failing to respond to an ADMINACCT inquiry, and moved on to responding with false statements. Not a single one of the messages I mentioned above was a question. They were all you stating your view on why a strike should happen.

Re your third post, how on Earth is that a personal attack if the answer to the question is "yes"? While actively supporting a strike effort on-wiki, you argued off-wiki to WMF personnel that they could fix the problem by giving you a job, only to face strong resistance by a Board member and your peers alike. Then, after feeling ignored by the WMF, you contacted Jimbo publicly and Bernadette privately to vow "I won't forget this". 11 days later, you sent your message to WWU calling for a strike to make people feel better. If you don't see why that might at least look like self-dealing and perverting the solidarity movement to your own goals, then this is the same failure of holding yourself accountable that I was talking about privately before you started attacking me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Post the transcript publically then. I have no interest in communicating with you through email right now. If you redact anything, simply say [redacted text] in the parts that are redacted and I can object publically if I think you're going too far with it. It's true I had a public conversation off-wiki where that became a discussion topic and it's true that might not have been the best timing, but I'm also to my neck in a mountain of legal fees for trying to do something about the sustained sexual harrassment I faced at my last job, and that does affect my mental state somewhat. But I'll repeat that this isn't the first time I have advocated for such an idea, I made it clear that I think it has merit regardless of whoever does it, and my interest in supporting the WWU has nothing to do with personal gain. I engaged on Jimmy's talk page since the start of COMMTECH. I don't remember when exactly I sent that email to Bernadette but it's clear by the content itself that it has everything to do with the WMF's actions lately. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

For example, see Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 13#Community-WMF relations. Also, if I was in this for personal gain, I'm really shooting myself in the foot by displeasing people who might like me and refusing to hold them to a double standard just because I might like them as a person (Bernadette and Jimmy). I don't think there's anything wrong with telling people you've recognized the pattern of how the WMF deals with such situations and you're not going to forget about it. I also find it odd that you have a problem with me having a problem with people who actually have some decision making authority while you are the one proposing social consquences for "strikebreakers". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought I had said everything I needed to say, but I'll throw in a bonus question too: At any point in the push for WWU solidarity, have you cited the crisis as a reason for the WMF to give you money, only to be rebuffed? Did Jimbo not get taken to arbcom and ultimately give up his admin privileges over a much milder version of this comment? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, in Jimbo's case the answer was "no" and there was no good reason to think it would be "yes". In this case, I know the answer is "yes" because I watched it unfold in real time (as quite a few experienced users tried in vain to dissuade Clovermoss), and Clovermoss has acknowledged above that the answer is "yes". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin and Clovermoss: I seriously doubt the value of this subthread, and given some history between you, I think it's likely to cause a lot of unnecessary stress for both of you. I respectfully suggest that you stay away from each other for awhile. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't exactly do that when Tamzin is repeatedly insisting I'm somehow violating ADMINACCT. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Its actually getting tempting to propose a mutual interaction ban for the two of you. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Enough

The heat vs light ratio is now off the scale. Will someone please close this thread. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 19:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I would've done so, but seeing as I'm involved here, I chose not to. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 19:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. sapphaline (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at WP:AIV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Any admins able to help sort through/clear out the backlog at AIV? It’s accumulating a bit more than usual - not at oh my word levels- but still. Thanks! Netstars22 (talk to me!) 07:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is similarly backlogged, if any admins are free to help out :) In solidarity, nil ^nz 07:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I tackled some of RfPP and someone else got to AIV. Apparently too many of us sleep in North. American time zones. Star Mississippi 13:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks y’all!

And now that I’m looking at that timestamp am I realizing how late I stayed up that night… Netstars22 (talk to me!) 00:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns by M.Billoo2000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I am opening a new thread for my own understanding, guidance, and support, rather than to start fight with anyone.

For past few days, I have been witnessing a doubtful pattern of edits at the article Ali Zafar. Some users try adding the subject's birthdate, however, it gets removed under BLPPRIVACY and maybe due to the lack of reputable reference. I came across the subject's interview from 2021 as well, in which he commented about his age that "everyone knows it, it is on Wikipedia". I mean, what is the criteria of adding a birthdate if it has a SIGCOV as well and is recognized by the subject himself, yet the reference quality appear to be low to some users while reputable to others?

Secondly, I witnessed removal of music album entry from the article Talha Anjum as well; this article was also significantly edited by me few months ago. As per my understanding, WP:DISCOGRAPHY does not necessarily require references due to the primary existence by the artist or label being an enough evidence, and so it does not fall under WP:OR. Also that, the albums are already mentioned and referenced in the prose above. How would this be justified?

I also do believe that removal is not always a suitable option as per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and WP:DEL-CONTENT, and everything does not fall under WP:BLP violation.

No bad intentions, but I intentionally chose WP:AN rather than going on to any other forum like WP:Y or WP:TEA or WT:PAK or WT:MUSIC or etc. So, it definitely means that I am seeking an admin's reply. Hope for a kind and helpful response, thank you! M. Billoo 02:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but these seem to be content disputes and admins have no special rights in disputes about content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Questions like this should go to WP:BLPN. In the early days of Wikipedia, pretty much anything went, and Wikipedia was, in my opinion, a joke. I created my user account when things started to change, in 2007. This middle era continued for several years as Wikipedia grew larger and became more intolerant of unsourced statements, especially in biographies, and trended more toward reporting what sources said rather than what Wikipedia editors believed. The next change happened in the 2010s, as people pushed pretty heavily to raise the standard for sourcing, once again most especially in biographies, but also elsewhere. It became increasingly harder to satisfy editors who patrolled biographies, and it became harder to get information that was both trivial and personal to stay in a biography. The first thing I remember removing and seeing other people remove was the names and birth dates of children. After that, it was the birth dates of celebrities themselves. Finally, I think Jew-tagging (the practice of labeling Jews) became increasingly frowned upon. This did not happen until recently.

Today, yes, it is harder to get information to stay in an article, especially a biography, even if it is sourced. Standards have been steadily rising. Sources that were once considered alright are now deprecated. Content that was once commonly included is now excluded by default unless there is strong sourcing. More weight is given to how the subject feels. If someone removes sourced content and does not want it in an article, discuss it with them on the talk page and find out why. If their concerns do not convince you, you can seek dispute resolution. If their concerns strike you as counter to policy, you can raise the issue at a noticeboard (such as WP:BLPN or WP:ANI). In the end, I think you will find that some content is simply harder to add to Wikipedia these days. I think this is generally a good thing. There are times when I have thought it has gone too far compared to how I pushed for change in the 2010s, but I am overall happy to see that Wikipedia in the mid 2020s is more like how I wanted it to be back in the early 2010s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for your brief reply. I can understand your concern about the growth of Wikipedia policies over the years. When you say, discuss it with them on the talk page and/or raise the issue at a noticeboard, I think that the admins whom I had interacted with during the past year may understand why I intentionally chose to write here instead of elsewhere. Though a reply by you, an uninvolved admin, is well appreciated.

@ActivelyDisinterested: I can understand that admins have no special power, but if there is any misuse of the policy or any loophole within the policy, I assume an admin can definitely look at it.

Hope to see others feedbacks as well. And, any thoughts on integrating WP:DISCOGRAPHY within a BLP? Thank you. M. Billoo 14:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Problems with the structure of policies and guidelines should be first raised on the corresponding talk page or one of the village pumps, depending on the scope. Problems with misapplication or violation of policies and guidelines can be discussed at ANI or one of the other specialist noticeboards listed at the top of this page, as appropriate. Admins have access to certain tools that can be used to implement actions to prevent disruption and enforce community consensus and ARBCOM rulings, but do not have any more power over policies and guidelines than editors do. Donald Albury 15:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverting an improper closure (Request for closure review)

Hello, I believe this is the right place to request this and is not intended for the incidents board. I'm requesting that the closure of a discussion for the Democratic Socialists of America article be reviewed due to it being prematurely closed (WP:WHENCLOSE) not allowing much time to deliberate on the subject, and the closer having involvement in the subject (WP:INVOLVED). There have been recent disputed edits to the article about whether the political position "far-left" applies, and I was going to not so much defend the original poster of the relevant discussion (as he may have been starting from a place of bad faith) but to build on the topic and argue whether the term could be attributed to the party. I didn't feel that it was right to start another discussion from what was basically the same topic.

I had followed the recommended closure practices and politely asked the closer to revert the closure but it was not very productive. Thank you.

◀ Juniperol (bingus) ▶ --(talk) 23:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to notify the closer you initiated this discussion. I don't see you've outlined any reason to revert the close which seems to have been proper and was just an ordinary discussion not an RFC or anything. If you or anyone else has sources to support some claim you're free to open a new discussion and discuss what changes you want to make. No reason to use that discussion which was started off so poorly. This is a CTOP case so the toleranceof nonsense threads is low and closing them more readily is well accepted. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I was unaware of the CTOP designation and how that changed it. I’ll just create a new discussion then and notify him about this in the thread. ◀ Juniperol (bingus) ▶ --(talk) 17:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Page creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I'm Juliet Lemar, an Emmy-winning reporter based in Los Angeles. I have created a wikipedia draft for my career, It's currently in the sandbox - User:Jlemarroberts/sandbox.

I would like to publish this page. How can I go about doing that?

Thanks and take care!

- J Jlemarroberts (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Basically, you don't. See Wikipedia:Autobiographies for a more detailed answer, with links to our policies and guidelines. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Juliet, the tl;dr is that Wikipedia highly discourages the publication of autobiographies. Wikipedia only publishes articles about subjects that are "notable", which means subjects that have been discussed at some length in independent, reliable sources. For people, that usually means having their career discussed in a long form piece of journalism, a book, a national encyclopedia of biography, etc. Additionally, Wikipedia articles need to be written in a neutral tone and the goal of any article is to summarize what secondary sources have to say about a subject. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please also be very careful now you've made it clear that you're interested in an article - scammers are very likely to try to contact you in order to elicit payment for an article that's unlikely to pass muster.

Please read Wikipedia:Scam warning as soon as you have a moment, I can't stress how important it is that you familiarise yourself with this problem. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

• Chipmunkdavis
• TechnoSquirrel69

• Mlaffs
• SpuriousQ
• Lectonar
• Dennis Brown
• Hog Farm

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

• Dbeef
• EdJohnston

Oversight changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

L235

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed should be modified.
• A request for comment proposes an addendum for the Real name section of the Username policy.

Technical news

• The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created for any users to use to find an IP range. (phab:T268429)
• The "indefinitely" button in Special:Block for temporary accounts can be replaced with a preferred block duration stated on MediaWiki:ipb-indefinite-expiry-temporary-account. (phab:T427125)

Arbitration

• Following a series of motions, changes to the contentious topics procedure to restructure awareness have been implemented.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• 10 candidates have been appointed to the U4C.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

• ~2026-37655-77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Good morning. This user has been vandalizing the page Anti-Berber racism and referred to Berbers using racist terms such as "Khramazigh" in the Talk Page. nas (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Naslechat, this is one of the slower admin noticeboards so I'd usually suggest WP:AIV for clear/urgent vandalism and WP:ANI for more complex, longer cases.

  It looks like they stopped after those two edits so I think we can leave this for the next available admin to review, but if they start back up can you please report to AIV? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Procedural close of LLM RfC

Several editors have asked Athanelar to withdraw an RfC on LLM-assisted copyediting, pointing out that the RFCBEFORE discussion had been open less than 24 hours and expressing a desire that the proposal be workshopped further. Athanelar has declined to withdraw the RfC, arguing that there's no valid basis for a procedural close. I am asking the community to shut down the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It becomes a bit more difficult if Athenelar doesnt agree and the current wording of WP:RFCBEFORE does not strictly require a pre rfc discussion.

if everyone agrees on early close and its snowing, its easier to close. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the current wording of RFCBEFORE, the clear spirit of that section is that consequential proposals should be discussed and workshopped before they are put to the community. There's a clear desire here to slow down. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

there have been gigantic debates about what rfcbefore means and what a bad rfc means, or if bad rfcs are real in policy. see 1, 2, 3, etc.

i think the 4 votes participating in the rfc vs 5 votes asking to shut it down suggests the cats already been let out the bag, and it would be difficult to snowclose? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

RFCBEFORE does not require workshopping anything, ever. RFCBEFORE is about how to not have an RFC because (e.g.,) you had an ordinary discussion instead of the RFC. That said, we do have two rules that suggest workshopping RFCs:

1. WP:RFCBRIEF gently suggests it as an occasionally beneficial activity, and
2. the WP:PROPOSAL policy firmly encourages it for major changes to policies or guidelines.

There is no rule anywhere that actually requires workshopping an RFC, and "failure to follow a non-existent rule, even if I think it would have been a very good idea" is not officially grounds for ending an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there’s no rule or procedure to end an RfC early. I know you’ve been involved in those discussions. Usually an experienced editor just boldly closes it. I think that’s appropriate here, especially since the nom said they were checking out and not to ping them. Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#c-Athanelar-20260701163900-Dw31415-20260701162800 Dw31415 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah ive been pretty involved with those discussions before. Yeah a bold close makes most sense, apologies if i brought up too much complications. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree this should probably be closed - I wasn't sure whether to post my opinion here or on the discussion, I figured I'd leave it there and link here as a compromise: In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Added my own vote to procedurally close as well. Hopefully that makes a bold close easier. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dw31415, I suspect your comment is less clear than you'd meant. There are all kinds of rules for closing RFCs early; WP:RFCEND has a numbered list of them. It's just "you didn't discuss long enough/write the question I wish you asked/jump through the right hoops" isn't one of them. Opponents of the RFC might be interested in the second item in RFCEND's list, namely, "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time". This can be done over the objections of the OP, though it generally does require a strong consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

How can a neutrality issue be fixed? In this case the nom reverted changes to the options and insisted on including a Straw man option. I think you’re going to say that I should have just added my own option bellow their list, ping any one who had voted, and lived with straw man. Dw31415 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

A "neutrality issue" is generally fixed by not voting (and more generally, discouraging this trend towards providing pre-selected/pre-biased response options at all). If someone says "Do you support my proposal, or do you hate children? Vote A or B", then you should reply with an ordinary talk-page comment, possibly starting with something like "I don't think that the question as written addresses the entire problem here" and then going on to explain your ideas about what the problems are and how we might resolve them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I would oppose a procedural close. The horses left the barn and are a few miles down the road; I haven't seen an actual issue that's strong enough to call the barn repair place over. I may feel differently if I thought there was a real substantive issue with the RFC that tinkering after the fact couldn't address. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I procedurally closed it. Levivich (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please self-revert. Discussion here does not support that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You really see it that way? I don't see it that way, and I don't think discussion here is dispositive on the issue, anyway. I think I wrote a well-thought-out explanation for why procedural close is the right move, and it's supported by about half of the people who have chimed in, AFAICT. Happy to engage in a close review discussion at my talk page, though. Levivich (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would oppose any attempt to make RFCBEFORE binding. We don't need more red tape surrounding RFCs, and it would inevitably be used to stall and stonewall RFCs where someone prefers the status quo. Sometimes a question and the need to answer it is just obvious, requiring no initial discussion. And sometimes a question will be implicit in prior discussions; that is, I think, the case here. Copyediting using LLMs has been discussed at length; maybe it could be discussed more, but if we let people shut down RFCs over that, we would never have any RFCs ever. --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Copyediting using LLMs has been discussed at length; maybe it could be discussed more, but if we let people shut down RFCs over that, we would never have any RFCs ever. Yes, it has, but the actual proposed language – which would change a significant guideline – was not discussed before it was proposed. It is the product of a single editor who reverted another editor's attempts to change the proposal and was not open to further workshopping. The whole point of a workshop is to say "okay, we've discussed this a bunch, how should we present this issue to the community?" Having a brief discussion (over one or two days) about how to frame a discussion that will be attended by the wider community is prudent, not bureaucratic. I'm not arguing that RFCBEFORE should always be binding, but editors also shouldn't jump the gun to open an RfC when waiting just a little bit longer might help to clarify unforseen issues or work out better wording for a proposal. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't really trying to add to the guideline two months ago, but just trying to take examples from out of the linked page and put them in the guideline directly. Since a lot of people have strong opinions on this I'm fine supporting a procedural close. InfernoHues (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Voorts, I agree that nobody should be compelled to engage in a discussion before starting an RFC. I also agree with you that a prior discussion is sometimes (not always) prudent. However, the reality is that some people only learn prudence in these matters by having their RFC(s) fail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps we could make it mandatory to have either a pre-RFC discussion or an explicit statement of why a pre-RFC discussion isn't required in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Aside from the fact that there are WP:No firm rules by policy, we'd have fights about whether this discussion "counts". People regularly mis-cite RFCBEFORE to mean two different kinds of discussions (over the substance vs over the wording of the question). Few RFCs get discussions over the wording of the RFC question; it's not the community's practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaho Chishi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaho Chishi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. The nominator of this AfD is withdrawing it, and has asked me to close it. However, I am very much WP:INVOLVED, so I don't think I can (or should). Could someone please step in and do the necessary? Thanks very much, Jack (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There are several "delete" comments. It's clear that the nominator has changed their mind (which is reflected in their comment in the discussion) but the discussion should continue for the full 7 days. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot about the seven-day thingy. Thanks, Schazjmd. Jack (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does CSD G3 apply to fake content in user sandboxes? I ran across User:V1kingz98/sandbox where the user is posting imaginary election stuff, and it seems rather stupid to waste time at MfD for such material. Deor (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Fantasy election stuff like this doesn't come under G3, as it's not a hoax or vandalism, but it might fall under U7 (Excessively unrelated non-draft subpages by non-contributors), I've not evaluated it. If it doesn't qualify for U7 then your options are to take it to MfD or leave it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The user has made exactly one edit (in 2024) outside the infobox, so I'm going to speedy it per U7. Deor (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to the functionary team, July 2026

At their request, the checkuser permission of dbeef (talk · contribs) is restored. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team, July 2026

Decision Review and Referral to reverse or revoke partial block on my account in Wikipedia

̥I have been serving the partial block on my account in Wikipedia since 26 February 2025. I would be eager to prove my mettle to be able to show my fullest commitment and dedication to Wikipedia community. I am appealing to revoke the ban on my account with the hope of editing articles. Seek your approval and kind assistance to do the needful. I have made errors and had some editorial issues in the past for which I take 100 percent responsibility. Give me one more opportunity and I would repay the faith the Wikipedia community as a whole had on me in the past when I made my Wikipedia debut on 17 February 2017. Abishe (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note : the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Copyvio and WP:CIR issues from user Abishe. Cabayi (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

What were your errors and why do you think you can avoid them now? Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm slightly inclined to support an unblock by default, though I think that answering Nil Einne's question would help. The description on the block says Discussion should determine if this needs to be a long-term block or not. It has been nearly a year and a half, so it has already become a long-term block without significant discussion. The ANI thread (see here ) didn't have much commentary following Abishe's replies. Some other restrictions might be warranted. Some of the issues may have arisen due to use of LLMs, so perhaps a topic ban.

Though one thing makes me curious is why Abishe never started editing draftspace, as multiple editors recommended here . It would show they are able to effectively contribute to articles in a manner that doesn't reproduce the issues with their previous editing. Katzrockso (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who suggest that editing draftspace and making edit requests would do a lot more to demonstrate this editor can productively edit Wikipedia. The editor hasn't really done this since the partial block, and is mostly sending out a lot of welcome to Wikipedia and holiday messages. There's one draft in there, and while I don't see any copyright issues on it, the writing is so unidiomatic that nearly every sentence would have to be significantly edited. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that they are only blocked from article space, use of the draft space to show that they actually understand what they did wrong, and can correct it would provide the evidence needed for a lifting of the block. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

That was actually suggested at ANI following the initial block, so it's a pity that almost every edit since then has been a template welcome message.

Since their block involved copyright violations and AI-use, I really want to see either accepted drafts, edit requests or fixed previous drafts. There were also concerns regarding overly-verbose text; since I'm still seeing hints of that above, I'd like to see drafted examples of their current writing style before considering whether the block should be relaxed/removed. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Organised paid editing by some users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report some wikipedia users who is doing paid editing. They are doing this in a coordinated way. They are nominating many of the well sourced articles for deletion because they are not getting paid. I even sent mail to wikipedia but nobody responded CNMall41, Thilsebatti, Jeraxmoira, Ravensfire and Spiderone are a part of a gang. There are many more users in the gang. Especially CNMall141, Thilsebatti and Ravensfire. They are getting support from the admin 331dot. If anyone needs evidence such as whatsapp screenshots I can send it. Please take some action like open sockpuppet investigation to stop this abuse. ~2026-38230-44 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't start discussions on two different noticeboards, you already started a discussion at the Incidents one. jolielover♥talk 07:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent edit warring and personal attacks

A blatant sockpuppet of the globally blocked user Nyxaros / Renamed user 7ac1f43d306d4b5f596ea383293c4226 has been persistently edit warring on Possession (1981 film) and engaging in personal attacks in both their edit summaries and the article's talk page, via the single-purpose account IKnowWhatImDoingAlright and an assortment of IP accounts. They have been repeatedly warned about Wikipedia's policies with regard to edit warring, personal attacks, and using alternate accounts to evade a block. After I placed warnings on the talk pages of all their known accounts, they paused editing for a week, then resumed violating all three policies.

I will notify them of this topic via all the accounts I know about. However, shortly before they were globally blocked, Nyxaros / Renamed user 7ac1f43d306d4b5f596ea383293c4226 received a topic ban, so it may be appropriate to investigate whether they are using other accounts to edit in violation of that ban. (I say "may" because I don't know what the policy is in regard to such things.) Martin IIIa (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I blocked IKnowWhatImDoingAlright. I would suggest requesting page protection if the disruption flares up again. Or leave a note on my user talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If this can be verified, Nyxaros should be have their name restored to their now locked account. It's an abuse of process; abusing the courtesy vanishing process undermines the ability for that process to exist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

(And, of course, a topic ban for IKnowWhatImDoingAlright in this case, to match the sanctions on the Nyxaros account) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd concur with this (and reading their edit summaries it does read like them). Would it be worth an SPI? Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Nyxaros unvanished. Wasn’t eligible for vanishing and abused the process with another account. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Users tripping edit filters on sandbox articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user called Helmand38 has been flagged by DatBot on AIV for blanking a sandbox page. Is the bot malfunctioning? ~2026-27896-09 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question about Redirects.

I do not often enter the technical side of Wikipedia and I became aware of something that I could not find an answer as for the proper course. I will provide additional information if requested. The situation that has arose is an article that was redirected as the result of an Afd discussion has been un-redirected by an editor. I cannot find a discussion pertaining to the article to revoke the redirect. As a result, I would like to propose upholding the Afd decision and to reinstate the redirect. However, I do not know the appropriate course to take in order to do so. So I kindly ask if someone can point me in the right direction to go through the proper channels. Thank you. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@ThisUserIsTaken: What is the name of the article? Left guide (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Left guide: The article is for Salaam Bhatti. The aforementioned Afd is here. Since then, there has been no significant coverage of him outside of local election coverage, as he is running for public office. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Compared to the consensus redirected version, the editor has made substantial changes with content and sources, and in conjunction with being ten months ago, I don't see the first AfD close as being very enforceable anymore. But you're free to re-nominate it for another AfD anytime. Left guide (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I was not sure if I should re-nominate it or if there was another procedure. Thank you again! ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone simply restores the same exact version shortly after the close, that's defying consensus, and they should be advised to either discuss with the closer or raise at WP:DRV. That may be the type of procedure you're referring to. You're welcome and good luck. Left guide (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Should a category be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. User @AFeatherlessBipehead believes that the article on the Kerch Polytechnic College massacre should include the category “School shootings motivated by bullying,” even though bullying is only a suspected motive in this crime and the investigation has not reached a consensus. I also do not see other school attacks listed in this category — for example, those in Russia where bullying was suspected as a motive and where there is information about possible bullying. Please clarify whether this category should be included in the article and whether it should be added to other articles YillowsGiblles (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~2026-38391-16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A vandal user. Please block it ~2026-36771-82 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They've been blocked. This can be done through Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suppression of sourced content and talk page guideline violations by User:Blue-Sonnet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User Blue-Sonnet has systematically suppressed substantive discussion on Talk:Craig_Groeschel and Talk:Life.Church through improper use of collapse templates and unfounded AI accusations, violating WP:Talk page guidelines. Pattern of violations: Craig Groeschel talk, 04:47 21 June 2026 - Collapsed sourced response with "Collapse AI-generated comment" despite being substantive reply addressing sources Life.Church talk, 04:47 21 June 2026 - Identical collapse of same discussion Craig Groeschel article, 05:02 21 June 2026 - Reverted entire sourced section citing "unsourced" without identifying specific unsourced claims, despite sources present in The Roys Report (April/May 2026). Guideline violation: Per WP:Talk page guidelines § LLM-generated comments: "Involved parties must not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Blue-Sonnet initiated the AI accusations, making them an involved party. Using collapse templates to suppress substantive content discussion violates this guideline. Pattern of avoiding substance: Blue-Sonnet's revert edit summary states "most of this is unsourced" but identifies no specific unsourced claims. The removed content was sourced to The Roys Report (April/May 2026). Rather than engage with sources, Blue-Sonnet has made repeated AI accusations across multiple editors and edits, systematizing discussion suppression. Content dispute: Per WP:Consensus: "Some editors confuse agreement with silence." Blue-Sonnet cannot demand consensus before restoring sourced material. When sources are present and cited, removal requires substantive engagement, not collapse templates and AI accusations. Request that admins address Blue-Sonnet's talk page violations and review whether content removals meet policy standards.

FancyFlippers (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Your robot told you to paste this onto the wrong page. You want WP:AN/I. Morwen (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

In case they do schlepp their LLM over to ANI, it's worth looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1227#Possible COI editing by User:LaffyTaffer and applying the appropriate boomerang. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This is now the second obviously AI generated report to these boards by this user, the first being a content dispute involving myself. It additionally seems clear from their contributions that the user operating this LLM has an undisclosed COI. I second A Frantic Turtle's suggestion of a boomerang ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 17:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that this user or their LLM is now also engaging in personal attacks at Talk:Craig Groeschel ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 18:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked. Morwen (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That'll teach me to have an afternoon nap! For the record I did present evidence on the original thread, a lot of the edits were inadequately sourced, and I'll just emphasise Involved parties must not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting possibly non-free images

I've have a note on my talk page that File:Sutton Valence pre 1918.jpg has been tagged as an unused non-free image and will be deleted in a week. I'm still of the opinion that the image is likely PD, but lost that argument at Commons. As new images of the mill have recently been uploaded to Commons, do we need to wait a week, or can it just be deleted? Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The current version used in the article is File:Sutton Valence mill 19th century.jpg claimed as PD but appears to just be a altered version of your postcard image. As for do you need to wait a week, not if you G7 it. But it is always a shame to loose historical images that are probably PD but unprovably so. KylieTastic (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mjroots, essentially what KylieTastic says above. Since you are an admin, you could just G7 delete the image yourself right now if you want - the only other edits to that page are bot and AWB edits. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: agree it is a shame to lose this image, but another picture of the mill in working order is now available at C:Category:Sutton Valence Windmill. I'll G7 it. Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

For info: New article Town Mill, Sutton Valence. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

article called "Ōei Invasion" has some users trolling instead of having discussion to build encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I tried making edits on this article since... 1) There are sections that are missing sufficient amount of citation/sources 2) To add more information with proper citations.

However, we have several users that kept reverting back the changes to original state of the article that needed more information and had sections that did not have sufficient amount of citation/evidences. Back then, I was not aware of wikipedia's policies, so the users tried to talk to be but I did not know back then about the discussion board's existence. So in June, I was banned. At the end of the month, my ban ended. I told the users (now that I know about the policies) I admitted fault and will join the discussion when my ban is over in end of June.

After the ban is over, I joined the conversation in the discussion board with the other users who opposed my changes. I gave them a benefit of doubt and entered a debate as respectfully as I can. However...

1) Only one user among the group (Sunnyediting99) that reverted the edits I made actively replied. The others (perhaps one or two more) made some broad statements but they could not provide any evidence to their claims. The other users who reverted my changes but refused to actively participate are... -ToBeFree -Cinderella157 -Musikbot II -Protection Helper Bot -ScottyNolan

2) The only user that was on a constant discussion with me was a person with the ID, Sunnyediting99. However, his assertions in this debate had insufficient or irrelevant evidences only. I logically pointed out the flaws of his assertions. Over the time, instead of engaging in logical discussion, he decided to become defensive, emotional, repeating same argument with same source that I already provided a rebuttal for, and started to even make accusatory remarks and reach out to administrator before they even tried to make efforts to resolve logically first.

I got the impression that these users simply do not want the changes that I am making but instead of using logic and discussion, they are using consensus to push forward their assertions. We need some interventions. I will follow up and provide sources if requested, but for now, we have this issue.

This page "Oei Invasion" needs some administrative intervention to resolve this dispute.

RecentContributor2026 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expired LLMPROD backlog

There are 170 expired LLMPROD nominations listed at Category:Expired proposed deletions of AI-generated content, some of which are as old as the oldest unexpired regular PRODs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Current status of translation tools considered harmful.

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Current status of translation tools considered harmful.

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hereby requesting access to the translation tool that's been disabled, for the reasons given here - there's no compelling reason to block access to tools that facilitate citation migration, but it is being blocked. Creating lots of problems with just one (and presumably most) attempted / suffocated translation efforts. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference, Asilvering addressed this request here. Further discussion should be kept at VP. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Unban request of Wolverine X-eye

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following is the request of Wolverine X-eye for the removal of their ban. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Over a year ago, I got banned by the community for disruptive editing. The ban was actually my 2nd; the first was for disruptive editing, sockpuppetry and competency issues. See this and this link for reference.

OK, regarding the nature of my 2nd ban, I would firstly like to talk about my behavioral issues. In this thread, I came to realize that my conduct was worse than I first anticipated. If things did not go my way or took "too long", I would be quick to gripe, complain, personally attack or dismiss others' comments. When people pointed it out to me, instead of seeing it for what it was, I would come up with unnecessary excuses (showing WP:CIR and not getting the point), and when contributing to articles and nominating them for say GA or FA, many of the previously mentioned behaviors would come to the forefront. Case in point, I tried desperately pushing Narwhal to FA status and would often times complain about reviewers not being fair as opposed to actually following through with their advice. This not only frustrated reviewers, but wasted their time and energy and I understand why they would feel that way. My GA involvement is an important factor in my banning as I had a tendency of taking on more reviews than I could handle. The reviews I did make were poor, harsh and lacked in-depth consideration. Again people brought this to my attention and again I dismissed the issue. In terms of my nominations, when reviewers informed me of legitimate, intractable concerns, I would dismiss or barely address them, then re-nominate those articles if the reviewer (or I, as was the case with the Fennec fox article) decided to fail it.

I would also like to discuss my editing patterns on articles. Usually, when I worked on articles I would clog the article history with numerous edits, almost all of them with the same edit summary of "Ce". Sometimes I even made numerous edits just removing some space characters. I thought this to be normal editing behavior but in hindsight I realize just how much of an annoyance and disruption such editing was.

Looking at things holistically, this is a recurring behavioral issue going back to my earliest days. It is not enough that I know what I did wrong, but why this self-sabotoge keeps happening and what I can do about it. Even after recognizing the root causes that drove my behavior I know those factors do not matter; the detrimental impact I had on the project is what truly matters. I think it's important I say that it disturbs me greatly that I have caused so much disruption to a project I actually like. I can't express just how much I regret my actions. The ban on me was completely justified and I have no complaints about that. I only want to take this moment to communicate my thoughts and insights on this situation to the community.

If I do get unblocked, I plan to work on content creation but with one caveat: I will make no more than 10 edits on 1 page per day, with each edit having a detailed/appropriate summary. Second, if I do get into disagreements with others, I will not get defensive, dismissive or rude but will try to reach a middle ground as tactfully as is required. Thirdly, if the community wishes to impose any sanctions or conditions that come with an unblock like Topic bans, mentors, or similar, I welcome it. I acknowledge that the nature of my track record warrants skepticism and that this request is a courtesy not a right.

I've been editing on Wikimedia Commons during this time if anyone is interested in that.

Thank you, Wolverine X-eye (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty self-aware appeal, both addressing the behavior that led to the ban and the underlying mentality that led to that behavior. I would actually oppose part of the offered editing restriction, at least as a bright-line restriction: I think a general expectation of not making more than 10 edits/page/day sounds like a great idea, but you wouldn't want to make that a set-in-stone enforceable rule because like, what if someone points out you made a factual error in the 10th edit? You also wouldn't want this to apply on talk pages, where a good-faith discussion might last well more than 10 comments and you would be hampering consensusbuilding by not being able to reply, nor in userspace or draftspace, because if you're drafting a new page no one really cares if that takes you 100 edits. I would prefer something like "Is required to use descriptive edit summaries when editing articles, and to not overwhelm article editing histories; 10 edits per article per day is recommended as a rule-of-thumb limit, subject to common sense".

I also think some sort of GAN restriction is probably needed here. Wolverine shows an admirable understanding of what went wrong with his previous GANs, but that does not necessarily translate into being able to fix those problems on his own. I think the ideal situation would be mentorship, something like "Wolverine may only submit one article to GAN at a time, and only when his GA mentor has agreed the article is ready. He should follow his mentor's guidance regarding appropriate behavior at GAN." There are any number of users who could make a good mentor for this; I've reached out to Generalissima, who was once my mentee but has by now far exceeded my own knowledge of the GA process (138 GA passes being just slightly larger than 17), and she would be willing to take on this role if Wolverine is open to it. (Feel free to ping me from your usertalk, Wolverine.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that Wolverine has agreed to these proposed terms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I would happy to help out as a mentor for Wolverine! (Apologies for the delay in response, have been feeling under the weather lately.) If he has a particular article in mind to work, I think it'd make sense for him to make a draft rewrite in userspace, and then we can push it to mainspace once it's GAN-ready. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought there was no way I'd agree to an unban for a twice-banned editor (fool me twice, shame on me), but this post seems to show genuine insight and contrition and a constructive plan. I agree with the editing restrictions proposed by Wolverine X-eye and Tamzin. Fences&Windows 12:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support with the amended restrictions - it's rare that we see such insight from a blocked editor, I applaud the time and effort he's taken with this appeal. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support per the guardrails suggested by Tamzin. Seems a well thought out unblock request with understanding of the issues. Might suggest they commit to one username only but I'm not familiar enough with the history to know if the renames were just a preference change or an attempt to evade issues. Star Mississippi 16:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting I'm satisfied with their explanation of the rename and have no further concerns. Star Mississippi 13:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Assuming the named editor or a similar mentor is on board, I Support an unblock with simply that restriction. I think an edits-per-article restriction would be unwieldy and unnecessary. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support with the GAN restrictions as above. However, I oppose a formal restriction when it comes to edit summaries and suggested number of edits in favor of simply advising them to be more proactive in that regard. They seem to realize this was a perceived issue, but such a prohibition on normal editing seems a bit too harsh. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW I'm equally okay with either the semi-formal summary/quantity restriction or an informal advisement; given the collective ambivalence so far I think it's fine to leave this to the discretion of the closing admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, Bobby Cohn, and 11WB: I can only speculate, but I imagine that someone got a bit grumpy with Wolverine X-eye about something along the lines of 'your edits are flooding my watchlist' at some point or another (and perhaps they took it to heart or thought it was more of an issue than it is during their self reflection in preparation for this request). I also have similar tendencies to what 11WB described of their own. Perhaps this is why we are all scratching our heads a bit at that issue. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Support the unban with GAN restrictions, whether it be from Generalissima or another editor (from time to time subject to common sense and availability, so long as the mentor is suitable and with an established history at GAN like other mentors). I think the restriction on edit summaries and rate limits might be too much. If Wolverine makes 10 a day for 5 days or 50 in one go, that'll look the same in the page history of a sparsely edited article regardless (not that I anticipate Wolverine to game the restrictions, rather this is just a comment on the nature of some less trafficked articles). I think if Wolverine is serious about demonstrating that he won't need restrictions in the future, he'll abide by them as recommendations (subject to common sense) outlined above, not because he has to, but because he understands why they were issues in the first place and to demonstrate he is capable of improving the nature of his edits. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unsure why having too many edits in edit histories was an issue. I commonly use "ce" as shorthand for copyediting when editing articles, and often, editing articles can end up racking up many edits in the history. Is this not expected? There's the option to see 500 previous edits after all. That's a bizarre reason to include in an AN/I post in my opinion. The GAN stuff isn't great, neither is the distant block they received. However, I found nothing alarming on their Commons talk page, which contains several featured pictures, this is very good for that project! Kudos! The proposed edit limit seems extreme to me, so I'd advise not going ahead with that. I see no issues with them returning to the project. Best of luck with the mentoring and welcome back, @Wolverine X-eye! 11WB (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Support I used to not be able to conceptualize "an convincing appeal without apologies and begging", and this is truly one. Happy editing to Wolverine X-eye (talk · contribs) in advance. -- Least Action (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- This is a textbook example of the kind of appeal we want to see. I'm not particularly sure the restrictions are necessary even if self-requested, but since they *are* self-requested I guess knock yourself out? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support with only the GAN restrictions. This seems like a self aware appeal, and the user appears to truly know what they had done wrong, so I support giving them another chance. To me, it seems the "number of edits per day" restriction may not be necessary. Lots of editors make dozens of consecutive edits to articles; it only starts to become a problem when it goes into the hundreds or thousands per day, and if we get to that point, there may be bigger things to worry about. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close review Talk:Magazine_(firearms)#Straw-poll:_Proposal_#1

I'm requesting a close review for the following close related to a straw poll proposal related to the merger of the High Capacity Magazine and High Capacity Magazine Ban articles into Magazine (firearms). (This is not a review of those merge discussions). As part of the merge there was disagreement regarding the if "High Capacity Magazine" should be a subsection of the article and, if yes, should a specific proposed text be included as consensus text. The close review should focus both on if the discussion resulted in a "consensus to include the section" and if the discussion resulted in a "consensus to include specific text and sources". Springee (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Impartial on inclusion of section, over turn content The discussion had 6 participating editors. On the question of including the section, there is a 3:3 split amoung the editors with both sides making arguments why the term should be a subsection. While I opposed inclusion of the section, I can understand an argument that a merged article should have a section, rather than just be merged into other parts of the new parent. However, the proposed content was opposed by 4 of 6 editor (including one who supported including the section). It also was only drafted after the merge discussion was initiated on 8 May thus it does not represent a consensus text of the prior article. Finally, the proposed material was already the subject of extensive criticism for both UNDUE content and questionable sourcing. Since the close of the straw poll a clear consensus against some of the content was established and the sources used have also been questioned. These were all issues brought up before the straw poll but didn't seem to be considered as part of the discussion against using the consensus text. I'm largely stuck with phone edits for the next 2 weeks - apologies for editing errors Springee (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse (involved) Consensus is not a vote count. The arguments against including the content were fallacious, were rebutted and were appropriately downweighted by the closer.

In addition, the vote breakdown presented by the appellant here is confusing - which 4 participants opposed the inclusion of the content. What is the 3:3 split in question? Those are different numbers than I derived from the discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You and Lightbreather where the only two editors who supported the content as posted. Mudwater supported having the section but not the content as proposed. Tioaeu8943, Qwirkle and I opposed the text. The text was opposed prior to being added and after the fact part of the text was removed via clear consensus []. Issues with the quality of some of the sources were raised before the straw poll, I pointed to the objections during the poll and after the fact editors again are questioning using things like a business website as a reliable source for a general claim []. Making this a proper RfC with a full month duration would give more editors a chance to address these issues without having to argue to a two person business is a RS for general claims. That is what the close endorsed. Springee (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of Qwirkle and Mudwater's comments. Mudwater didn't present any explicit opposition to the addition and Qwirkle didn't register a !vote or clear expression of opinion.

Mudwater's comment was this:

The proposed text above seems pretty reasonable to me, but I currently don't have a strong opinion about exactly what it should say, or exactly what references it should use

I'm not sure how you get from this to opposing the proposed text. Katzrockso (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I assure you, I have difficulty understanding how someone reading the whole talk page and the recent edit history could not, at a glance, see that I opposed the text as it was. Qwirkle (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm uninvolved in the discussion, although I was named in the framing of the question, only because I had made one small edit to the page. I am not sure a close review is going to help here. It was a straw poll, and limited in scope. Any "consensus" here is narrow and limited. I would have thought that the appropriate route here would be to raise this to the next WP:CONLEVEL. To Springee: is it possible to draft something that shows how you think the merge should look, and then start an RfC with a single question: should the content be presented as in option A or option B? The RfC would draw in more editors, and any decision of an RfC would over-ride a short straw poll. If following that route, this review could probably still be withdrawn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support close (uninvolved) editors supporting the merge on technical basis referred to an abundance of sources that defined a technical description. The editors opposed did not cite much other than prior consensuses. There's no need to overturn this. Simonm223 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think one can reasonably claim the sources were not objected to in detail. I did exactly that in a prior discussion with I mentioned in the discussion. Perhaps it would be better to say the arguments were not transcribed into the discussion section. Springee (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  And yet I did. Reasonably. Springee: I had no part in this discussion and I have no strong opinion on firearm articles. I read the straw poll. An overturn is uncalled for. The close was appropriate to the very limited scope of a straw poll about a merge that drew substantially less than ten participants. If that's not enough then I suggest you do what @Sirfurboy suggested and hold a formal RfC which would likely draw broader participation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  As part of the straw poll I referenced prior discussions including issues with sourcing. Regards, I suspect you are correct about following Sorfurboy's suggestion. Springee (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Do not endorse (involved) I disagree that there was a clearly established consensus at the close of the straw poll for the proposed version of the section. Several concerns about it and some sources remained unresolved both during and after the discussion. In any event, I remain open to a broader RfC to obtain wider participation and a clearer consensus on the matter. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Do not endorse (involved) I do not believe this reflects actual “consensus,” even in Wikipedia’s cockamamie usage of it, and I do not think that a decision to close should have been so rapid, given the logorrhea a good-faith editor would have to plough through above, and in the deletion discussion, and the previous articles’ talk pages, & cetera, & cetera, ad nauseam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse (involved) I agree with Katzrockso's comment that votes alone do not equal consensus. As Simonm223 pointed out, the arguments to include the disputed content were backed up by numerous sources (unlike the opposition's arguments, or the majority of the rest of the Magazine (firearms) article for that matter). I believe OwenX came to his decision based on the weight of the arguments and not simply by a vote count. (Also some of the "votes" as Springee counted them are less than clear.) OwenX remained neutral and diplomatic throughout. Reading the nine points he cited in making his decision makes that plain. I don't think it was AGF to accuse him of super-voting as Springee did and I think this close review is uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I would also add that Springee's complaint that content was added to the HCM article after he opened his AfD is a bit disingenuous since, as part of the process of creating the AfD, an invitation to improve the article was added to it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

LB, there are a number of issues with your claims. First, as you say, all the material was created in the time after the merge discussions were started. That should make all of the material new material that needs consensus. The close bypassed that process and ignored the discussions about things like how much of it was poorly sourced. You claim "backed by numerous sources" but confuse quality with quality. If the sources were so strong why did editors agree to remove a whole paragraph you fought to include and why are you including strong sources like a website of a two person business that clearly fails as a RS for the claims you used it for? It's one thing to conclude that the section should exist. It's quite another to conclude that the poorly written content and sources, material rejected, with reasons, by half the editors involved, should be treated as "consensus". Finally, your bad faith comments are problematic. I mentioned super vote because OwenX suggested it would be a "super vote" to reject the proposed text as consensus. I asked how was that any more a super vote that to include it? From a policy POV, deciding text that was rejected with reasons by half the involved editors certainly doesn't look like any reasonable "consensus". However, if you think the correct option is to open a properly formed and advertised RfC with no prior consensus, I'm fine with that. Springee (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has said "with no prior consensus". The straw poll should stand as a measured very local consensus. An RfC to change that local consensus seems a more appropriate next step than this, honestly, poorly advised close challenge. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Simon, prior to the admin declaration of consensus, the material was new and clearly disputed by a number of editors, at least half the involved editors rejected the content. I'm fine with a proper RfC but I don't think the straw poll close should be viewed as "previous" consensus. Springee (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand you believe that - that is, in fact, what the close challenge is about. But you can hardly say "I'm ok with taking another recommended action as long as I get my way." You want this consensus vacated. Those editors who are uninvolved and who have commented here, to date, all disagree with you. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Simon, we have a "consensus" that represented a minority view of editors who were involved with the content. We have a "consensus" that includes clearly bad or UNDUE content per subsequent discussions. How good can that "consensus" be? Springee (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Clearly I think there's value in an RfC. But that doesn't mean the extant consensus, such as it is, should be vacated. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your belief that "the proposed content was opposed by 4 of 6 editors" has been questioned/challenged by at least two people (Katzrockso and myself) in this discussion. And the "clearly bad or UNDUE" content was one paragraph using 2 of the section's 20 sources. That paragraph and those sources have since been deleted.

Finally, if there is going to be an RfC it must be carefully and neutrally worded to keep that discussion from dragging on as this one has. And it must be widely advertised. Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

First, as you say, all the material was created in the time after the merge discussions were started.

I did NOT say all.

As for the deleted paragraph, yes, consensus resulted in it being deleted. Compared to other sources in the article, where there are any, the sources were, IMO, adequate if not perfect. Others disagreed and it was deleted.

Finally, the result of the AfD was merge, not "merge, but only the messy content with old sources." We were invited to improve it. The added content was an improvement based on RSs, with the exception of 2 out of 20, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I would invite any interested parties to read the discussion that OwenX closed and judge the sources and weight of the arguments for themselves. Lightbreather (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) result within the discretion of the closing editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Do Not Endorse (uninvolved) It seems that deciding not just on the HCM section but the content itself with an evenly divided straw poll is worrisome to say the least. The close should be overturned and this should be subject to normal editing standards to ensure WP:V and WP:ONUS. Looking from afar at everything that has happened it seems that there are multiple issues at play that cannot honestly be decided by a straw poll. I would support an RFC that clearly breaks down the different elements at play and allows more genuine editor involvement. AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support close (uninvolved), per WP:NOTVOTE and statements from Sirfurboy, Lightbreather, Katzrockso and Simonm223. If there is consensus for an RfC, that would also make sense. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support close (uninvolved). The reading the closer made was reasonable, and in terms of nose-counts, I think it's unreasonable to discount Mudwater, who was clear about wanting some sort of section, made a reasonable argument both for including some sort of section and for going ahead with this version for now to move things forwards even if they didn't consider it the ideal outcome, and at the end of the day put their name in the support column; "we should use this as a starting point, but it can be further polished" is a reasonable closure that includes Mudwater in the count and is standard for closing discussions of this nature, especially since Mudwater basically said "sure, you can try that as a starting point and see where it goes." I also think that it's reasonable for the closer to have discounted Qwirkle; when Springee straight-up asked them if they opposed, their reply was ambiguous and could reasonably have been read as "I'll support whatever moves things forwards even if I'm skeptical." Even if Qwirkle did intend to oppose, closers can only count arguments you actually make, and it's reasonable to say that Qwirkle's scattered comments didn't amount to an actual argument for the central question at hand. That's why we do the whole bolded-text with a clear argument attached thing! --Aquillion (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Undo the "close" I used quote marks because it wasn't even an RFC, and it had many many question bundled into it, a clear violation of an RFC. It was just listed locally as a straw poll. And to make a long list of changes en masse based on a close-call / no consensus local straw poll has many serious process issues. This needs normal article editing and RFC input processes rather than what occurred. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I fail to understand your objection. Are you saying that a RfC is required to make changes to an article? Katzrockso (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Normal editing processes are fine. This (whatever it was) was given the appearance, handling and weight of an RFC while not being an actual RFC and missing various important elements of an RFC and not following important processes of an RFC. Including getting a "close" on what IMO was clearly no consensus and given a blue box. So IMO whatever that thing is should simply be reversed and normal editing process should be applied. Probably most simply by removing the blue box and the "close" and considering it a normal editing discussion or what it is self-titled as which is a straw poll. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Normal discussions can have a close. Katzrockso (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Right, no one is disputing that but that completely ignores the previous users objections. The issue is whether it was procedurally correct and if the close if giving the close it deserved. A bundle of questions that are at best loosely related is problematic at best because a support or oppose on this poll was unclear as to its implications. This also represented to what was basically a dead even split and to say this is legitimate hard-sealed consensus is not an honest assessment of the situation. This should be treated as a rough estimate of the thoughts and support at the time, not a shut and closed case. This long thread with several editors is proof to that point AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote. A "dead even split" in !vote count can reflect an actual consensus in any possible direction given the policy-weighted evaluation of the arguments in each !vote. Closers are (and should be) encouraged to downweight and discard arguments that are meritless, vacuous, contrary to existing policies and guidelines or otherwise obviously incorrect. Katzrockso (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Cool that doesn't prove your point or the idea that there was consensus here AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Affinanti333

@Affinanti333 Affinanti333 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe I finally have proof of why I look so bad on the Internet. I’ve been spoofed attack and kept from so much and I’m not sure why these hackers are doing it, but I’ve cleared my name. Affinanti333 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can't understand this. Are you claiming your account was compromised? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Also why did you thanks admins for helping you through a recent block. This account has never been blocked. Was there a block on the IP you used or do you have another account? If you have another account, what is it? Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess User:Affinanti3 is you but abandoned long ago and also never blocked. I'll be honest your contributions even with this account but also with that other make me think unfortunately for whatever reason you're not a good fit for editing Wikipedia. And I don't think this has anything to do with what others may have done. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1291543736#Sex_has_devolved_and_currently_has_degraded_itself_into_depravity. looks like it's motivated by prejudice against LGBTQ people or something. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

They've been warned there not to use Talk pages for general discussion & theorising, but they've continued anyway.

There have been a couple of tentative small edits, but they still don't quite seem to understand what the problem is and I'm wondering if there might be a language barrier at play? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Affinanti333: The problem with your edits is that you are using talk pages to advance your novel theories and beliefs instead of improving the actual articles, which is what Wikipedia is for. See WP:NOTFORUM policy. I also suspect that you have a persecutory delusion, based on your statement at the beginning of this thread. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} Nevermind. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Metamentalist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The @Metamentalist has been constantly adding poorly sourced content or unsourced content

removed the sourced description of Kashmiri ancestry and replaced it with "Punjabi Rajput" without providing a reliable source.

here they did the same

here they added non WP:RS Source for another biography

Youlin Magazine as a source which does not satisfy WP:RS

Again added a source that does not satisfy WP:RS again

they has been Previously warned many times on adding poorly source or unsourced and banned for 48 hours by user @Ponyo for constant violation of the subject giving the fact they have been warned many times on this topic and still ignoring the warning I request that the editor be topic-banned from editing biographies of living persons or any other things the admins may suggest Dragon22121 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

all sources describe Raheel Sharif and his brother Shabbir as Rajputs, there are no Rajputs among ethnic Kashmiris, the fact that they lived in Kashmir doesn't make them ethnic Kashmiris.

In the cases of WP:RS these are interviews with the individual concerned so could be considered legitimate. Metamentalist (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Your doing original research WP:OR here as far the sources are concerned no source cited said that he is Punjabi Rajput

You just removed Kashmiri and added Punjabi rajput without citing any source which fails (WP:V).

as far as the other 3 edits are only 1 was said to be an ''interview''

Simply saying that someone said something in an interview does not make the source reliable. Under WP:RS, the publication itself must be reliable. If the website does not satisfy WP:RS, then the report of interview it self isnt considered reliable per WP:BLP we only cite reliable sources for an biography Dragon22121 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked for the persistent BLP violations. If anyone thinks there's a CT/SA case to be made, feel free. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turn This Draft to an article - I need help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I don't undersatnd what I need to do from this point forward to make this page an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AY_Young --- can someone help me make that happen now? Dougkimeditor (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP viewing

Not sure if I should take this here or VPT, but I came here because most of you have probably had experience with it.

I have no interest in obeying the policies required of those who can view IPs behind temporary accounts, so I've intentionally done nothing in this area, because I get the impression that if you don't do anything, you can't view anything. Am I correct, or as an administrator, have I automatically been given some sort of rights in this area, which I must disable if I don't want it? Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't checked the box agreeing to the WMF policy in your account preferences, you cannot use TAIV, so you don't have to do anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:TAIV: "administrators can automatically see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the temporary account IP policy via Special:Preferences." voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is screaming into the wind, but I wholeheartedly agree with Nyttend. I've never agreed to the ability to see IPs and won't. Frankly, it's not worth it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

RevDel and a warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin RevDel this and leave a warning for User:BriefLaw? The edit summary roughly translates to "Did he die?", which I assume is because Martin hasn't been active on EN wiki for a few weeks now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If that's the translation, I do not think that merits revdel. You could remind them that real people who are volunteers or do things in their spare time might take time off or be busy with other things. According to the most-accessible public logs, they have been active as recently as July 8. DMacks (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would have done the same if they were a newbie, but this is probably a troll account and is already linked with multiple SPIs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a weird edit summary, for sure, but I'm not sure it warrants a revdel either. (Especially considering few would even understand it or know that translation.) If someone wants to advise them on their edit summary usage, go for it, but anyone can do that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trainee clerks promoted to full clerks (July 2026)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that ~delta (talk · contribs), DatGuy (talk · contribs), EggRoll97 (talk · contribs), GoldRomean (talk · contribs), and Sennecaster (talk · contribs) have successfully completed their traineeships as arbitration clerks and are appointed as full clerks, effective immediately.

The clerks team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the team is welcome to apply by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Trainee clerks promoted to full clerks (July 2026)

Anna's Archive Wikipedia bounty program, pattern across multiple articles

I'm bringing the full picture here rather than splitting it across noticeboards, since it spans more than one article and I'm not sure what the right response is.

Background: Anna's Archive, a shadow library, runs at least two active bounty programs paying for Wikipedia edits: a standing offer (GitLab issue #250, since December 2024, recently raised from 3 to 12 months of paid membership) for improvements to its own Wikipedia article, and a newer offer (issue #320, since February 2026) of up to $100 per new article on entities relevant to their operations, such as "digital libraries, metadata catalogs, national/major archives, shadow libraries, used book marketplaces, academic paper exchange websites".

On the Anna's Archive article itself: A COI tag was raised at Talk:Anna's Archive in September 2025 after issue #250 came to light; a reviewer found one traceable edit and issued an informal warning, with no further action. Another editor re-tagged the article yesterday citing issue #320.

On other articles: C0deRunner99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created May 30, 2026) submitted about 15 AfC drafts in early-to-mid June matching issue #320's target list almost item-for-item (Draft:DuXiu, Draft:Chaoxing, Draft:Kongfz, Draft:MagzDB, and others). Nearly all were declined or rejected. Zacnn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the same Draft:Chaoxing four days after C0deRunner99 created it, and separately submitted a duplicate Draft:DuXiu with the same failure pattern. On June 11, reviewer Ca asked C0deRunner99 directly whether they operate the Zacnn account; on June 13, Malgosha left a formal sock disclosure request on Zacnn's talk page. Neither account has responded to either query, and no SPI case appears to have been opened.

What I'm asking: I don't think either individual account's activity, on its own, rises to something requiring urgent action because the problematic drafts were already caught by normal review. But the underlying bounty program is active, ongoing, and has now surfaced twice on-wiki with no documented community response. I'd appreciate input on whether this warrants an SPI on the two accounts, continued/expanded page protection on Anna's Archive, a heads-up to AfC/NPP reviewers to watch for issue #320's specific target list, or something else entirely. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Are any of these catalogs notable? If yes, I don't see any issue with the bountry programs. sapphaline (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Surely they're paid editors? Anna's Archive tells them what they want edited, and gives them money for doing so. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Disclosed paid editing is not prohibited, and if it results in referenced, encyclopaedic content about notable subjects then everybody has benefited. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I'm not seeing any issues here so long as everyone does what they're supposed to do with regard to PE disclosures. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - my question was more about the disclosure side, since I spot-checked a couple and didn't see any declarations. Apologies as I should have made that clearer, I got distracted by real life events & forgot to return here until just now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Have they attempted to influence what the content of the proposed articles would be, even implicitly? That would push it into impermissible territory. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Update with details shown in the comments from the GitLab bounty threads:

• On issue #320 (the $100-per-article bounty), C0deRunner99 lists their Wikipedia drafts as bounty submissions, and AnnaArchivist (the account owner) replies: "Thanks for your contributions! These will qualify for the bounties when they make it into the mainspace and don't get deleted." A different person notes, "There is an obvious conflict of interest," and asks whether another editor would publish their edits on their behalf.
• On issue #250 (the Anna's Archive self-article bounty), another person flagged this as a likely COI violation. The bounty was expanded from 3 to 12 months and continued anyway. The thread also documents completed or in-progress translations into German, Polish, French, Spanish, Catalan, and Khmer, with contributors asked to email their account IDs to claim payment, and one contributor commenting openly on the lack of copyright enforcement in the target-language country as a selling point. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

As long as they disclose they are receiving a payment, I do not see any issue. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It may be worth putting an edit notice on Anna's Archive to the effect that paid editing must be disclosed? I don't know that this will achieve anything given banner blindness but I don't think it'd hurt. Otherwise the current level of disruption doesn't seem to merit any action. From the report above, I'm seeing one (non-problematic, though with an inadequate WP:PAID declaration if in fact paid) potentially connected edit to the main article, plus the cluster of drafts probably by one person which AfC seems to be handling perfectly adequately. Note that the bounty explicitly has "Any edits that will get reverted will result in the membership being cancelled. Please only make edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies." and the general tone seems to be "we value having information on these subjects" not "please go advertise us and our friends". Obviously this doesn't prevent this resulting in bad edits but as far as paid editing goes I'm not concerned.

If there's reason to believe that some specific accounts editing in this area are connected it would make sense to open a SPI, there's no need to ask at ANI first. Rusalkii (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The organizers said editors will only get the bounty if the article is not deleted and the editor follows all rules. Presumably the organizers are aware of the UPE policy. If they're not, someone should reach out to them so they can clarify their rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to anyone who might read through their documentation - the bounty Gitlab issue references (intentionally not hyperlinking) "annas-archive.li/volunteering#bounties" - the .li domain of theirs is now dead and now points to... something redirect-y and bad. Unsure of the angle. The live and correct link to their bounties guide is here. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has their own internal version of this at WP:REWARD, though usually for barnstars and awards, rather than cold hard cash. Interestingly, Wikipedia used to have the Bounty board, but for donations to the WMF. The use of the word "bounty" makes it sound like an ominous operation, even though on a cursory look of the forum page, it clearly isn't. There are other organisations that offer money in return for translation work, such as the Open Knowledge Association. I don't think there is much to be concerned about here, even if I do personally disagree with editing in return for eventual payment. If Wikipedia PAGs are followed, AfC are declining the articles that aren't notable and everything is declared, all is sound. 11WB (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement from C0deRunner99 regarding WP:PAID and draft submissions

Hello everyone,

I want to address this directly and take full responsibility for my actions.

I have been participating in the Anna's Archive editing bounty program, with the goal of improving Wikipedia's coverage of underrepresented digital libraries and open-access infrastructure. I was not aware of the WP:PAID policy and its mandatory disclosure requirement until this was raised. That is a genuine oversight on my part, not an attempt to deceive the community, but I understand it is my responsibility to know and follow these policies regardless of intent.

As soon as I became aware of the issue, I added the required 'paid' template to my user page (User:C0deRunner99) to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

On the sockpuppetry concern: I have no connection to User:Zacrin or to any other Wikipedia account. I edit alone, and I welcome a CheckUser review to confirm this.

I recognize I submitted drafts too quickly, which triggered automated filters and created extra work for volunteer reviewers. I have paused all draft submissions and am taking this time to review the guidelines on paid editing, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view carefully before resuming.

I appreciate the community's patience and would welcome any feedback on how to bring my past contributions into full compliance.

Thank you. C0deRunner99 (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@C0deRunner99: please don't use LLMs to communicate (or for any editing on wiki). voorts (talk/contributions) 12:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, their talk page is a smorgasbord of AfC declines and previous warnings for LLM use, both in articles and communication. Regardless of this Anna's Archive issue, this has clearly taken up the time of multiple editors and could be considered disruptive. Having been awake for some time, the exact guideline name for LLM use in text escapes me, but I am 100% certain it is a violation. Their prior warning dates from this time, a month ago. 11WB (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

IMO the two bounties themselves deserve separate consideration. An organization paying relatively small sums for articles on topics of interest that are not directly connected to that organization is, in my opinion, not something we should worry about as long as participants aren't being disruptive and as long as everyone's disclosing. But as mission-compatible as AA may be, I'm frankly surprised by the collective shrug here at an organization paying its community to incorporate material from its own website into its Wikipedia article. Typically any entity doing that gets excoriated here or over at COIN. My perception of Anna's Archive is that they probably do not view Wikipedia in an adversarial way, however, so perhaps someone would be willing to type up a few basic pointers about disclosure, reliable sourcing, LLM use, and Wikipedia's preference for independent coverage to establish which aspects of a subject to mention that they could incorporate into their bounties? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

The Committee has resolved by motion:

Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s move restriction is suspended for 12 months. Any uninvolved administrator may reimpose it as an arbitration enforcement action, appealable only to the Arbitration Committee. After 12 months, if it has not been reimposed or all reimpositions have been successfully appealed, the restriction is fully lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

BITEy behaviour?

Are these instances of BITEy behaviour? 1, 2 and 3 ~2026-38808-42 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Certainly not in the last case, given that the user in question has (a) been here since 2010 and (b) has over 200K edits. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the context, but using all caps is considered WP:SHOUTING, and is discouraged when communicating. Some editors are more direct when talking, that's something we have to accept. You also didn't notify @Bearcat about this post, so I will do so now. 11WB (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

When somebody is directed about the rules of editing Wikipedia, but then persistently continues to break the rules several more times, such that they have to be repeatedly asked to stop breaking the rules because they keep ignoring the warnings, there's just no way around having to get louder and more direct in the level and tone of warnings. Sometimes the newcomer is being disruptive, in ways that need to stop, so what else can we do if they refuse to stop? The answer to that certainly isn't "just keep patiently pulling the page out of categories over and over and over again". Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If any editor continues being disruptive, that would be grounds for a block. IDHT comes into play before shouting is necessary, as at that point they're already not listening. @~2026-38808-42, it could be considered bitey, but these specific instances weren't without merit. We're only human after all, patience can only extend so far. That's my answer anyway. I didn't realise @Bearcat is themself an admin, and this falls well below the threshold expected for further action. Happy editing. 11WB (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

95% of the time this is because a newcomer is inappropriately pasting LLM output, and they likely have no idea what categories even are. Hopefully this will get better once VisualEditor becomes the default. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Unsupported allegations by Waft Creator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting admin review of comments made by User:Waft Creator. Instead of responding to policy-based questions in an AfD discussion, the editor made serious allegations against me (paid editing, multiple accounts, blackmail, asking for ID/password) without providing evidence. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BriefLaw#c-Waft_Creator-20260708194200-Request_for_review_of_editor_conduct If they have evidence, it should be presented at the appropriate noticeboard rather than making unsupported accusations in discussions and my talk page. BriefLaw (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the page explains that you need to notify the other person when reporting so I'll do this for you now.

You've also deleted the post so your link doesn't work, this shoes your page prior to deletion so others can review it: I'm not sure if you'd would be better at ANI, but it's here now so admins can review if necessary.

Waft Creator has been warned for making personal attacks and it's interesting to note that a new TA came along to post a rather hateful message on your Talk page recently, I'll see if an admin can properly delete that from the history. There are also concerns that Waft Creator is using AI, to me their posts fit the usual profile for AI.

@Waft Creator, if you are using AI, please stop doing so.

• If you feel someone is operating a sockpuppet account then you need to provide on-wiki evidence via WP:SPI.
• If your evidence is external, contact WP:ARBCOM.
• If you have concerns over a conflict of interest, present your evidence at WP:COIN.

Allegations without evidence can be considered a personal attack - you've not edited since you were warned for this so I won't add another warning. I'm on break right now so can't look into this until later, so this is just a quick overview. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference, ChatGPT replied to the notice I left, but it's just a rehash of the same allegations left at the AFD and Talk page In interested to know how this editor owns the copyright to several images of the subjects of their edits, such as these two images.In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This editor previously added a claim about a non-existent organization in relation to Anna Hazare. After I raised concerns about that edit, they began making allegations against me. The issue regarding Soniya Bansal also appears to have originated from their own actions. Please see the earlier discussion here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Waft_Creator#c-BriefLaw-20260705120500-Thilio-20260705104400. BriefLaw (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for administrative review of improper file removals from my article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting formal administrative review regarding the removal of two files from my user‑related article: “Leo Coat of Arms.png” and “Leo Standard.png.” These files were removed without prior discussion, notification, or a clearly stated policy justification. 1. Compliance with Wikipedia’s image licensing policies Both files were uploaded under valid licensing terms and did not violate WP:NFCC (Non‑Free Content Criteria). Specifically: NFCC #1 (No free equivalent) — There is no freely available equivalent for personal heraldic artwork. NFCC #2 (Respect for commercial opportunities) — The images do not infringe on any commercial rights. NFCC #8 (Contextual significance) — The coat of arms and standard are directly relevant to the subject of the article and provide necessary identification and context. 2. Compliance with WP:NOTPROMOTION The images were not used for promotional purposes. WP:NOTPROMOTION explicitly allows personal or biographical content when it is relevant, non‑advertising, and properly sourced. These files served as descriptive, contextual elements of the article, not promotional material. 3. Compliance with WP:OWN and WP:COI While WP:OWN states that no editor “owns” an article, WP:COI clarifies that subjects of biographical articles may participate in maintaining factual accuracy. Removal of long‑standing, non‑controversial, policy‑compliant images without discussion contradicts collaborative editing norms and violates the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. 4. Lack of required justification under WP:BURDEN WP:BURDEN states that the editor removing content must provide a policy‑based rationale when challenged. No such rationale was provided. 5. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD Under WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss), significant removals should be followed by discussion. No discussion was initiated, and no attempt was made to reach consensus. Request: I respectfully request: Identification of the specific policy used to justify these removals. Administrative review of whether the removals were appropriate under WP:NFCC, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BURDEN. Guidance on restoring the files if no valid policy justification exists. Additionally, I ask that editors making substantial changes to long‑standing, policy‑compliant content notify the affected user in the future to maintain transparency and collaborative editing standards. Thank you for your attention to this matter. J II R (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

They were deleted on Commons, where you uploaded them, not here. We don't control Commons' decisions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog of CfD tags on closed discussions

There is a massive backlog of CfD tags that are still up on discussions that have closed, including delete/rename/merge outcomes that were never acted upon and keep outcomes that were never de-tagged. Category:Categories for discussion from May 2026 has a lot of these. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I encountered Category:FIM CEV Moto2 European Championship and Category:FIM CEV Moto3 Junior World Championship, which were tagged for speedy renaming in March, but were never acted upon. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

All discussions opened in March 2026 or earlier are now listed at WP:CR. Later than that, I'm less confident in listing at CR, and all of the unimplemented closed discussions should be in April or later. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I warned Staraction (talk · contribs) and notified them of this AN because they seem to have done most of the CfD closures that weren't implemented. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see this as a conduct problem; XFDC is quite finicky at CFD and frequently causes headaches (like this!). I'm sure Staraction is happy to help clean up, and I'll see what I can do. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm currently systematically searching through May CfD logs for closed discussions that were unimplemented. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Staraction claims that it is due to a bug in XfDcloser and is also cleaning up. I just did all the CfD discussions closed on May 1–10 or May 24–31, listing merge/rename/delete outcomes at WT:CFDW. The first category I encountered, Category:Fictional statues, I emptied myself and tagged as G6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As for listing at AN, that is why I went here instead of ANI. It is still of admin interest because it concerns XfD closures. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I know it's the result of a XFDC being a pain. Indeed, I just encountered that bug myself when closing a discussion as no consensus—it closed the discussion, but didn't update the tags even though I told it to. Best regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it possibly related to a change in CfD tags since the last time XFDC was updated? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a new XFDC bug where only {{Lc}} is parsed correctly, but I think this discussion belongs at WT:XFDC, not here. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser#AN_discussion_related_to_an_XFDC_bug. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've cleaned up my closures, and all closures from May 11 to 23, that seem to have been affected by this bug. Some might not have been processed yet since I've listed them for bot processing. There seem to be other closers who are affected too. Please let me know if I've missed any! Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Staraction: I didn't find any of the ones you had closed as merge/rename/delete at WT:CFDW. Did you remember to click "List discussions"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I did, in fact, remember to click "List discussions" when I closed them on 29 May (e.g. 1, 2, diff). Perhaps some got lost in the shuffle then. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Then it must be a bug in User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/CFDlister.js, since the word "Wakashan" from one of the nominated categories' names occurs nowhere before my own listing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it not the third-to-last nominated category in this request? Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were correct that it was archived without having been processed. I haven't found any other less recent instances where this happened. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

In particular, none of the nominations closed on May 22 were listed for bot processing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Absement reference deletion: why and where reasons?

Hello there. I used to write The Spectrum Of Riemannium, a blog recopiling and explaining some ideas about physics and mathematics. I included a post on the Absement article, but when I closed my blod due to some people taking ideas like the spacetime crystal and others, I did not put the old free version of my Absement article, https://thespectrumofriemannium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/log053-derivatives-of-position/, and kept the old new page. Can I know where and why my former reference was deleted? Maybe the picture on my page is the only thing it could have an unknown copyright (I took it from google images from screenshot, I believe). Can I know who, when and why, my reference about absement was deleted from the references? Any opportunity it to be reinserted? Let me know, if possible, answers to all those questions. In fact, I believe I am being targeted as source of delete content. My Instagram account @vielbein likely suffered shadowbanning and hashtag scamming to loose visibility. Moreover, I have discovered, some pages who quoted my Derivatives of Position post are disappearing too from web searches. Can you answer my questions? Thank you in advance. Amarashiki (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

A blog is not regarded as a Reliable Source. That is because it is a blog, not because there is anything wrong with your specific blog. Citing yourself, as you did here, is a minefield anyway. I'd recommend not to do it. (See WP:SELFCITE.) It is less likely to cause problems if you post the link on the appropriate Talk page(s) and let other editors decide whether it should be used in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Solidarity links in signatures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A couple of months ago there was a big blow-up when the WikiMedia Foundation announced an unpopular staffing decision. The ensuing debate eventually led to petitions on enwiki and on meta which editors could sign to show support for a particular labor union. Many editors also placed statements of solidarity on their user pages. That’s fine, we offer editors a fair amount of freedom to express opinions in project space, and significantly more freedom in user space.

Some editors have also customized their signatures to include phrases such as “In solidarity”, typically including a link to one of the two petitions. This seems less fine. As WP:SIG#DL says, “Brief additional internal links are generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information, but are undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose.” These messages and links seem to me to violate that guideline. What possible message could be intended other than “I signed this petition and I want you to go sign it too”?

But to get to why I’m posting this to WP:AN, I think such messages and links are particularly inappropriate for admins to have in their signatures. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but the related discussions on the two current RfAs reminded me and prompted me to post it now. When an admin performs an administrative action, even if it’s just issuing a warning or closing a discussion, they are acting in their official capacity, and thus should strive to be as neutral as possible. Having a message in their signature espousing a particular political opinion makes it impossible to project this impartiality.

It’s as if a police officer pulled you over at a traffic stop and said, “Sir, I am a member of <whatever political party>, may I see your license and registration, please?”. There is a clear implication that this information about their personal affiliation is somehow germane to the official enquiry they are making. Perhaps you should hand over your documents with, “Here you go officer, I also support <whatever party>!” in the hope of greater leniency Or should you be in a cold sweat because the officer has certainly seen your “I vote <other party>” bumper sticker? Either way, the officer’s political affiliation has nothing to do with whether you were driving too fast or if your registration is up to date, so it shouldn’t even enter the conversation.

The same logic applies here. I think all admins who have added such solidarity links to their signatures should remove them. If you want to show your support, please do it on your user page. RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I signed the en.wiki solidarity pledge, and I agree with RoySmith. (Hot take: I'm against overly 'decorated' and/or confusing signatures in any case, but that's just incidental, and also not a hill I'm planning to die on as I seem to be in a minority.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Given all this reactionary opposition to the pledge, I'm considering adding it to my signature. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(nac) When an admin performs an administrative action, even if it’s just issuing a warning or closing a discussion, they are acting in their official capacity... Except they're not. They're using additional tools the software provides, having been selected by the community as being competent to do so. They're no more acting in an "official capacity" than anyone else is when they click "publish" on a page or "undo" on a diff. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 15:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not right. When an admin uses the tools, they're implementing global consensus, taking an action that 99.9% of editors cannot take, and they're only able to do that because they went through a rigorous (sometimes too rigorous!) vetting and election process, a process required by the WMF in order to obtain access to those tools. It's very much not the same as when just anyone clicks "publish" or "undo," and it's about as close to "official" as we get. (CU, OS, Arbs, Crats, etc., being "more" official due to the extra restrictions and extra vetting process.) Levivich (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with RoySmith that the "In solidarity" parts of the signatures of some editors violate our signatures guideline against canvassing, and that the editors in question should therefore remove them. Sandstein 15:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  What part of the canvassing guideline does it violate? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Soliciting support in indirect ways, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.? ~2026-39715-17 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Read the first two sentences of the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  They are written in an extremely vague way, making it possible to qualify or not qualify anything as it at a competent person's decision.

  I just tried to point at a place that is obviously causing it.

  (Belated excuse: I understand that its an administrator's noticeboard, and probably I shouldn't post here at all, but I just suddenly stumbled on it, and some time ago I was so puzzled after reading and re-reading WP:CANVASSING, that I wrote a (too) long message about places in that article that I cannot get properly as a question to the admin. As it was too much even for that totally unworldly outstanding person to bear, they left it unanswered properly. I'm still extremely interested in understanding that topic, so dared to write it here. Sorry if it grossly inappropriate.) ~2026-39715-17 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Let's break down the second sentence:

• Canvassing is notification
• done with the intention
• of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way
• , and is considered inappropriate.

Do you see now why it's not canvassing to ask people to support a union? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

And promoting some action, that is not discussion, but something else is not canvassing, and thus tolerable, or it is just called some other policy name, and it get confused with it?

Say, could users promote their own petitions on their pages for example, for others to not contribute to particular categories, or to ignore particular users, or for something else that is not discussions, in their signatures or via posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"? From definition it wouldn't be canvassing, but it definitely would be inappropriate? (And I think quite some amount of users would mislabel it as canvassing.) ~2026-39715-17 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• And promoting some action, that is not discussion, but something else is not canvassing, and thus tolerable, or it is just called some other policy name, and it get confused with it? It is not canvassing. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on wiki (many do so through userboxes).
• Say, could users promote their own petitions on their pages for example, for others to not contribute to particular categories I'm not sure why anyone would start a petition to not edit particular categories of articles (and I don't think it would accomplish very much), but I don't think that would be disallowed by any PAGs. If someone decides Elmo is evil and wants to start the "Anti-Elmo Editors Club", they are free to do so.
• or to ignore particular user That would certainly violate our civility policy and AGF.
• posting an excessive number of messages to individual users Beyond canvassing, it's just generally disruptive to spam other editors' talk pages with the same message. That's why we have noticeboards.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Beyond canvassing, it's just generally disruptive to spam other editors' talk pages with the same message. That's why we have noticeboards.

This is what causing it, I think, so this one first. Canvassing article discuss both inappropriate intentions and inappropriate actions. Say this one about spamming, that would be inappropriate even if canvassing per se is not happens in a narrow sense. Ones who would be attempted it, would be notified about canvassing, or there is a separate guideline for it? Same way it easy to read the article and see the "signatures" part.

As "discussion" in a broad scope could mean almost anything (say, that exactly solidarity petition eventually intends to affect some decision in WMF (that is the point of it), that is very possibly done via a least some discussion between some functionaries there if they care about it and do something about it or not; thus eventually influencing the outcome of a discussion in a broad scope, and scope is not limited in Canvassing article at all).

That would certainly violate our civility policy and AGF, so no..

Yes, bad example.

I'm not sure why anyone would start a petition to not edit particular categories of articles (and I don't think it would accomplish very much), but I don't think that would be disallowed by any PAGs.

If true, then it probably goes against understanding of people about it. To clarify: user could make a signature in a line of "Fellow Editors, Stop to Contribute to any Articles about US, and Add this to Your Signature Too", and it would be tolerated and fine (no matter its success), as it wouldn't be canvassing? And in case it will get traction, it still be ignored?

It is not canvassing. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on wiki (many do so through userboxes).

Yes, that I obviously understand, I was about a following part that should lead other to see it. I understand that displaying some petition not violating other rules is of no problem on it's own.

(Please, tell me in case you will see this talk as inappropriate, and I'll cease that moment; it's a part I'm sadly missing sometimes if discussion is about something I'm interested in.) ~2026-39715-17 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, in process of writing a previous message I got a scary red banner of "Could not find the comment you're replying to on the page. It might have been deleted or moved to another page." (due to formatting of the message I was answering), so I slightly panicked, and tried to send unfinished message. Probably it's more reasonable to continue it here as it should be initially.

In a long question I wrote to admin time ago, I tried to point at a problem, that is looks like to be present in that Canvassing article: it seems to talk about two different and not fully related things. And the article itself is ubiquitous in usage, it commonly cited in case something close to one of the things happening.

One thing is that could be called in short "spamming": inappropriate ways to reach audience. That's points 1, 2, and 5 under the table there. Problem with them is not that they are effective for actual affecting the result, but because they are, well, spam.

Other thing is the things the "actual" canvassing is: ways to effectively influence result. That's points 3 and 4. Problem with them is that if permitted, it could, and likely would results in numerous problems with manipulation of consensus, voting, and so on.

But all of they are goes together, and in practice "layman" editor is asked to read that Canvassing article, and, when they are trying to use it in reasoning, they are check if something is fit there, or not.

But, and it is not first time I see it, there is employed a certain line of reasoning from the "non-layman" editors; essentially one above: "It's actually not about discussion, so guidelines on canvassing do not apply, bye". But "layman" editor doesn't mean that it should be exactly "Canvassing", its a "problem" for them. Just that problem is verbatim described in Canvassing article, so they are using that wording, as it's one they know about. So in result they're saying: "It's looks like canvassing, according to it's guideline", and told "No, it's not canvassing, according to it's guideline", and it's ends here. While in fact ones who complain, would be perfectly fine with other wording describing problem; they're just don't know what it is. And thus could be just dismissed, "as it is not canvassing, bye".

An analogy it invoke for me:

Some person A trying to report a murder attempt they're witnessing, and calling a police hotline and get there operator B to talk. The place is very top in surveillance, and B in fact see and hear everything in A's vicinity if will use their tools.

So A saying:

— "I want to report a murder attempt here, send help please."

And B response, checking their tools:

— "There is no murder attempt, false report, you're warned, bye."

And if we will eventually talk B out, it would turn out that there was actually not a murder attempt, but a manslaughter attempt. And if A just had reported it properly, there wouldn't be any problem. But for "layman" A it's pretty the same thing, they would happily reported manslaughter instead, it's not that they essentially insist that its murder happens nearby, they'd called it proper way, if they knew.

If B would said to them:

— "Well, technically its not murder, but manslaughter attempt, but anyway, help is on a way" or at least "Well, we have a very strict rules here, as it actually not murder, but manslaughter happens there, we cant take your report as is; please, say "I want to report manslaughter attempt here, send help please", and consider the help is going to your place.

A would happily adjust their report then. But they are not told what they should say, they're told "it's not applicable, bye"

"Layman"'s editors problem there is not that signature broadcast would affect some outcome they don't want to, but that it verbatim example of inappropriate soliciting from the redundantly used guideline. And then it turn out that guideline written that way, that it could trivially declared of being of no matter:

"it's not about discussion" (no matter if the worry is not about discussion, but more simple); "it's may be seen as disruptive" (and it matter by whom it will may); "it's fine, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion" (again, depending on who's interpretation of intent to be applied). It have enough disclaiming added to be able to deem anything as permitted or not, depending on a preferred outcome for an interpreting person. ~2026-39715-17 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Read the first two sentences of the guideline. It's unclear whether you are referring to the guideline as a whole or a section that mentions signatures, so I'll deal with all in that order:

• In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.
  • These signature links are not left with the intent of improving the quality of discussion, because they either link to nothing or link to something that is not a discussion. They are not unambiguously allowed by this sentence, and indeed one good faith reading is that they are thus inappropriate.
  • It can be argued either way whether the second sentence makes them inappropriate - they are clearly expressing a point of view and intend to influence the outcome in a particular way, but what they are intending to influence is not a discussion.
• Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages.
  • I think we can all agree the first sentence here is true, but it doesn't help us determine whether these signatures are or are not inappropriate notification. The second sentence is also not very helpful - canvassing does normally involve the posting of messages, but that just means this is not the most common type of canvassing.
• Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience.
  • The signatures are definitely indiscriminate and the editors reading them include those who are both involved and uninvolved. I cannot in good faith argue that the signatures with links are not spam by this definition.

If we look at the table at the top of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification there are four factors to consider: Scale, message, audience and transparency. Taking these in turn:

• Scale: A message with every signed post is unambiguously "mass posting", which the table identifies as inappropriate, specifically "spamming".
• Message: In the context, "in solidarity" is clearly biased towards one side of a dispute. Again the table identifies this as inappropriate, specifically "campaigning"
• Audience: Given that the messages are being left indiscriminately the audience has clearly not been selected based on their views in the dispute, so as a whole this falls under the appropriate "nonpartisan" notification and thus is not "votestacking".
• Transparency: Putting notifications in your signatures is one of, if not the, least stealthy way possible of leaving notifications so this is unambiguously not stealth canvassing and is thus in the "appropriate" box.

In summary from the table that leaves us at 50:50 appropriate and inappropriate. However the expanded section below that contains 5 bullets, the first four of which expand on the labels in the table (formatting as per the original in all cases:

• Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.
  • Unquestionably this is posting an excessive number of messages to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand, so that confirms the conclusion we got from the table.
• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
  • Again, in context this is clearly a non-neutral notification, again confirming the characterisation as inappropriate.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions [...]. Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint to join a collaboration, as though it were a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
  • This one has two parts. The messages receiving the notifications are not being selected at all, so this is still unambiguously not vote-stacking. The second part, vote-banking, is not so simple - it's certainly arguable that one intent of the messages is to encourage those with a similar viewpoint to join the dispute on the same side as those leaving the message so as to create a numerical advantage. It isn't however a collaboration, it is not only those on one side who are receiving the message, and it is not clear that a simple numerical advantage will have any impact on the outcome of the dispute (in a workers vs managers dispute the former will almost always have the numerical advantage but not all such disputes end with a victory for the workers). On balance I think the non-selectiveness of the messages tips it to not being vote-banking but it's not clear cut.
• Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
  • Signatures are an on-wiki thing, so again this is a firm no. If stealth canvassing is happening (I don't recall seeing allegations of that, but I haven't been following every relevant discussion) that is unrelated to the signature issue we're discussing here.
• Soliciting support in indirect ways, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.
  • This bullet explicitly deals with the situation we have here: custom signatures with messages promoting a specific position on an issue being discussed. Unambiguously inappropriate.

So what we have is messages that are inappropriate by 3/5 of measures (arguably three and a bit) and not inappropriate by 2 (or just under 2) of 5. Make of that what you will, but the signatures are unarguably not unambiguously appropriate as some are arguing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I meant the literal first two sentences of the guideline, which I quoted above. I am not arguing the signatures are "appropriate". I am arguing that they do not constitute canvassing. In my view, they unambiguously do not because the editors who have included them in their signatures do not "intend to influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Unionization is subject to law, not discussions on en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, it's almost exactly the thing I would wish to write about it if had enough skills to do so (+ the point that in a broad sense almost everything could be qualified as potentially affecting some discussion somewhere). ~2026-39715-17 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I am willing to be the proxy subject for an RfC or a discussion on AN started by you, leading to ArbCom when it gets nowhere, if you wish to test the community's opinion as a whole on this matter. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 16:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nah. I was expressing agreement, not a wish for a pointless dispute. Sandstein 20:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter is an option for those who find custom signatures distracting. This is quite a metapedian matter and I would tend to distinguish it from the disruptive behaviour of canvassing for advantage in a content dispute.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is canvassing. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. This is a) not a discussion, b) nor something that generates an outcome (i.e. not something that gets closed). It's a petition that spreads awareness and (at most) a set of conditions for signatories' participation on-wiki. I am not a fan of the traffic stop analogy that equates publicizing solidarity with a slate of fired workers to being in a cold sweat at a politically charged police interaction. The petition as written is an exercise in empathy, not partisanship.

I have never really been a fan of people putting links in their sig that aren't directly related to them, nor have I engaged much with the WWU stuff. So I get why the links might not be popular, and I can't say I love them myself. If you want people to remove them because they are an unwelcome decoration, that's up to you, but it's not canvassing. Giraffer (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan off them, but mostly I don't like when in front of the name where it looks like part of the message. "You're blocked blah blah blah. In solidarity, RandomAdmin" reads very odd to me and I think it must have confused a number of editors. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  "You have been blocked... In solidarity (not with you), Admin" Levivich (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Obessay: WP:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature. —Cryptic 17:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment While I signed the solidarity pledge I also never change my signature from default. With that being said I find the efforts to ban solidarity messages in signatures to be a very silly bit of would-be bureaucracy and this thread should be closed. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  This looked like a plea not a request for a formal ban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Disagree I also signed the solidarity pledge but didn't change my signature, mostly because I'd probably mess it up. Even so, I have to say that either such signatures are acceptable for all editors or they are acceptable for no editors. I really don't see why administrators should be singled out here, especially as it's a massive leap to "Having a message in their signature espousing a particular political opinion". What politicial opinion, exactly? Most people are perfectly capable of believing that organisations that fight against unionisation are bad regardless of who they vote for. Also, it's a little US-centric, given that the US is an outlier regardling unions compared to most of the rest of the Anglosphere. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Is indirect canvassing a thing? For example, WP:WWU has a link at the top to WP:COMMTECHGATE for background, but that page also happens to contain a bunch of discussion about possible banner blocks, the Brooke Vibber day notice, demands to the WMF, and various RfC proposals. I would not consider the WWU page itself neutral. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would not consider the WWU page itself neutral. It's obviously not neutral. Signing a petition means taking a position. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  And, no, indirect canvassing is not a thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed discussions are closed for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Post-mortem: I think this is just the surface of a deeper problem: whether petitions count as discussions and how to deal with people promoting petitions which our policies just haven't catched up to yet because they are so rare and so we do not know how to deal with petitions. We probably need a more formal policy regarding what rules apply to petitions (e.g. WP:CANVASSING not applying to them) or else we may have similar arguing in the future about future petitions ~2026-38774-04 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I am obviously involved here, but this is clearly someone's project sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Please reconsider my topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Last year I was banned before being allowed to return to edit, agreeing to a broadly construed topic ban for 'stalking'. Here is a link to the unblock request, which contains links to information about the original stuff that led to the block and topic ban. Since returning to editing, I have worked to expand a number of stub articles and also improved Wrest Park to good article level.

Lately, I have been doing a few more basic tidying tasks, for instance removing stub templates on pages that are beyond this content classification and more recently noticed a problem with the external links on UK legislation pages, which generally contain a link to the legislation as it is now, with a second to how it was when it was enacted, albeit the 'path' has in the vast majority of cases not been set on the UK-LEG template, so both go to the same url. I've been working through these as it is impacting hundreds of pages.

That is the main reason for this appeal, because this is occurring on the page for the stalking legislation, Stalking Protection Act 2019. I have mostly found this topic ban to not significantly impact my editing and I still have no desire to edit the stalking page and would be happy to continue to not edit that page, but very occasionally this has an impact, so would appreciate the community reconsidering this. I guess there's also an element of this causing a little worry if I ever miss this topic in an article I edit, which is another reason.

I have received no warnings since returning to edit in December and feel that this being removed would (occasionally) help rather than hinder my contribution to building an encyclopaedia. LateFatherKarma (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Simple enough to rescind the topic-ban from "stalking" and replace it with a one-page block from stalking and its talk page. That looks like an appropriate solution to me.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Since December, LateFatherKarma has been making high-quality content contributions to articles on a variety of topics, and I believe it would be in the best interest of the project to accept their appeal. I agree with S Marshall and support replacing LateFatherKarma's topic ban from stalking, broadly construed, with a partial block from the Stalking and Talk:Stalking pages. — Newslinger talk 18:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the plan to replace the broad topic ban with a page block from Stalking and Talk:Stalking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Create protected redirect

People have been vandalizing this encyclopedia by repeatedly recreating the page name called "Black Privilege". Can you recreate the page by redirecting it to "Music of Grand Theft Auto V#GTA Online: The Contract"? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Search results suggest that we should instead create a disambiguation page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right, but how are we going to stylize it? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Like a normal disambiguation page. It would be the counterpart to White privilege (disambiguation). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Black Privilege is admin-protected, and has been for 10+ years. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to need to start the page as a draft then. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gregory Khachatrian: zooming out a bit, I'm wondering about some of the redirects you've been creating. The most recent one, I don't fucking play Roblox, redirects to Ty Dolla Sign, which doesn't even mention 'Roblox'. Similarly, $TARFACE points to Tyga, which has no mention of '$TARFACE'. I haven't checked many, but I'd wager there are probably others like that, especially given that of the 752 pages you've created, 744 are redirects (including some that are already at RfD, like Fucking (fornication), Fucking (reproduction), Fucking (copulation), Fucking (sexual intercourse), etc.). What's the thinking here, exactly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/tyga-unveils-starface-alter-ego-10-track-project-1236287676/, for what it's worth. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gregory Khachatrian: Then you will need to add the related content first. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, here's the time when Ty Dolla Sign said he will not play Roblox: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SRmapTYf_U0 Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a primary source; you're going to need to find a secondary source to indicate that the information is DUE. Sesquilinear (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming

Has a back log of actions for only Admin's, filemovers can not action these request. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Done the ones that required the sysop right. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Germanico5468504

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Germanico5468504 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [] , [] and WP:nothere [] Shadow4dark (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE. KylieTastic (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Least Action's user rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove Least Action's user rights (IP block exemption and temporary account IP viewer) as they have been globally blocked for WP:GHBH sockpuppetry. To checkusers, the link can be seen in the global block log entry. Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done KylieTastic (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to review talk page closures (2nd time) and subsequent actions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last night, the request to review the discussion closure at Talk:Major Oak#Tense, was automatically archived without first receiving administrative input. The plaintiff, Myceteae, has interpreted the archiving as agreement to overturn. Additionally, they have themselves now closed a post-closure discussion with a flawed summary (there was not universal support to overturn, the last non-plaintiff comment in fact recommends dropping the stick). Executive summary: I am not certain that not receiving a verdict is the same as permission to ignore process, especially for the person requesting the review. I would therefore now ask that we receive further clarification on that.

PS: I also think it might be helpful for the community to better understand what the consensus view is on comments such as:

"The "close" by the temp account was improper."

"there was no ostensible consensus to close this, especially by an unknown temp editor account"

"the close by a temporary account seems unnecessary"

To my eyes, these sorts of comments fall short of what is implied by "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as well as the more detailed suggestions found at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Task Center.

~2026-37915-52 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC) (formerly ~2026-34502-67)

PPS: Gawaon has just become a party by engaging what they characterise as an edit war. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Umm... this is not a court nor a courtroom, and this would be better resolved in WP:ANI? ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussions about closure often come to AN, ANI is more for chronic behavioural issues. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

In my understanding, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean "The free encyclopedia where anyone can close ongoing discussions regardless of what other editors think". In the Talk:Major Oak § Post-close comment thread, there was not a single editor defending the temp account's closure as appropriate. Ironically, I was the only one suggesting, at some point, to let it stand – not because I thought it was right, but simply because it did not seem worth fighting over. But the fighting is happening anyway, so here we are.

It would certainly be good if an admin or other experienced closer could take a look at that unusual and now apparently "irreversible" closure and either overturn or confirm it. Gawaon (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you, or do you not, advocate overturning closures because a "temporary account" made them? In light of what your response may be, do you now agree that your reasoning that temporary account actions are "unnecessary" for Wikipedia going forward, was unwarranted, unconstructive and contrary to the goals of the project? ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If anything I would like to know why, if Wikipedia really is WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK, is creating an account treated like an obligation. And saying that anybody else can also edit (constructive and unconstructive edits) if one were to be unregistered when there is temporary accounts completely invalidates having to create an account other than for the express purpose of being a social media instead of actually WP:FOC but you Wikipedians are way too self-fellating to do that properly. ~2026-37997-68 (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

All this complicated talk about whether an account should be expected before closing is irrelevant when your own words prove you do not have sufficient experience to be closing discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

That last comment is uncalled for. Only one person inferred this was an issue due to the closer being a TA, the others didn't have an account name to refer to them by, so called them "the TA". I don't know whether you've actually read the discussion, but everyone in the post-close said their concerns weren't really with the "who" so much as the "why". But yes, closes do take significant knowledge and experience to do properly - TA accounts don't show the majority of editors whether the person has sufficient experience to know what they're doing. In this case, the close and discussion here is indicating a lack of experience and bolstering the argument that this was an improper close by a non-administrator. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As per WP:Closing many discussions don't have to be closed. However if a discussion is closed with a summary of consensus per WP:NAC editors should generally have sufficient experience here both so that they will do a good job at summarising consensus and other editors will have confidence they did so. This is difficult to establish with a TA. Therefore while I wouldn't say TAs can never close discussions it should be rare in cases where it involves summarising consensus. (When it's just something here were it's editor blocked etc it's not so bad, and such closes can generally be reverted without issue anyway.) In this case, I think it's fair to say an editor who comes to AN and talks about plantiffs and verdicts and "without first receiving administrative input" appears to lack sufficient experience to close discussions. So the close should be overturned. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

BTW WP:NACIP specifically says unregistered editors should not close formal processes based on an RfC. This isn't really a formal process still it illustrates the point that TAs closing discussions is often not a good idea. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive381 § Request to review talk page discussion closure

I've linked the original AN thread for ease of reference. This includes background on the original issues, diffs, and input from several other editors who participated in the Talk:Major Oak discussion. The temp account barely engaged in the original AN thread, providing no explanation for their repeated closure and demonstrating no willingness to compromise or accept consensus. They have now reverted three different editors to reinstate their close on four separate occasions also over the objections of every other editor commenting in the discussions at Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment and at AN. I did not interpret the archiving as agreement to overturn. I asked for help at AN, received none, and moved to implement what I saw as clear and obvious consensus. I have never before encountered a situation here where a single editor is empowered to unilaterally enforce a close over the objections of every single other editor involved in the discussion. And although the temp account says I was wrong in my assessment of the views of every other editor in the discussion, @Gawaon has confirmed that I interpreted their last non-plaintiff comment correctly—it was not an endorsement of the temp account's closure on the merits. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the implication that objections to the close were based on the editor's temp account status. At most, that was a minor consideration. I would normally spell out my interpretation with diffs and quotes but what we are asking for is an independent review of Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment to determine consensus regarding the temp account's close of Talk:Major Oak#Tense, so I will refrain from stating my POV here except where necessary to respond to other editors' statements. As for my statement that OP partially quoted, my full statement was: I do not agree that there was consensus for the verbiage is a large dead English oak or anything similar in the first sentence. I also don't have the energy to fight it. The "close" by the temp account was improper. I believe it is clear that this was a substantive assessment of the close itself and the consensus (or lack thereof) in the preceding discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't believe this is back at AN.

I am still of the mind that the close done by the original temp account was premature. Ideally, the original discussion would be unclosed, but what worries me is that the comments are being inaccurately portrayed as "consensus" in the closing summary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

My comment that the close was both improper and unnecessary does not mention the temp account, and I stand by it. This is not a courtroom and the judicial language here may reflect a misunderstanding of the consensus process and wikipedia policies. Speaking of "dropping the stick," I believe the perpetuation of this dispute, though apparently in good faith, is disruptive (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). —BrechtBro (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It can be easily seen:

• Who initiated a post-closure discussion and,
• When a reasonable amendment of the closing statement was about to be agreed upon, broke away from the discussion to instead open a review, thus curtailing an easier resolution.
• Who unilaterally removed the closure statement when, after having thus asked for admin intervention, no admin elected to respond.
• Who, as the party having started the post-closure discussion, also later gave it an involved closure.
• Who has been ignoring suggestions to let this go and work towards a new consensus if necessary.
• Who has in fact been most active and verbose in "perpetuating" while simultaneously stating that there is no controversy.

I subscribe to the understanding that (1) requesting a review is a fundamental privilege granted to any participant or in fact any non-participating third party with any concerns, and (2) the proper conduct is to let the review proceed rather than add substantial amounts of additional text (as some here are in the habit of doing and encouraging others to do), which can only serve to delay or prevent the review.

The bottom line: It still looks to me as desirable for an administrator to give a clean review of the original discussion and closure that focuses on nothing but the merits of the closure itself. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I admit my tendency for verbosity. I have tried to restrain myself here by sticking to the present issue, with appropriate links to diffs and reference to the prior AN discussion, rather than repeat myself here. At this point, I feel compelled to respond to accusation and mischaracterizations directed at my conduct here and the overall grossly limited and inaccurate presentation of events in the Talk:Major Oak discussion. For simplicity, I will refer to you as the TA (temp account). This is not meant as a pejorative but a simple short hand as your account changed between ~2026-34502-67 (talk · contribs) and ~2026-37915-52 (talk · contribs) during the course of the relevant discussions.

• TA initially closed the discussion on 22 June
• Within two hours of the close, I made my initial post-close comment which I have described above. At that time, I was not intending to take further action.
• Within the hour, another editor agreed that there was no ostensible consensus to close this and NebY subsequently reopened Talk:Major Oak#Tense with the edit summary undone, contrary to WP:WHENCLOSE and made a similar comment in the discussion at Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment
• TA quickly reverted NebY, thereby reinstating their original close and removing NebY's comment stating that they had reopened it from the discussion
• Over the course of the next 90 minutes or so, me, NebY, and Martinevans123 all expressed our view that the original discussion should be reopened. TA was asked to self-revert or unclose. We agreed with TA that the {{discuss}} tag could be removed from the article even as the discussion itself was reopened. The discussion looked like this before I reopened the original discussion. At that point I was unaware that of the previous reopening and reclosing, as I acknowledged in the original AN post. I realize now this was in large part because TA reverted NebY's comment about having reopened it. Regardless, I felt there was clear consensus between three editors to reopen the original thread.
• TA swiftly reverted me.
• NebY warned TA about edit warring
• After that, I made the initial AN request for a close review to prevent edit warring
• BrechtBro also requested edit protection due to edit warring by non-registered users of tense in first sentence, during on-going discussion and continuing after consensus was established
• While the original AN was open, BrechtBro and Gawaon both indicated at Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment that they disagreed with TA's repeated closure

The original AN closed without intervention and now we are here. I've already described the subsequent events and shared diffs showing that TA reverted both me and Gawaon when we reopened the original discussion. I will note that Gawaon gave TA a second warning about edit warring on 3 July after TA twice reverted the reopening of the original discussion. As for why this matters, having a highly visible closing statement that is inaccurate and against consensus is misleading. I expanded on this at Talk:Major Oak. This also affects the content of Major Oak. We have no consensus for the wording of the opening sentence. I can't speak for other editors but I am hesitant to edit the article or continue the discussion while we have an inaccurate closing statement and an editor whose continued filibustering and reversions hamper productive discussion. Additionally, while I had hoped to avoid making this an editor behavior issue, TA's behavior is and has been disruptive. They have repeatedly reinstated their close against consensus, filibustered the Talk:Major Oak discussion by insisting on "more discussion" about the meta-issue of reverting their close, refused to take any accountability for their actions here, and mischaracterized the words and actions of the editors and then framed any attempt to respond as improper. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note the language in my protection request was based on the improper closing note. If this isn't getting an admins attention, it may be in part because the consensus is rather clear-cut. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Which clear-cut consensus do you see? (Just curious, since opinions about whether there was anything approaching consensus, and which way it went, seem to vary wildly.) Gawaon (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume @BrechtBro meant clear-cut consensus to reopen Talk:Major Oak#Tense, but it would be good to clarify. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that there's a clear majority of editors, backed by guidelines, both here and at the talk page and here who favor removing the close. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

As for that "clear majority" claim: Five participants of the original discussion raised complaints following the closure. Nine did not. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, every single person who has expressed an opinion in the post-close discussion disagreed with your close. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, but unfortunately I can predict quite well what will happen if anyone removes the close without explicit admin approval: the TA will revert it again, as they have done so often in the past. They are nothing if not persistent. Gawaon (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that TA restored my closing comment at Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment. I had reverted it because it makes no sense to have one closing comment saying the above discussion was reopened, when thanks to the TA's edit warring the referenced discussion is in fact closed again. The whole talk page is a mess with now two inaccurate closing statements locked in place. I am bewildered that I cannot self-revert my own closing statement to accurately reflect the reality of the present state. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of your self-revert of your involved closure of Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment. Note that this diff must fall on or before July 3, 2026 to fit your proposed timeline. ~2026-37915-52 (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Looks like you had reverted it and then restored it. All your edit warring makes it quite hard to follow, but I will gladly correct the record. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Bumping this to hopefully catch some admin eyes and let a decision be made instead of having this be archived like the previous discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I requested a formal close of this discussion: Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to review talk page closures (2nd time) and subsequent actions (permalink) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recreation of Sam Mangel - possible UPE

Sam Mangel was deleted two months ago via: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Mangel (2nd nomination). The only Keep votes are the ones by suspected sockpuppets or accounts with limited history (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckfinley94).

The recreated article was published as a draft yesterday by TechnoESP and then immediately moved into mainspace 12 hours later by Balabush. I suspect some UPE is going on, as the Sam Mangel article was created by a blocked user who was described as showing "pretty clear signs of UPE" and has a history of promotional COI/UPE editing (evidenced by 30thStreet being confirmed as a sock of a suspected Chuckfinley94 sock), and TechnoESP created Javier Loureiro (see resulting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Loureiro where the closer said clearly canvassed--if not outright hired--votes for keep). TechnoESP's initial comment on the Mangel draft talk used the exact same talking points as the COI/PAID editor 30thStreet at the Mangel AfD, attacking those who think the article should not be kept, and then attacking the nominator of the Javier Loureiro AfD (JohnMizuki) by saying he was "an argentinian targeting multiple articles about spanish people" (??). Note that TechnoESP was indeffed over at the Spanish Wikipedia for making baseless accusations against a Spanish Wikipedia admin who deleted his promotional articles there .

Anyway, can an admin look through the deleted Sam Mangel revision history and compare the deleted/hidden revisions with the re-created article? None of the sources of the recreated article were published post AfD, so I highly doubt anything has substantially changed within the past two months for this article to be re-created. Thanks. Some1 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The deleted version of the Sam Mangel article has an almost identical infobox and also starts "Sam Mangel (born February 25, 1963) is an American federal prison consultant".

Their userpage fits a formula I've seen discussed here/at ANI of AI-generated userpages made by paid editors.

Draft:Meta Time Card is said to be machine generated and the industry context section in particular rings of LLM speak.

Other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Loureiro !voting keep with a similar user page pattern are User:ConductorDeAutobus (also Spanish), User:Dennispruess, User:Juliusijidola, User:Opposec, User:Tiknova, User:Tatily390 (all checkuser blocked), and User:Mecahammer.

They made some questionable AfD nominations of female academics, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Brea López. It adds to the NOTHERE feeling.

Pinging admins who dealt with blocked accounts: User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:asilvering, User:Extraordinary Writ. Fences&Windows 12:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed User;Mechahammer as a promotional account and speedily deleted Dish Dash (DJ) as AI-generated spam using fake references. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeras Aviation. Article used advertorials. Fences&Windows 13:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Another link is to User:SergioluqueJ, blocked for socking. Mechahammer voted to keep a creation. I've indeffed User:ConductorDeAutobus as a DUCK sockpuppet of User:SergioluqueJ (both similar interests AND connected in a network). Fences&Windows 13:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ping User:Vanamonde93, who dealt with part of this network. Fences&Windows 13:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The article Iván González Barrasa seems to be part of this network - SergioluqueJ created it as es.wiki and edited it here. Barrasa is linked to Jorge Branga and Javier Loureiro. I'll stop there. Fences&Windows 14:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You may have to refresh my memory as to which of the previous socks I blocked, but this looks like obvious paid editing (with WP:DUCK socking/meatpuppeting in AfD), and I don't think the the draft should've been accepted and moved back to mainspace less than 6 months after an AFD deletion; it should've gone through WP:DRV. I was tempted to G4 speedy it, but I do see 1 new source (Semafor) that adds to notability claim. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 16:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie The Semafor piece isn't new -- two editors mentioned it at the AfD and still !voted to Delete the article. Some1 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not catching the recent AfD history... I wasn't aware the article had been deleted two months ago when I reviewed and moved the draft; I also don't actually know how to check whether a draft corresponds to a previously deleted article.

That said, setting aside the concerns about the draft's origin, I did review the content itself on its own merits. As it stands now, I think the sources support a reasonable case for notability, and the article reads as encyclopedic rather than promotional to me. I'm not in a position to speak to the sockpuppet/paid-editing network being discussed here, since I only saw the draft as submitted and don't have much insight into that side of things.

I'll accept whatever decision is reached regarding the article, since aside from wanting to help chip away at drafts needing review (I was sad to see the backlog cross 5,000 pending) I have no particular stake in this specific article. Balabush (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For those who haven't been following, I'm the one who just moved the draft into mainspace. Balabush (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

RE "when I reviewed and moved the draft", would you mind not doing that? I know you've been moving a number of drafts past AfC into the main article space, so (rightly or wrongly) I don't think your moving this particular one is necessarily a sign of anything untoward, but on the whole I'd rather you left reviewing drafts to AfC/NPP reviewers who have more experience of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing See this discussion on my talk page. I already gave Balabush a gentle reminder not to do this and their reply was this. They have moved many articles into mainspace with strong UPE concerns. Meng Bing (entrepreneur) and Bill Dorfman (originally created by blocked UPE Zuck) are some among them. I'm not accusing them of anything. But they should strictly step away from further moving any drafts to mainspace without getting AFC rights. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If you tell me that seems right to you, I'll stop moving drafts. Even though I think there's a huge backlog of drafts and I also think I'm doing good work on this (the one time I moved a problematic article was a mistake, and I've steered clear of problematic topics since then - and in this case there was really no way for me to know it had been previously deleted). Balabush (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Balabush, you can of course volunteer to become an AFC reviewer if you are interested in this kind of thing! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll dig into this issue more thoroughly over the next few days and submit a request. Balabush (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I've also indeffed TechnoESP per DUCK. They're definitely part of this same ring so there's no point holding off for their response here. Are there any checkusers about to find more socks? Is there an LTA page for this ring? Fences&Windows 17:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The central account of the "Prison consultant UPE complex", so to speak, is Chuckfinley94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has been some discussion off-wiki about this UPE ring, but I think creating Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Chuckfinley94 is probably a good idea to document this UPE ring on wiki. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, do go ahead, that sounds useful to me. Perhaps a comment on WT:LTA before you get started in case anyone can think of good reasons not to, so you don't waste your time. @Fences and windows, you can use {{checkuser needed}} to summon us in this kind of case. No need this time, In progress... In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, @Fences and windows, TechnoESP doesn't look like one of them, technically speaking. More likely a freelance UPE, if that's what's going on. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't volunteering to write it. I'm not honestly familiar enough with this ring (and the exact circumscription of it) to write the page, that should be left to the people involved in the SPI cases. This may involve a tangled mess of separate UPE freelancers, and without checkuser data I can't determine the precise nature of the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)