Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	0	135	135
TfD	1	0	2	17	20
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	22	28	21	71
RfD	0	0	0	88	88
AfD	0	0	0	10	10

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 14 sockpuppet investigations
• 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 26 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 42 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Unban request from Tiipu

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

---

From User_talk:Tiipu#Unblock Request 2

Dear Wikipedia administrators, I am writing to request for another look at my case and a chance to be unblocked (I apologise in advance for the long read. I wanted to make sure I it was as readable as possible so I wrote this by hand instead of relying on an LLM input.). Firstly, I think it is important to construct a timeline of my History at Wikipedia to keep everything clear:

1. The account @Tiipu was created on the 22nd of October, 2024.

2. Then, after editing for a few months on the account @Tiipu, I created the account @GtAM6 on 12th of January 2025.

3. When I got banned for sockpuppetry as a result of making the @GtAM6 account, I created the account @Longsword4 on 21st of February 2025 in order to circumvent the block from Wikipedia. This account was then banned by user @Izno on the 5th of March 2025.

4. After this, if I recall correctly, I spent a couple of weeks trying other methods to get past the ban by trying to edit anonymously and making new accounts however as my IP was associated with those banned accounts I was automatically forbidden from editing.

5. Realising that these methods were not working I tried to get my account unbanned. I appealed for the first time on the 27th of March 2025 via a ticket on UTRS.

6. This appeal was declined and I was suggested I follow the Wikipedia Standard Offer (i.e. Make a new account, make 500 constructive edits on Wikimedia related projects and wait at least 6 months.) and then re-appeal.

7. After creating my temporary account @Greatswrd on the same day (27th of March 2025), I got to work, initially editing on WikiBooks. However I quickly shifted to Wikimedia Commons where the bulk of my work is now situated.

8. After editing for 6 months, I accumulated approximately 800 constructive edits on the account, @Greatswrd. I re-appealed my ban on the 27th of September 2025, exactly 6 months after my first appeal.

9. I was declined again because I failed to follow the rules of not editing English Wikipedia. This was a mishap on my part as I edited talk pages to suggest improvements or on my own user page. While I never edited articles themselves nor anything on the main space, I understand that it technically went against what was instructed of me. I was then instructed to follow another term of the Wikipedia Standard offer, but to "unambiguously follow it" for it was my best chance.

10. So I took to Wikimedia commons again and begun editing and uploading media. I have now currently been doing this for nearly the last 9 months. I now have around 2500 edits on Wikimedia Commons (on the account, @Greatswrd).

11. I begun writing this appeal on the 21st of June 2026 however I forgot to sign out of this account and accidently made an edit on Wikimedia Commons. I understand that it may look like me trying to avoid my block again however this was a mistake on my part again and due to negligence. I can assure this wont happen again. This was a one time edit I did without knowing and I apologise.

I have now been away from English Wikipedia for nearly 15 months (collectively). 15 months is a long time and it allowed me to reflect on many things and re-evaluate whether I even wanted to return to Wikipedia. To begin with, I want to make clear that my ban was entirely justified as I explicitly went against Wikipedia's rules. When I made my very first account, @Tiipu, on the 22nd of October, 2024 I was new to Wikipedia and had no clue what I was doing. I made mistakes left right and centre. I would get excited at seeing any sources and hastily make edits, and while I was right a lot of the time, I understand now that being right isn't enough WP:BRIE. I realise now the root of these mistakes stemmed from not bothering with even reading Wikipedia's policies. To change this, in my time away from Wikipedia I made sure to go over some of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:SOCK, WP:CT and WP:EDITWAR. These policies are the reason(s) I was banned in the first place.

After reading WP:SOCK I understood that Sock puppetry is when someone used multiple accounts to mislead other or gain an unfair advantage like voting twice in a discussion. My case of Sockpuppetry was extremely serious as the Admins made use of Checkuser which reserved for only the most extreme cases. After reading WP:CT I realised that many areas or topics in Wikipedia are officially classified as "contentious topics" because they repeatedly cause disputes. When editing these articles its increasingly more important to edit them constructively and carefully. And after reading WP:EDITWAR I understood that edit warring primarily happens when editors keep on reverting/overriding each other's changes on a page instead of resolving the dispute through the talk page. Edit-warring disrupts an article and its stability and prevents editors from reaching consensus. After reading through these policies I was able to understand why they are having a sock (WP:SOCK), not following the guidelines for WP:CT and edit-warring (WP:EDITWAR) causes disruption to Wikipedia and prevents Wikipedia from being cordial professional as it should be.

Wikipedia's Standard offer is 6 months however I intentionally took an extra three months this time around to really reflect and get over the novelty of being able to edit on Wikipedia. I spent these last 9 months accumulating approximately 1700 further edits, with the overwhelmingly large majority of them being constructive edits. Out of all my c. 2500 edits, more than 500 of them have been uploads. One of my most viewed work is a flag of the Bengal Subah which receives approximately 240,000 views monthly (see here). I am also proud to report that in my entire history at Wikimedia Commons I have not been in any edit wars.

An error I was making was wanting to edit everything. This made would often mean I would make hasty edits causing my additions to be poor. This paired with the fact I was in constant edit wars and editing contentious topics meant I was going to get banned sooner or later regardless of whether I had a sock puppet or not. Even though most of my edits were in good faith it didn't make up for the fact that most of my edits went against Wikipedia's guidelines. I would like to take this chance for an Admin to consider giving me a second chance to prove myself to be worthy of editing Wikipedia again. I wholeheartedly accepts my mistakes and accept the fact that my actions undermined Wikipedia's guidelines and made life difficult for other Wikipedians. In my prior appeal I wrote "I know that the people who were affected may not see this however I am sorry for my actions" and I stand by it. Wikipedia should be a friendly and inviting place for everyone.

In reading many of Wikipedia's policies I have understood the issues with things like WP:SOCK, WP:CT and WP:EDITWAR and I will make sure that I don't edit war again and not revert edits. If conflict should arise, I will use talk pages to resolve the issue from now on instead of making new accounts. If I disagree with someone, I will message them at their talk page or the talk page of the article to discuss the issue. If the opposing argument is strong, I will accept the result and will not try to alter the result in any shape or form. I am committed to editing responsibly and transparently using the account @User:Greatswrd from now on. If necessary I don't mind taking on a temporary unban or trial to demonstrate my commitment and earn the trust of the community again. Thank you for your time and consideration.

User is considered WP:3X banned (original block Jan 30, 2025 - strike 2: Longsword4 blocked 4 March 2025. Strike 3: Greatswrd CU-confirmed 28 September 2025). * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unblock with a topic ban from Indian military history. Zalaraz (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock with a one-account restriction. Best to enforce their understanding of what they did wrong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unblock with a topic ban from Indian military history and a one-account restriction, per Zalaraz and LaundryPizza03. While I think it's fair to give this editor another chance, it's best for everyone if it's not in one of the most controversial areas of English Wikipedia, and I'd prefer that there be a review rather than an automatically granted right. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be agreeable in making it about Bengal, per S Marshall. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock, under the condition that they follow the terms suggested by CoffeeCrumbs. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 22:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at this user's problem contributions, I don't think the topic ban should be about Indian military history. I think it should be about Bengal, broadly construed.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you explain? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  On the main and sock accounts, he mainly displays interest in the Bengal Sultanate, the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the Nawabs of Bengal during the Mughal Empire period. There are uploads that I can't see because they've been deleted, but have titles such as File:All_land_controlled_by_the_Bengali_people_throughout_history.jpg, which suggest an interest in Bengali revanchism. You'll be well aware, but it might help others to be reminded, that Modern day Bengal isn't entirely within India. I'm not seeing problematic edits outside the Bengal region.—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then I agree with that. Let me know if you encounter a problematic edit about SASG or IMH outside of Bengal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with single account restriction and TBAN from Bengal, broadly construed. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Unblock everyone can make mistake, from what I saw above they earned another chance but with a TBAN from Bengal and ONE account restriction in place. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support with single account restriction and TBAN from Bengal, as above. Using Greatswrd instead of Tiipu should be fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, but topic-banning someone from their entire nation/region is almost always going to be broader than necessary, so (as ArbCom has suggested) we should consider whether a narrower topic ban would suffice. In my opinion something like "history of Bengal pre-1971" would address all the disruption that's actually occurred while still leaving room for them to edit about the area of the world that they're presumably interested in. If problems spread to adjacent areas, then that's what WP:CT/SA is for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• support with one account restriction and topic ban on "history of bengal pre 1757". I think pre 1757 or 1947 is more appropriate than 1971. Their problematic editing history is mainly in pre 1757 history. Nothing after. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unban with a tban on history of Bengal pre-1765 per above. If unblocked, the closing admin should redirect/merge the history of User:Tiipu to User:Greatswrd. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This iscussion has gone on for two weeks, and a clear consensus has formed. Can the next admin that sees this close this discussion + unban Greatswrd? In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Unban request from MoonknightPP34

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

---

From User talk:MoonknightPP34#Unblock request after taking standard offer

Hello to all the community, first of all I would like to thank you for giving me the option of taking the standard offer. Over these past few months I have done a lot of reflecting on my actions, they were silly and as much as I tried to justify them those reasons did not matter and I shouldn't have abused the site and the editors who work tirelessly to make it a safe and enjoyable space for everyone involved and to all of you I would like to apologise. These last 6 months have taught me a lot and I would love the oppurtunity to come back and prove I can be a great editor who follows the rules, follows guidelines and helps to make this site a better place. If you think this is not the right thing and decide to reject my unblock request I completely understand, I will leave it at that, but I would love the oppurtunity to edit like I originally did on this account, by making great edits that further pages and the site. I promise not to cause any trouble or do anything stupid that makes anyone else's lives more difficult. I would again like to apologise for the stupid choices I have made the past couple years with these accounts and would like to apologise again to the editors of this site for taking time out of their days to police my actions, I sincerely apologise for the trouble and stress caused. I hope we can all move past this and allow edits to be our focus. Thank you for your time and consideration. MoonknightPP34 (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Prior failed appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive376#WP:3X ban appeal for User:MoonknightPP34 * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, assuming no additional new information comes to light. As I said back in December, I thought it was crucial that the editor show self-regulation and take the WP:OFFER and that I'd likely support the unblock in six months. They followed the SO as far as I can tell, the red flags I referenced at the time aren't in the request, I think another chance is fair at this point. Hopefully it goes without saying that Moonknight should be limited to a single account. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Clearly someone who passionately wants to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope we can come up with a route back.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, on the condition that they receive experience on how to contribute edits to mainspace from a mentorship. Their older talk page highlights issues with adding unsourced claims to articles. This is problematic. Unfortunately, there are no global contributions from the past 6 months to determine if they can edit responsibly. They have just under 2000 edits across their accounts, which means there will be a heavy learning curve if allowed to jump straight back into editing without some form of insurance on their improvement. Fulfilling the SO is a good start. (It would also be good to tell the truth in any situation, which they failed to do here). My advice is to have a read of WP:RS and H:YFA, and consider contacting somebody at WP:AAU. 11WB (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I'm also worried about sourcing, since it's been a consistent problem throughout all their accounts from 2022 to 2025. [1][2][3][4][5]

I wonder if a mainspace block might be an idea, until they've had enough accepted edit requests/drafts - unless someone else has a better suggestion? That or a committed mentor who is happy to accept that level of oversight, since sourcing is so integral to editing it'll affect the majority of their work.

I really want to support this appeal, but three years of problematic sourcing concerns me & I'd like some sort of guardrails in place, if possible. I realise that a mainspace block is quite severe though, so I'm open to other suggestions. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I find that mainspace blocks often discourage people from the core of encyclopedia-building without giving them great tools to learn. What about a custom restriction like Every factual assertion in an edit MoonknightPP34 makes—either a new assertion or a change to an existing one—must be accompanied by a citation. If the assertion is verified by a citation already present, or is summarizing information found elsewhere in the same article, this should be indicated in the edit summary, e.g. 'corrected date per cited source' or 'added population to infobox per body of article'. I would also support some kind of mentorship if someone's willing to volunteer, in lieu of such a restriction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Restored from archive. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 00:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Support unban, if it is accompanied by a restriction such as the one Tamzin mentions, to deal with the problems with sourcing that this user has had in the past. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment I'd be happy to field any questions MoonknightPP34 has about sourcing or other issues; I'm not up for preemptively monitoring their edits with any consistency. Not sure what else a mentor might do here Rusalkii (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Following on from request: Please reconsider my topic ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community 3X ban appeal from Bmona12

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Response from Bmona on their talk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting close - close request unanswered for over 3 months

A close request about this split request has been open for over 94 days. If the close is approved, a new article, Trump and authoritarianism, will be created. I am interesting in working on the article, but because no one has answered the close request, I am unable to do so. This is also a current topic, and while there is WP:NODEADLINE, many related pages in the Trump 2 ecosystem will be reorganized if this split is approved (Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar, Democratic backsliding in the United States, and Second presidency of Donald Trump#Authoritarianism), and I'd like to get along with reorganizing this ecosystem sooner rather than later so that the amount of work needed to reorganize is minimized (if we wait longer, more content will be added to these pages which will make the reorganization process more difficult). Therefore, in the interest of avoiding WP:CANVASSING, I am leaving a message here in the hopes an admin will expedite the close process and do it themselves. Thank you. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Done as a nac, no admin tools needed. Levivich (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Just finished reading your summary, I appreciate the amount of detail you put into it and I think you summarized the consensus well. Thanks again! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Restoring user rights for unvanished editors

An editor at WP:PERM/EC is requesting the return of XC after apparently being unvanished. Not sure what we do in these sorts of cases. My understanding was that vanishing is permanent. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User statement: Hi there, yes it appears I wasn't ever globally locked as part of the original vanish. Current intent is to re-establish profile/perms/talk space and continue editing, not on a fresh profile if able. Happy to take any Q's via here/enwiki Discord — IVORK _Talk 04:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Although WP:VANISH says that vanishing is permanent, this person has never been blocked, and another admin did the unvanishing on July 21. No reason not to give back extended confirmed, I think. What should not be allowed is continued editing under the vanished identity, which I believe has not occurred. User:IVORK had 19,000 edits when they were last active and seem to have done good work. If they do end up being fully reinstated under their original account name, I suggest they restore the links to their talk archives. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that "unvanishing" is even a thing (or possible). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 10:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Typically it is not possible; however, this "vanish" was technically incorrectly performed as it was requested as a regular rename; which meant the account was not locked and did not have its email stripped from it, so could still be used. CoconutOctopus talk 11:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I've only seen it done when the VANISH was used to evade scrutiny, and the user was found to have come back under a different username. This seems to have been a user in good standing, who seemingly regretted having vanished and wanted to come back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. I can't think of a situation where we wouldn't permit someone-in-good-standing to return. If you vanish in such circumstances, we wouldn't mind if you came back with a new username, and since unvanishing wasn't impossible, it would have been absurd for us not to grant the request. Curious, do the developers generally remove an account's email address when it gets vanished, or is that normally done by the user in question? I assume unlocking isn't particularly difficult. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's an automated removal done when a vanish request is approved by a renamer or steward. CoconutOctopus talk 06:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Any idea why that didn't happen this time? Is it done by ticking a little box, and someone apparently forgot to tick it? Not trying to complain; I just don't understand the process. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

So, basically, the "vanish" and "rename" processes, whilst handled at the same place, are separate things. This was never a real vanish request, but instead the user requested renaming to a rough approximation of a vanished username. They were renamed, but still totally free to edit. CoconutOctopus talk 08:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I restored the user page. We can act on WP:AGF and reinstate extended confirmed, or we could wait for bit to see what editing takes place, to verify if this come back is going to be good before granting page-mover and the other permissions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I've restored IVORK's extended confirmed permission, since he met the thresholds to be granted it automatically and it wasn't revoked for cause. I haven't restored any other permissions, and IVORK hasn't requested them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Ultimately I was going to go through and reapply for page mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker as per what was removed, but if you're able to do all at once, that'd be best — IVORK _Talk 07:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've restored your PCR and rollback, since the counter-vandalism you've been doing after your return looks good to me. The other permissions (which would have been revoked for inactivity even without the vanishing) require that the holder have a somewhat tighter grasp on community and editorial norms, which have changed non-trivially over the last four years. I don't like being bureaucratic about these things, but I think it would be best for you to get settled in and re-request those at PERM when you have a more recent track record that administrators can evaluate. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• The current vanishing model is designed to be one-way and includes account locking and purging of credential stores, the old process was just a manual rename. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect creation

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

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

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

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

@Bkonrad: Can you please explain this revert [6]. The recent redirect conversion isn't correct per the page's history. We're dealing with distinct things here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Garfield Sobers#Requested move 17 July 2026

Could an administrator please look at this RM, and decide if it can be closed one way or the other. There have been two attempted relists which did not comply with WP:RMRELIST. Thanks, Jack (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Vanish & return?

Asking for advice. When a user, who is here solely to write about a couple of related subjects in which they have a likely COI, racks up several warnings, then changes username, and soon after that requests and is granted courtesy vanishing... and a week later a new user appears and picks up the baton, what do we do? If, as I strongly suspect, it is the same user returning with a new account, that's clearly against the spirit of WP:VANISH, but is it ipso facto blockable? And if so, should I ask CU to confirm the connection, or is behavioural evidence enough?

And on a related but separate point, I assume I shouldn't ask the user whether the vanished account was theirs, when their earlier username was almost certainly their IRL name, because that would be outing – right? Should I just send this to COIVRT? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I would file at SPI, present the behavioral evidence, and ask for a CU. Worst-case scenario is that the clerk doesn't endorse the CU check and that the reviewing admin finds the behavioral evidence unconvincing. A sockpuppet positive would render worrying about the COI largely moot and is a pretty straightforward affair, and a negative sockpuppet finding would not prevent you from then following up on potential COIVRT.

I wouldn't engage with a potential sockpuppet with questions about their identity, nor would I inform them that I had opened an investigation. In fact, we are specifically discouraged from doing so in the instructions at the investigations page. Grandpallama (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, I don't feel the need to convince another admin to block (without CU); I'm not involved, so am able to block myself.

And by taking this to SPI, I would have to publicly connect the current username to the pre-vanished one, which still gives me concern about outing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think COIVRT is the correct call in a situation such as this. CoconutOctopus talk 09:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No, vanishing is not a concern in the context of OUTING. OUTING is strictly: can you connect the user account to an external source? If you can, don't do so onwiki. By contrast, if you can connect account A to account B strictly on behavior, you are free to do so. This is bread and butter of SPI.

Yes, VANISH is quite clear that returning to the area someone previously edited in under a different guise is not granted any of the protections in it, and yes, it can result in a block for the account (which is, the keywords, evading scrutiny when the first account "racks up several warnings", as you say).

Now, you can choose to be more sensitive in some ways, like emailing a trusted SPI admin about the connection you've observed (I'll volunteer Asilvering ;) and letting them take a shot at taking care of the issue. Izno (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ha, good of you to volunteer... another. :)

So even if, in this case, the user has changed usernames to hide their real name, I wouldn't be outing them by pointing out the connection? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's part of the record in the move log. You'll find plenty of users that have been renamed. Look for User:Some editor moved page User:Bad person to User:Renamed user c2381aff64a7c34bbdfdb430664311d4 or something like that. Now if you should point that out is different but it's available to all, don't know about TAs though. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that if an editor uses courtesy vanishing to evade scrutiny and gets caught like this, in many cases the courtsey vanishing will be reverted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that is not outing. Izno (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia biased on articles

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

---

Here is a list of articles and what I discovered from them (from the editors, down to the article itself)

Isolog schools: this article has only one reference and it was put on stay, some of the context might not even be true (no adequate referencing)

Masayuki Kojima: never even has a reference.

Hairbyhairboy: sounds so promotional, someone nominated it for deletion, but it was scraped- guess that person who nominated it didn’t know how to be outspoken and defensive or felt skeptical on how to bring her points well (I’ve come across lists of corrupt journalists like Shola Shojobi in the https://independent.ng/hairbyhairboy-collaborates-with-peller-jarvis-on-digital-content-projects/ , the person in the article never collaborated with him, if he even did, not only one newspaper will record it, look at the vanguard source and look at the little mentions in other sources, drafted scheme from the start to make a Wikipedia article lol.

X-Dynasty: a nominator claimed the article is promotional, will the person in which that article is written about want to pay the editor for that image tarnishing edit, like look at the article itself and how it was referenced (I think that should not be the issue obviously-and again an article is subjective to stay if it has at least 3 well sourced references) though it might be a little tough to know if the guy is alive or up to anything, but hopefully since he’s has created an impact and it’s been reported by the media, he’ll still be on radar, his death or any other serious issue can be reported again. SEE article via Pastel Ghost

Kiriku: needs to be heavily compressed, some things said there are not reliable. Koladayo Davids (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 09:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing you need to be careful of with Nigerian subjects is that news orgs there are quite happy to run advertorials or sponsored content. Those "sources" are easy to find and easy to use when you're writing an article, but they don't count towards notability at all. They're fairly easy to spot as they basically read like an advertisement for the subject. This one (from X-Dynasty, who I don't think is notable) is typical. There are also a number on Hairbyhairboy, I note. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think so, for X-Dynasty, this one is clearly looking like an interview, This one, made it glaring he had independent coverage (look at the article itself and the referencing), since it’s blank maybe due to site error. I personally don’t see any issue with that article tbh. Koladayo Davids (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the first one has quotes from him (such articles often do) but sentences like "Today, his streams are more than just entertainment—they are lifelines for a generation learning to navigate pain in a digital world" are a giveaway, as is the "Featured" byline at the top of the page. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry my bad, ion think it was in an interview format per say, I think it was mixture of quotes from him and how he influenced people with ‘numb’, I don’t think there was a back to back question and answer there. Unlike quick daily news updates, a featured piece kinda looks closely at a person, trend, or major issue with more detail and background.(pardon me for not doing my research well earlier)- he still meets notability, the words in "Today, his streams are more than just entertainment—they are lifelines for a generation learning to navigate pain in a digital world were not sugarcoated. Koladayo Davids (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

As per Hairbyhairboy, something’s a whole lot fishy. I wish my perception should be cross-checked on that article and required steps taken. I have a full list of why the subject in that article is not notable. Koladayo Davids (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia biased on some articles?

• On American articles related to politics or caught in the culture war: Wikipedia is user-generated content, and Americans have increasingly strident opinions as they march in the culture war. It is not hard for others to get caught up in this fervor, too.
• On American media articles: many Americans have strongly held opinions that they are quite eager to share with the world ("best ever!" or "worst ever!"). This is reinforced by bombastic American media itself and its equally bombastic advertising.
• On European content: English is just one language among many in Europe, and some of the Europeans who might recognize and challenge POV-pushing in these articles are editing versions of Wikipedia in their native language instead.
• On Asian media: on an Anglophone website, anyone who engages with this content is likely a super-fan, leading to occasionally ridiculous articles.
• On East Asian politics: this is a highly contentious topic in much of the Western world, and a Western perspective will likely be strongly enforced.
• On content from the "Global South": Americans and Europeans are quite unlikely to engage with this content, giving free rein to whomever wants to write it, no matter how spammy or opinionated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @NinjaRobotPirate, for your time taken to outline it out Koladayo Davids (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

NomanPK44 ban appeal

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

Copied from User talk:NomanPK44#Indefinite block:

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

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

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

User:Robloxguest3

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

---

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

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

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

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

User:Henrydat's failure to properly contest my closes

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

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

The answer is [7], I've questioned you about your "a second opinion" and please be civil. Henrydat (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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

I think I have something…

I believe that User:MechMaster Katzenstein could be a sock puppet of User:Derpily64. Loc863 (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but they were both blocked for socking 9 years ago. How did you find them? CoconutOctopus talk 14:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was looking at animation article talk pages and I found MechMaster. Loc863 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you tag MechMaster as a sock of him? Loc863 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no need, it's nearly a decade old. CoconutOctopus talk 16:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, we could just tag him Loc863 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Why exactly are you invested in the tagging of a 9-year-blocked account? CoconutOctopus talk 17:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, so users would be aware Loc863 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It's meaningless after this amount of time. The only people who ever care about tagging such old things are the sockmaster themselves. Since you're not them, can you explain why you're wanting this to happen? • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean sockmaster tagging themselves like they make a sockpuppet account and put the sockpuppet template on the user's page? Loc863 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

A non-answer answer. That's interesting. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 18:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

They are a troll who should likely be blocked for WP:CHILDPROTECT. They edit articles aimed at children and vandalize old Anti Pedophilia projects - see the comment just above their addition here: [8]. You are best off banning, removing TPA, and not linking them elsewhere. ~2026-41736-46 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

ElectricShock53 unban request

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block Review, Edittttor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is also several more instances as well.

Pennsylvania-3:

Chris Rabb (progressive): [14]

Ala Stanford: [15][16]

Sharif Street: [17]

Texas 30:

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

Barbara Mallory Caraway: [23]

Illinois 9

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

Daniel Biss: [24]

Kat Abugazaleh (Most progressive): [25]

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

Edittttor edits to the Brink article changed her stance about Ukraine to be the "U.S. State Department's Stance on Ukraine", downplayed her responsibilities as ambassador, added information about Brink owning several million dollar houses outside the district, and removed that part of her reason for resigning as ambassador was disagreement with Trump, specifically only emphasizing tensions with Ukraine. [9].

The most glaring issue was that the lead had been changed so that appointed by Donald Trump was mentioned before any of her ambassador titles. I changed the lead to be more neutral [10]], and was reverted. [11], saying that Ambassadors to Ukraine usually had the appointing president listed. I reverted back [12], saying that None of your examples lists the appointing president before the position. The lead I wrote for Brink is similar to that of other ambassadors in both the Trump/Biden admins, before listing some examples. Eventually, the outcome was that Edittttor still had the appointing President information in the lead, but not before the position itself.

Meanwhile, for William Lawrence, he received criticism for a remark he made on a podcast, which Edittttor changed to "received news coverage". [13].

As for Melissa DeRosa, they reinserted 3500 bytes with the following edit summary: re-added info to provide WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE since this article was recently whitewashed. [14]

The whitewashing allegations were first made back in April. Edittttor had added a 4,000 byte "Criticism section", which another user later removed for violating WP:NPOV [15]. [A few days later, regarding a different section of the article, another user added a brief mention of a report, with that user saying that not mentioning it was whitewashing [16]. Edittttor, combining that one specific example from that article, along with a talk page message from an IP 4 years ago [17], re-added their 4,000 byte criticism section, and wrote that Several editors have commented on the white washing on this page, so please post specific issues to Talk page before reverting again [18]). EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Endorse block. While a series of topic bans could similarly curtail disruption, the sanction would be so limiting and labyrinth that a block is almost a lesser sanction. their reply on their talk page here [19] only convinces me that a sanction is necessary. Specifically the line here:

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

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

New details, indef block review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism of country category articles

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

---

User:Antonelaborozan has decreased the quality of almost 50 articles by inserting citations to one website, globaldatabase.com. Every single edit this user has made creates a new citation to this website, which is not reliable. It seems this is a goal to increase revenue of that company, which uses AI-generated articles as sources for Wikipedia articles. I’m not sure what I should do about this? Should I go and revert all the edits? ~2026-41755-36 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Harassments and threats from another editor

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Harassments and threats from another editor

 – Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ایجاد صفحه برای آرش دبستانی

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

---

با سلام،

از خوانندگان آثار نویسنده‌ی ایرانی آرش دبستانی هستم. می‌خواهم صفحه فارسی وی را ایجاد کنم اما امکان دسترسی ندارم. ممنون می‌شوم صفحه را ایجاد کرده و/یا به من اجازه دسترسی برای نوشتن صفحه را بدهید.

آرش دبستانی نویسنده ساکن نیویورک است. مدارک تحصیلی اش را از دانشگاه برکلی و دانشگاه نیویورک گرفته است و آثارش به فارسی و انگلیسی چاپ شده اند. Sulzbi-240 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Fuzheado LLM articles in mainspace

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

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

Fuzheado admitted creating at least 10 articles, 8 in mainspace, using a custom LLM tool [20]. Three more were found in mainspace later [21]. Most disclosed LLM use in the edit summary but at least one, Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals, did not [22].

Fuzheado responded to the AINB case with: the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations. [23] However, there were malformed sources and source/text mismatches in every article examined [24].

Fuzheado then said I take the blame and will delete the articles or resolve them individually. The writing and fact checking done by a combo of a custom Gemini AI LLM and deterministic code (python) shows promise in notability determination but even with my oversight they fall short of being ready for article production. [25] He published articles which he knew, or should have known, were both violations of WP:NOLLM (WP:NEWLLM for older articles) and too flawed for mainspace.

Once the non-disclosed article was discovered, Fuzheado was asked to disclose and userfy any remaining LLM articles on June 23 [26], repeated June 25, repeated on his Talk page July 11, July 28. There has been no response. While all affected articles may now be userfied, confirmation is needed. I understand he was busy with Wikimania but this request has been pending for over a month, and he has edited enWiki during that time.

I ask for three actions:

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

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

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

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

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

The creations identified as LLM-generated were userfied despite no response from them re helping with cleanup (see [27] and User talk:Fuzheado#AINB), but there's very likely more (the first revision of Walk for Peace USA had several AISIGNS) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

When confronted, Fuzheado used the words "curtail" and "pause" [28] but notably not "stop."

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

Fuzheado was at least open about his custom LLM experimentation. I would oppose removing autopatrolled provided Fuzheado agrees not to use LLM output any further on Wikipedia outside the limits in WP:NOLLM. Unilaterally regarding himself an exception to this guideline isn't going to end well. Fences&Windows 13:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Reluctantly oppose (1), strong support (2). (1) for the simple reason that all of our eyes are on him now, and if he pulls this again I expect the pitchforks will follow extremely quickly. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive, and pulling autopatrol accomplishes nothing in my opinion. I am reluctant with this logic because I acknowledge it is treating an established editor very differently from how we treat a newbie. However, we don't do things on Wikipedia to send messages. (2) because communication is required, especially of an admin, and I would hope and expect that Fuzheado truly acknowledges that he made a mistake which wasted community time (and my tokens) instead of behaving like "sorry I got caught", which I must admit it is feeling increasingly like. Fermiboson (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with experimenting with LLMs. If you're going to do that, though, don't do it in mainspace. Do it in your own userspace, in draftspace, or off-site. By definition, I would consider LLM-written articles to require human overview. That seems inconsistent with autopatrolled to me. But if the article languishes in draftspace until someone gets around to checking it, that's fine. Who cares. If anyone finds the job of checking LLM-written articles to be boring, they can simply not do it. It's not a burden on the system. Eventually, we might reach the stage where editors can post LLM-written articles without the LLMs glitching out and people subsequently freaking out, but I don't think we're there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with F&W, Fermiboson, and to some extent with NRP; I would only support (2) from the above. Fuzheado has already agreed not to use LLMs outside the narrow exceptions specified in the guidelines. I don't really see a need to ban him from using LLMs even for translation and for copyediting his own work. Though I will say that he shouldn't be using LLMs to draft content, not even in draftspace, due to the myriad of actual policy problems (e.g. WP:V) that this creates.

If Fuzheado continues to use LLMs outside these exceptions, his autopatrolled right can be removed (either voluntarily or not). But we should give him some slack given that (a) he has acknowledged the issue and (b) I trust that he, as a long-term admin, can keep his word, in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. Support. Support. A sound proposal, given the facts of the matter. I appreciate that this is a celebrity Wikipedian who has performed meritorious service to the movement, but we are talking about stepping across a pretty clear red line with disturbingly little reflection. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Carrite here: Support x 3. Just to reiterate the quote above, the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations is extremely troubling. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban

Can I ask for my topic bans to be lifted? I have been careful not to participate in anything about categorisation and I havent edited any pages about living people. I did wrong seven years ago but I have seen the error of my ways, and the circumstances which led me to create sock puppets will not recur. I have been busy on Simple English and Wikimedia, and have edited a few English wikipedia articles. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Not sure what you mean by 'no longer on the page' - it is listed at WP:RESTRICT#Voluntary. That being said, the diff linked does not tell the whole story here. I'm not trying to give Rathfelder a hard time here, but I do think he would be well-advised to provide links to the various discussions that led to my indef, my unblock with restrictions, his subsequent CBAN, eventual unban with restrictions still in place, and also his temporary block in February for breaching editing restrictions. I would advise him to set it all out for people to review, rather than making them rely on memory / go digging. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

"I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019. Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportunity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it. I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits to those pages after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintained my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. "Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)" I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have editted, but I have not participated in any of those discussions. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary.

These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I didnt understand that XfD was part of the ban. However they dont really relate to the stuff that got me in trouble in the first place. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation. But I have never done a lot work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Community Unblock Appeal from User:Zubarkokar

Hello Administrators!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog at RFPP, again

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

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

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

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

Personal COI question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog at AfD

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

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

Possible 2FA issue

Hi all. Crossposting this here if anybody seeing this can sort. [30] Thanks. User:Nightfury ~2026-42527-43 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)