Wikipedia

User:CorbieVreccan/Admin Toolbox

< User:CorbieVreccan
THE ULTIMATE ADMIN TOOLBOX
Stolen shamelessly from User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox
Note: This page may take a long time to load on 56k connections.


Admins, constantly find yourself flipping around for or bookmarking several pages left and right? Want to have them at your fingertips? Well here you have it! You also can find handy links/statistics on this page included in the category trackers below. Feel free to use if you like it!


Admin Actions

edit

Admin Actions

Admin Logs

Admin Logs

Other Logs

edit

Other Logs

Tracker

edit

Admin Category Tracker
(refresh)

RFA Tracker

edit

RFA
(refresh)

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

AIV

edit

AIV
(refresh)

Reports

edit

Bot-reported

edit

User-reported

edit

Recent Changes

edit

Recent Changes
(refresh)

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

31 August 2025

Noticeboards

edit

Either click on the titles to jump to the noticeboards or click the "show" button on the red bars under each header.

WP:RFPP

Click to reveal noticeboard



Current requests for increase in protection level

edit
Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Shortcuts

Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.


Thiru Vikram

edit

Reason: Repeated coordinated vandalism, socking, SPA, undisclosed paid editing, etc. Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 13:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  • The last time ChiranjiviVyasa made a similar report on this topic, it resulted in a new editor being blocked for disruptive editing. I discussed some of the issues with the blocking admin here. Needless to say, none of the issues raised by the blocked editor were addressed - but that isn't to say that the points were without merit. I then spent considerable time editing Thiru Vikram, checking all references, removing unverified or trivial details and correcting peacockery. This was met with a blanket reversion by ChiranjiviVyasa calling the edits disruptive and demanding that all edits much first be "approved" on the Talk page. I now see this entirely misleading description of "coordinated vandalism, socking, SPA and undisclosed paid editing" and I think BOOMERANG and perhaps the only disruptive editing is when good faith edits are blanket-reverted and labelled vandalism. HighKing++ 13:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    New Account is quite an understatement for an SPA that made PRODs to two related articles as the 1st edit and then made edits to other articles only after being warned by another editor of the pattern on talk page. That SPA account had displayed just the same aggressive pattern...does the modus operandi involve creating an SPA to PROD or AfD and then use the more "experienced account" to vote delete at the behest of larger competitors? That way the new account can be discarded and the old one's delete votes keep counting as edits. Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 14:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
My concerns have also been raised here and the article's talk page. If we are going to take liberties with accusing people of COI like here without even the common courtesy of tagging me, I wonder why an editor who typically only deletes small company content while contributing no new language is suddenly interested in a personal bio that was recently attacked by IPs, SPAs via socking. Could they be coordinating hits by the bigger industry players while racking up "experience" by voting delete on smaller rivals' AfDs? Just a question, not a definitive claim as they say... Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 14:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I should add that Buffalo Automation was targeted too. Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 14:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Iatrogenesis

edit

Reason: Reversion war by several editors who disagree with the content but have not provided ample evidence of the contrary NotoriousPyro (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This editor has been edit warring to insert original research into an article - trying to add a paragraph on puberty blockers cited to a weak source which doesn't even mention iatrogenesis once. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Aoidh (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Phillora

edit

Extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – This article covers Indian military history, such articles are required to be under ECP protection as per ArbCom ruling.[3]

The non-ECP user who is currently edit warring needs a block though for making insults such as here and here, even after warnings.[4]. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 03:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

List of CNN personnel

edit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Arap

edit

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Cyrobyte (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Proxy server

edit

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent WP:NOTFORUM violations. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Pati Patni Aur Panga – Jodiyon Ka Reality Check

edit

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

edit
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Shortcuts

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

  • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
  • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
  • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
  • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Shortcuts

ChatGPT

edit

Reason: Training workflow of original ChatGPT/InstructGPT release[12][13] -> When I saw the flowchart there, I thought Red-green blindness or any other people having color blindness wouldn't be possible to be confused or correctly distinguish the color of this workflow.

So I was looking for raising associated request in regards to this topic. Sukbu (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This page has had significant unconstructive edits from IP users. I would prefer semi. Czarking0 (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
As the talk page is protected, if you just want something changed, you should probably ask on the requests for edits section. One edit, however necessary, is not really a reason to unprotect an article. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. I agree with your assessment but an edit request is the way to go, but you'd have to use WP:RFED because the article's talk page is also protected. Your account is old but unused; all you need is 9 more improvements to various other articles you read, and then you'll be autoconfirmed so you can edit the article yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

edit
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Shortcut

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

  • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
  • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
  • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
  • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
  • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


Ukays

edit

Ukays Adrianmaye1239 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Brock Purdy

edit

Change the photo of Brock Purdy into a better photo of him in 49ers gear. MubashirEbteda02 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Handled requests

edit
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.


WP:AN/Edit warring

Click to reveal noticeboard



User:Michael F 1967 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)

edit

Page: Obturating ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael F 1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An obscure (but significant) question of terminology in naval gunnery. Compounded by an existing WP article being pretty poor and, of course, WP not ever being WP:RS.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]

The editor copyedits in a GF change, but introduces an error. Breech blocks slide into the breech of an artillery piece. Artillery pieces with a screw breech instead use a breech screw. This is typically a question of size: BL (breech loading) artillery uses a screw breech with a shell and separate bagged charges of propellant, QF (Quick Firing) uses a one piece brass-cased cartridge. The Welin screw breech is named similarly.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Michael_F_1967#August_2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Obturating_ring#Welin_breech_block_terminology

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:


I've encountered this editor before on a number of equally technical articles The Iron Bridge being the most memorable (see the Talk:). Each time they've come to an article with no real knowledge of the subject, but been adamant that their version is correct. No amount of sourcing will convince them otherwise. If an editor brings sourcing, it's dismissed as "just your personal opinion"[10][11] Nor have they improved over the years.

In this case they've been given a book source (probably the best widely available book on the subject), a Commons diagram of a contemporary artillery diagram, with names, and a link to another article where BL 12 inch Mk IX#Bibliography is pretty much a standard reading list on the subject. They're not interested. They Know Best.

The underlying problem is that Welin breech block is a poor and misleading article. Although it does long have at least one other source [12] with the correct naming. It would be nice if someone might have the time to rewrite this altogether (it should move to screw breech, as there are more than the Welin pattern). But instead we just get our time wasted responding to groundless edit-warring like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I strongly object to Andy Dingley's false characterisation of my behaviour - while admitting that I remain imperfect. In this case, my initial edit was to make the terminology in this particular article consistent with the Wikipedia page to which it referred. It's got nothing to do with my personal views at all - as Andy Dingley knows perfectly well. Andy Dingley changed the article - twice! - without providing a source to justify the edit. It was just on their say-so.
I've found an apparently reliable source to justify the terminology in question. "Screw breech block" seems to be correct terminology based on the sources I've found (I can cite more, if need be), regardless of Andy Dingley's personal views. I'd appreciate a bit less in the way of personal remarks and a bit more in the way of "assume good faith".
One clear source I found is:
{{cite web
|title=12 inch Mk X Gun Breech Mechanism : HMAS Australia (I)
|url= https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C240739
|website= Australian War Memorial
|url-status= live
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20250826235636/https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C240739
|archive-date=2025-08-26
|access-date=2025-08-26
|quote=The mechanism consists of the breech, and an interrupted screw breech block on a hinged mounting. [...] The Welin breech block was invented by Axel Welin in 1889 or 1890.}} Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Per my comment here, Andy’s idiosyncratic definition is simply wrong. And I see no reason to block anyone over four reverts in 3+ days. Parsecboy (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Every time I've encountered you, you have edited in exactly the same way. You force some clueless opinion into an article, and are then utterly impervious to all sources presented to the contrary. Hodges isn't the only book I have on the subject, but as the generally agreed canon text on naval heavy artillery of this era, it's the only one I'm going to bother opening and giving you a literal page number for.[13] at Talk:Obturating_ring#Welin_breech_block_terminology. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    I admit to being astonished that Andy was the one who filed this after seeing that talk page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Per BB-PB above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Rouncival reported by User:OceanLoop (Result: Reporter blocked 48 hours)

edit

Page: Le Rêve (opera) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rouncival (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 02:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "I WANT AN EDIT WAR NOW Undid revision 1308199418 by OceanLoop (talk)"
  2. 02:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308198551 by OceanLoop (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Several unjustified reverts by OceanLoop */ Reply"

Comments:

explicit request for edit warring; also see User_talk:2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:21B1:D12F:C166:987A 🌊 oceanloop 02:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours for three separate 3RR violations of the reported editor's edits as well as those of others. None of those reverts met the exemption criteria. As for Rouncival, they only reverted twice. Statements of intent to edit war are sometimes probative, but since they didn't follow through in this instance, it is irrelevant. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Rouncival was first IP-editing the same stuff; I blocked him for 3RR also. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2603:7000:D2F0:9780:B198:F2CE:2A8C:4D7A reported by User:Quaerens-veritatem (Result: /64 blocked from article for two weeks)

edit

Page: Mickey Hargitay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:7000:D2F0:9780:B198:F2CE:2A8C:4D7A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ‪02:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)‬

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. ‪00:56, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)‪‬
2. ‪04:11, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)‪‬
3. ‪04:37, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)‪‬
‪4. ‪08:20, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)
All diffs show the user removing the same content without reason, contrary to multiple sources, despite warning.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ‪Warning 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page as the removals were unjustified and contrary to multiple sources. See, Comments. On my edit summaries of Mickey Hargitay History at 01:00, 28 August 2025 gave the information "editor did not provide an edit summary and, otherwise, no apparent reason to edit info supported in the article by a reliable source and, further, we use wikiarticle names" and at 04:36, 28 August 2025 stated "see edit 01:00, 28 August 2025" and at 04:59, 28 August 2025 the information "rv unconstructive Wikipedia:disruptive editing & edit warring". Also, user did not respond to the ‪Warning 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notice 09:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

The entry reverted four times so far was supported by the lead and Mickey Hargitay#Personal life: "In May 2025, Mariska Hargitay confirmed that singer-comedian Nelson Sardelli was her biological father, although she had believed Mickey Hargitay to be her biological father until she was 25.[13][14][15][16]" Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks 2603:7000:D2F0:9780:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked from the article for BLP violations (since his stepdaughter is living and notable). Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Alyo reported by User:2a04:4540:642b:3500:6d99:924e:e396:a4c92A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (Result: Stale)

edit

Page: Atlanta United FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]

Previous reverts of other users’ edits:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article/user talk page:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]

The full name issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with angreement to include the full name in the info box, and a majority of users were in favor of it, see reference 2. above. Alyo has both been informed about and aware of the discussion at the time and their conclusion.

He unilaterally removed the sourced edit, contrary to a previous compromise reached in the dispute discussion mentioned above on user’s talk page that would retain the full name of the club in the info box:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]

See reference 2. above, where Alyo himself offered to retain the full name in the info box, and ultimately reneged on it after some time when it went unnoticed.

Diff of warning that disruptive edits would lead to a report:
[26]

Diff of WP:ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page:
[27]

Comments: Alyo consistently ignores the process of consensus forming and focuses solely on pushing his WP:POV, with disregard to WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS.

He conflates similar, but not identical elements to one, such as WP:COMMONNAME and branding/abbreviation versus WP:OFFICIALNAMES and full name; he uses rhetorical sleight of hand to dismiss other users’ points and numerous reliable sources brought forward, sometimes denying them outright, without providing verifiable sources himself for his claim.

The dismissal of sources extends to official social media presence and websites by the club in question itself. This behavior borders on, or might already constitute WP:OWN and is no longer inside the scope of WP:AFG. Furthermore, while he has formally opened up a discussion on the article talk page, he reverted to his preferred edit before any debate with other editors has been initiated or even any sort of consensus has been established (again), ignoring the previous agreement (references above). This constitues WP:DIS to my view. 2A04:4540:642B:3500:6D99:924E:E396:A4C9 (talk)

This is an edit warring noticeboard. I can undo my edit (again) to give us time to discuss, but I would like you to make these content arguments on the article's talk page instead of hopping IPs and only responding to reverts. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Correct, I went through the previous discussions and don’t see how this can be resolved without a third party, given your conduct related to the issue. I have no control over how my ISP handles the assignment of IP addresses. -2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
I went and looked at the discussion on Alyo’s talk page, am I correct in understanding that they’re claiming what a team says about their own name can’t be used because it’s a Primary Source? And that Americans apparently just aren’t capable of understanding what FC stands for and all of them think it’s just meaningless words that teams put at the end of their name?? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
That would be the gist of it, yes. There are sources by current and former employees, business partners of the club etc etc, that use the spelled out name - all either »insufficient« or non-valid sources, according to him. Please also note how he has offered to revert his pov-pushing AFTER he was reported in order to »discuss« further, when said discussions have already taken place several times. He moves the goalposts, which is documented in the discussion here [28] (too long to read, but you can spot it just by skimming through), and assumes a position of authority where he exclusively decides what is correct or acceptable -> see modified hidden note in latest diff: [29], and in general the latest comments for his reverts and edits in the history. His response to my warning that I’ll report him if he keeps suppressing sourced edits is also telling: I’ve had this discussion many times before — you’re welcome to try to convince me. [30]. Due to the lack of good faith, this would be a futile attempt, as demonstrated in the previous discussions. --2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
Just to clarify, anon, have I had this discussion with you before? Are you one of the accounts who has previously edited the Atl Utd page or with whom I've had this discussion? This is not a gotcha question--I just want to know which points I've already made with you. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
No, I’m sorry, I’m not part of some conspiracy against you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@MilesVorkosigan no, the real answer is much more annoying--American soccer clubs copy the "FC" with no intention of calling their team a "Football Club" because of an appeal to (European) tradition and because it looks cool in FIFA. (Side note: There is no reason to call the team a "club" because in America, our sports organizations are not "clubs" in any way meant by that word in Europe or SA.) Obviously "FC" generally means "football club", but yes, in America the teams do sometimes attach meaningless letters to the end of their team names to appear more European. I cannot stress enough that I agree this is stupid. That said, the name of the team--what the article is about--is just "Atlanta United", or "Atlanta United FC" for branding purposes. The article really should be moved, because the precise name of the team in Major League Soccer, as outlined in the rules of the competition, is just "Atlanta United". No "FC", no "Football Club". Alyo (chat·edits) 13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
This all appears to be completely original research on your part. Have you ever found a single reliable source that says “Americans don’t know what FC means and just use it as letters”?
If you have not, can you offer any reason why you should not be T-banned from soccer articles? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Lol ok, I was operating in good faith. Take care. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
That means you have no sources that agree with you, correct? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I am grateful for him to state this false claim on record here (won’t call it something else, albeit it would be appropriate) -> a few refutations: [31], [32], [33], [34], and most importantly, [35] -> Atlanta United Football Club, LLC (the “MLS Team”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, this is an edit warring noticeboard, not a content mediation noticeboard. Why don't you bring some of this energy to the article talk page, where I'm currently talking to myself? Alyo (chat·edits) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Because this isn’t a content issue, this is a behavioral issue. You apparently have spent a year or more wasting multiple editors time with original research. Persuading you that sources are needed doesn’t seem likely to work. The most efficient way for the encyclopedia to protect itself and save editor’s time seems to be a t-ban. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The content is now being discussed on the article's talk page, which is good. Focusing on content there is correct. In this regard, MilesVorkosigan is right to raise conduct concerns on a noticeboard rather than the article's talk page, but the edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for it and conduct discussion doesn't resolve the current content conflict. So:
  • Please discuss the content at Talk:Atlanta United FC;
  • if, independently of this one specific content discussion, persistent behavioral issues exist, they can be discussed at WP:ANI with diff links from more than just this article as evidence.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don’t see how yet another discussion would all of a sudden bring a different outcome. The user has already participated in discussions on this topic with various other editors, which is documented in the links I provided and which he also concedes - see here [36] and here [37]. He violated previous agreements, which I also documented.
The outcome and his behavior is always the same, so I have to strongly disagree - indulging him in another content-related talk is a waste of time. You can see in this very thread/report that he makes claims which are evidently false (vulgo »lies«). This is bad faith discourse.
Ultimately, he always forces his ideas through. The impression of a delaying tactic on his part in order to maintain his position without agreeing to an acceptable solution has not been dispelled, on the contrary.
I, or any other user, cannot constantly provide new sources or arguments in favor of including the full name until he is satisfied and gives his consent. By the way, I am not MilesVorkosigan. --2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Sanriogirly04 reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

edit

Page: List of Sanrio characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sanriogirly04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Kuromi (2005) */They ride tricycles. Not bikes. Tricycles"
  2. 00:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Kuromi (2005) */The source in the article even refers to them as tricycles."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC) to 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    1. 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Little Forest Fellow (2015) */"
    2. 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC) ""
  5. 13:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Little Forest Fellow (2015) */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 11:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC) to 11:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
    1. 11:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Little Forest Fellow (2015) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Edit warring again after released from block. User has been warned several times, and won't stop. Doesn't seem to care from comments on his talk page. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I tried to give this user as much rope as possible but continuing to edit war after three blocks for that same reason, and utterly refusing to respomd to feedback or provide any sources is clear NOTHERE behaviour. User is now blocked indefinitely. CoconutOctopus talk 06:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2001:4455:8075:A100:B594:286:16AE:5F60 reported by User: Jjpachano (Result: Page protected, /64 anonblocked for 3 months)

edit

Page: JAM Liner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:4455:8075:A100:B594:286:16AE:5F60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  • The edits given are not reverts; but appears to be manually editing of the article each time.



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
This IP range must be block due to persistent added wrong destinations and no providing sources. Other pages are also affected including Victory Liner, JAM Liner, JAC Liner, First North Luzon Transit, Genesis Transport, Philtranco, DLTBCo and Vallacar Transit. Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

User khogen2410 involved in Edit warring (Result: Page protected)

edit

Diff pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308446946&oldid=1308444415

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308440403&oldid=1308425273

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308441739&oldid=1308440403

Talk page link: Talk:Param Sundari (film)

User @Khogen2410 has reverted or deleted my review entries which are from WP: ICTF reliable sources without any reason. Not engaging on Talk page either.

Violates WP:3RR

Action requested: Please temp ban the user @Khogen2410


Computeracct (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

User notification on user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khogen2410#Notice:_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computeracct (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    Hi,
    Sorry, but that doesn't help in this case. The user @Khogen2410 who has been edit warring can still continue to edit the page since he has 500+ edits.
    I cannot edit as I have close to 200 edits, but not 500+
    Request you to temp ban user @Khogen2410 (or atleast warn) for WP:3RR and unlock the protected page.
    He is the only user edit warring.
    Regards
    ComputerAcct Computeracct (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Haydi123 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

edit

Page: Dolma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haydi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

I didn't discuss it on the article's talk page, granted. I did leave an elaborate explanatory edit summary at [48], and the user continues not to respond even after my additional remarks at [49] on their talk page, so it seems unlikely that the user would have responded on the article's talk page either. I'm filing this now despite seeing this requirement because otherwise it seems we'll be stuck: I won't revert their edit again because I don't want to be guilty of a 3RR violation, and if I don't then, if the user doesn't respond on the talk page, I can't show the user continuing to revert after seeing a discussion on the talk page.

Follow-up: See the comments section below.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:

Two other editors have also reverted Haydi123's addition, User:Jessicapierce [51] and User:Barseghian Lilia[52].

Another editor has reverted Haydi123's addition, so I've taken the opportunity to leave this discussion on the article's talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Mariab777 reported by User:Quaerens-veritatem (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely; reporter blocked for 24 hours)

edit

Page: Rita Marley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‪Mariab777‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. 20:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
2. 21:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
3. 21:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
4. 11:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User had multiple reverts of the same content before this (Rita_Marley History) and had a previous block for same behavior.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt at Talk:Rita Marley#Was Rita Marley born in Cuba or in Jamaica? plus individually pinged Mariab777 on the Rita Marley Talk Page here: 00:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC) to join the Talk Page discussion, plus gave Mariab777 warnings, request to use Rita Marley Talk Page, etc. in edit summaries, the edit summaries quoted, as follows: "see, Talk:Rita Marley; Notable & Relevant; use Talk:Rita Marley & don't edit war" including at 01:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 01:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

User Mariab777 was previously blocked for two weeks for exactly the same warring behavior at 9 August 2025 (UTC). User has failed / refused to engage in Talk Page discussion. Previous two week block had absolutely no effect. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Partially blocked indefinitely; reporter blocked for 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)


WP:UFAA

Click to reveal noticeboard


{{divhide|Usernames for administrator attention}}

Bot-reported

edit

User-reported

edit


WP:ANB

Click to reveal noticeboard



RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM

edit
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal letters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [53]

Reasoning: In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modify MOS:POSTNOM so that post-nominal letters would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.

The new RfC was closed by S Marshall as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.

Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline's status quo wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.

S Marshall pointed to WP:BARTENDER as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, which HouseBlaster has separately questioned, as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.

COI note: I have an explicit viewpoint on this topic, as I proposed the 2023 RfC and participated in the new one. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Closer (S Marshall)

edit
  • Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.
Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).
At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.
We need to decide whether the community really thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

[Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.

  1. Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
  2. When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything in User:S Marshall/RfC close log about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.

Thanks in advance for taking this on.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (POSTNOM)

edit
  • Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
    • In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[54], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say bold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on something to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing MOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when WP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the status quo ante bellum is maintained. It does not mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a new consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of WP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.
    Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly overturn. I do agree with S Marshall on a theoretical level regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes. CNC (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn. No policy-based rationale for unilaterally voiding the previous RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse If there's no consensus for any of the options, but there is a consensus for "current wording shouldn't stand", you have to make that call. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Rename through protection.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn WP:BARTENDER closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based on WP:PAGs arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain the status quo ante bellum. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn narrowly the section voiding the previous RfC. Status quo means status quo, not a repeal of a prior existing RfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requires active consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that they don't. For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading to WP:QUO; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
    Makes sense. This reminds me of WP:NOCON for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus. CNC (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removing MOS:POSTNOM entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
    That's the exact opposite of what it does. It deletes a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
    Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there are never any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptable WP:BARTENDER close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review, The ed17. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it by WP:SUPERVOTEing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutely can have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether you should depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—S Marshall T/C 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants (POSTNOM)

edit
  • I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's comment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on due weight, original research, and clutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse If something lacks community support and there is no consensus, then it should not be in the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that some people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with everything HB has said. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The close contradicts itself by saying there's no consensus and then imposing Option 1. DrKay (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    "Repeatedly challenged" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that it wouldn't have survived close review. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus that they formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly that the status quo ... isn't working for us and that restoring the status quo isn't the best idea, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable of summarizing rather than deciding, perform the close. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.
    When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.
    Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer of this discussion would absolutely take account of.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closure is done at AN so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.
    When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think I didn't follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.
    I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citing MOS:POSTNOM (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize the use–mention distinction aspect of this. While it might be useful sometimes to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received, using that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "LEAD SENTENCE" and infoboxes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    We have post nominals in articles on Catholic members of religious orders and that's normal for those biographies. Secretlondon (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    To side fork your questioning that you don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor) here and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfC here (search for the bit referencing "gnomes"). ~~ Gecko G (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys about anything we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
    I was repsonding to your assertion that Commonwealthers writ large care about these things. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified. PamD 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn. HouseBlaster and The Bushranger are correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just because I personally was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures. Gecko G (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American). Regardless, I feel that S Marshall was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said, I understand opposers' concerns with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with its closure). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.MWFwiki (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn this is overreach, pure and simple. Discounting the cultural divide and imposing a blanket ban based on that was always a poor decision. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment. MWFwiki (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initial status quo seems to be the right call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. Also WP:BARTENDER (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some1 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    How can you argue that This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC (...Reversal of the Exclusion), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).
    Your own post in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfC you yourself suggested a new RfC about it.
    (I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed) Gecko G (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
    Noting that this is not about the Commonwealth versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smaller Commonwealth realm, though far from universal even therein, versus common practice everywhere else. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. – notwally (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (POSTNOM)

edit
  • I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording and consequent discussions on my talk page, is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentence failed to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposal divided the community, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there was weak consensus and not just consensus. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo, S Marshall. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly since WP:BARTENDER refers to situations where there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    As the creator of WP:BARTENDER, I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2. BD2412 T 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.
  1. SMcCandlish: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
  2. MWFwiki: Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
  3. Nford24: The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
  4. Peacemaker67: The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
  5. Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
  6. SchroCat: I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.
I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, is not normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.
At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
S Marshall, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not are not PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and uses MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
A small note on the above, Ixtal—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes do not assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one might read that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification. That being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it. MWFwiki (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
What is PAG is an acronym for? Gecko G (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Gecko G, WP:PAG is a shortcut to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 19:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the acronym.
I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.
Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due to changes to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn't WP:DETCON correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".
Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Closes should be based on the strength of the argument, not hyperbole. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us to write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...] (from WP:MOS). The lead sentence, which should be written in Plain English (from MOS:FIRST) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to [telling] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (from MOS:FIRST). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.
For what it's worth, I'm not a USAmerican. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention in MOS:FIRST was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?). Gecko G (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The 2023 version of the MOS that was discussed in the RFC did include that language diff, Gecko G. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak). Gecko G (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Gecko G: I think(?) you've missed that MOS:FIRST and WP:LEADSENTENCE go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English". Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic. Gecko G (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, Gecko G, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility" ≠ complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".
°= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking to LEADSENTENCE was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English". Gecko G (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Gecko G, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having a guaranteed overturning. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment to stop this from automatically archiving TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to appeal my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban in its entirety

edit

I would like to appeal my topic ban in its entirety. There are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons". I know I made mistakes in the past, but I have had few to no incidents for over one year. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Previous appeal in February. —Cryptic 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Define "few to none" with diffs, please. Seeing these examples might help determine how the IDHT and CIR concerns that were raised when you were topic banned in the first place. It's fine to appeal after a year, but I think most are going to want to see more information about how you've handle disagreements over the past year. And yes, you should have included the previous appeal in your request from 6 months ago for full disclosure. I'm not inclined to support at this time, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
    I have asked for guidance here about what I should and should not post. I have participated in an appropriate manner at this Redirect for discussion. I apologize for not including my February 2025 appeal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • This is not a convincing appeal so far, but copyright is IMO serious enough that I wouldn't mind carving out an exception for histmerge templates. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    More or less where I stand too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I imposed the topic ban but am fully neutral on this request as I haven't been able to assist Jax on their Talk due to limited on wiki time. The question I ask though is the same one I did last time - Jax should make a case why they need to be the one applying these tags vs. either letting someone else do it, or complete the action rather than just tagging. I am not opposed to the carveout C727 suggests avove. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    I am guessing that people might not know about some articles that need to be history merged unless I notify someone about the specific pages, as noted below. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I think there's a reasonably clear difference between using templates like {{history merge}}, {{edit template-protected}}, or {{db-move}} that require permissions that Jax 0677 doesn't have, and the templates people were complaining about in the original discussion; so like Star Mississippi, I'm not opposed to a carveout for them. But I'm very wary of rescinding the ban completely - people had, for example, been complaining about the part that personally irritates me the most - the opaque, idiosyncratic template redirects - for more than a decade (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Template:Wpcy and the following seven nominations; also several more nonconsecutive ones on that same daily subpage) without a hint of behavioral change right up until the ban was imposed. —Cryptic 03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    I would be agreeable to a "carveout" for templates that require permissions that I do not have. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    Additionally, there are multiple albums by Seventh Day Slumber that are unnecessarily disambiguated, which I cannot fix due to this topic ban. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    Making requests at WP:RMTR would not be a violation of the topic ban as I read it. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    I simply wish I had better definition of which templates I am and am not allowed to use. On my talk page, StarMississsippi said "I'd stay away from the latter two as you're telling others to do a certain thing". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    I see opening a discussion different to dropping a tag on an article even if tagging it is part of opening an RM. Like @Pppery, I don't think this would be a violation. It's certainly not one I'd block you for. Re: which templates you're able to use and not, what you still haven't answered unless I missed it is why you need to patrol this. Opening a discussion for a Requested Move is probably fine. But is there a reason you can't move the articles? Or leave the articles for someone else? That's still the open question Star Mississippi 00:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
    The 7DS album articles have been at incorrect titles for months, and AFAIK, I cannot even ask others to move articles. I cannot move Fractured Paradise (album) to Fractured Paradise. "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists". The same is true for Closer to Chaos (album). I am sure that there will be cut and paste moves that require history merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
    I mean it was you who created Fractured Paradise and Closer to Chaos (without the dabs) so you could have requested G7, which would be allowed as you cannot delete an article. That said, I've deleted the redirects and moved the articles because process for the sake of process is annoying-but also does it matter that they're at incorrect titles? Does it impact the project at all? Star Mississippi 00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
    WP:CONCISE does want shorter titles, but I guess they can be long. I would prefer to use WP:RM instead of {{dbg7}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    I would strongly advise that if you do go that route you avoid flooding RM with unnecessary requests. We do not have the bandwidth in general right now. Not to say you can't, but be mindful. Star Mississippi 02:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Which articles, specifically, would you like to tag? Can you list three or four please.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    • User:Jax 0677/Histmerge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
      Thoughts on that list as a regular histmerging admin:
      Rajput (surname) and Rajput (disambiguation) have WP:Parallel histories that make history merging not practical in my opinion
      Sravanthi (given name)/Sravanthi is technically histmergable but seems like a rather low-priority history merge since the content being merged isn't copyrightable in the first place (nobody's attribution is lost) and it would require a delete/undelete and the attendant mess that entails to do right. I most likely couldn't be bothered to do this, but if another admin wants to do this I wouldn't complain.
      This doesn't mean that I oppose this proposal; histmerging is notoriously arcane with few of its conventions documented and they often differ from admin to admin, so I can't really expect Jax 0677 to know them all. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
      I just saw it listed here so I think I should point out that the Rajput articles have been the target of extensive ideological sockpuppetry and likely have hijackings in their history. That page may be a case where a histmerge would be more harmful than helpful. I haven't actually reviewed just now to get up to speed but please proceed with caution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
      Would you say these are candidates for the "list of contributors" approach? So we can get into strict compliance with the terms of use without doing heavy duty reconstruction of unhelpful edits in the page history, I mean.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
      It seems these aren't the target articles I'm thinking of. Probably I'm thinking of other articles that the socks have tried to hijack to insert their Rajput POV forks into those pages; hard to find but not relevant here anyway. For the (surname) and (disambiguation) pages that have parallel histories, I don't think anything should be done really. It's basically the same small group of contributors, and very little of the content (maybe none) is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright treatment anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose any narrowing or overturning of the topic ban; the proposed examples of histmerge tagging fail to make their case so I'm not convinced them histmerge tagging would be useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm sorry, but I really think it's a case of the topic ban working, not something that is no longer necessary. I'd rather let some of these relatively trivial things go addressed than Jax bog down the community with endless discussions from their confusing or poorly thought out template usage. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Lorraine Crane

edit

Lorraine Crane, formerly known as Villkomoses (User talk:Lorraine Crane/Archive 1), has been a new page reviewer for three weeks. I first encountered the user at the Roly Porter article, and I am afraid to say that some of the user's recent reviews are inappropriate (Wikipedia:Tag bombing). Examples:

I am requesting the removal of Lorraine Crane's NPR rights. Although the user's NPR rights will expire on 28 August 2025, it would be helpful if someone else could take a look at their contributions. フランベ (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@フランベ, why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Lorraine Crane first? Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: Because I would like an administrator to determine if Lorraine Crane deserves NPR rights. I've just left a notice on User talk:Lorraine Crane, so I think we can discuss the issue here now. フランベ (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
maybe they would have done self-reflection and apologize. administrator intervention would never be required in the first place. i agree that it's a bit premature. 85.98.23.90 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill: granted the temporary right and may be interested in this discussion. We need new page reviewers, and educating those who are just starting and may make mistakes is a whole lot more helpful to the project than running to a noticeboard to publicly call them out without even telling them about any errors or giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Schazjmd, and would further note that tag use frequency is perhaps the easiest bad-NPR-behavior to correct for, as it typically just means recalibrating how quickly one moves to tag, rather than having to learn a complicated concept like notability, OR, or copyright law. That said, the concerns raised are valid; I would like to see a response from Lorraine Crane before determining whether any actions are necessary. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to review my contributions. As you mentioned, this is my trial month at NPR, and I’m still learning. I apologize for the mistakes and will make sure to review the relevant regulatory guidelines before applying these tags again.
I’d also like to clarify that there was no ill intent behind my actions, and I’ll be more careful when determining orphan status going forward. Previously, I relied on tools to suggest tags, but I now realize they often create more issues than they solve, so I’ll use it wisely and when needed to address the problem and give the chance to the author to work on the article more.
Instead of focusing on tagging, I’ll pay closer attention on taking appropriate action myself, such as draftifying or initiating AfD discussions when necessary. If there’s anything else you’d like to point out, I’d truly appreciate the feedback.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Lorraine Crane: Thank you for your explanation. Apology accepted. However, I'm not talking about just {{Orphan}} tag, but also other tags like {{Excessive citations}} and {{No significant coverage}} (there may be some more inappropriate tags I haven't found yet). If you understand that you made mistakes, then I think you should clean up your own mess. フランベ (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I meant rereading the guidelines on applying different tags, including all of those mentioned, not just orphans. I will make sure to double check my previous contributions to clean up where there might've been mistakes committed. Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Lorraine Crane: I have tried my best to be patient, but, looking at Special:Contributions/Lorraine Crane, I have to say this: You seem to continue to prioritize other tasks. It is quite disappointing to see that, in the last several days, there has been no retraction or even justification for your tag-bombing I pointed out above. フランベ (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I will actually take time to handle all the tags you mentioned that I have applied inappropriately. It is just that I have been learning more deeper into the nuances of each these taggings these past few days and hence my inaction, the other usual tasks I am doing is part of the additional learning. Will advise you of a timeframe soon as I am confident enough to handle each of the specific ones you pointed out, Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure on Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla

edit
CLOSURE ENDORSED
The final !vote tally of the discussion is 11 endorse vs. 6 overturn (plus one assuming the requester also favoured overturning, though they did not make a bolded comment) and I absolutely did consider that disparity in votes as I evaluated the substance of each of the comments in this discussion. I am only pointing this out for the convenience of those editors who will want to continue arguing about this, as I have come to expect in this topic area.
The endorsers have highlighted that the close was reasonable, well justified, supported by policy, and within the usual community norms of evaluating consensus. Opposers failed to give any policy-supported reason to overturn a reasonable close, only accusing the closer of counting votes, making blatantly incorrect statements about policies they evidently did not read and do not understand, or didn't comment on the close at all but only attempted to relitigate the discussion. The overturn argument is thus not convincing in the slightest, and it is bordering on tendentious to have raised it at all.
The consensus therefore is that there is no grounds to overturn the closure, and that the closure is correct. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Adding a post-close note since there was some debate: this topic is covered by the Arbcom contentious topics designation for Indian military history, noting that history includes "all things that have happened". Arbcom discussed but chose not to limit the sanction by date, and it is broadly construed, so it applies to this topic. Those wishing to challenge the scope of the designation may do so at WP:ARCA. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

I tried raising the issue with this RfC closure with the closing editor, and they haven't offered any valid justification for their improper closure. The closing editor gives weight only to headcount and does not cite a single argument that could provide any sources to dispute the information in question. At best, it was supposed to be closed as "no consensus" or "consensus to keep in body and lead". Orientls (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Dionysodorus)

edit
  • Comment as closer: I closed this from WP:CR, along with a number of other discussions that needed closing, in order to help out with the backlog there. The close is well within policy. Orientls raised this on my talk page a few days ago, and I have already responded to their concerns at User talk:Dionysodorus#RfC closure. I would be grateful if anyone commenting here could take a look at that first.
When I closed this RfC, I had not noticed that it had previously been closed by Ophyrius, as can be seen in this version, but Orientls posted on Ophyrius' talk page to argue that the close was too early in User talk:Ophyrius#RfC close, and Ophyrius then reverted their close. After this, one more editor posted in favour of the measure, two posted against it. There has also been a conflict on the talk page as to whether KoshuriSultan's !vote should be struck through or not, in which Orientls has been involved. Yet Orientls has at no point actually commented on the RfC. This seems to me a very odd way of proceeding: not to comment on an RfC, but yet to take repeated actions behind the scenes to influence its outcome.
This whole issue seems to me to be a very minor dispute over placement of content within the article, and I am puzzled that it is considered necessary to appeal it to AN. It would be most appropriate at this point to accept the judgement of an uninvolved closer and to move on, rather than trying to use every means to reverse a perfectly reasonable and policy-consistent RfC closure. It is especially important that the normal process of an RfC should be respected in relation to a contentious area (South Asia). My closure is altogether based on the policy reasons raised in the discussion itself, and I find it difficult to see how this request can possibly meet the criteria for a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which explains that closures will not normally be overturned simply because the discussion is close or the closer is not an admin. Dionysodorus (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if the admins who have recently been involved on the page or its talk page (User:Ivanvector, Daniel Case, User:The Bushranger, User:Redrose64) have any thoughts? There is clearly a protracted editing dispute here, so there may be background that I am unaware of. Dionysodorus (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I would really like to see Asamboi elaborate on the concerns raised here, almost three weeks before the close. If there is any truth to this claim, the RfC result should be at least put on hold pending close scrutiny of the !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
If it can actually be shown that anyone in the RfC was a sock or under a relevant topic ban at the time of the RfC, I'm certainly happy to revisit my close in light of that. But I don't think that this would necessarily change the result: my close was based on an assessment of the debate, taking into account the strength of the arguments presented, and was not based on a head count that would be undermined if the comments made by one user or another were struck out. (If I had thought that the closure of the RfC depended on the validity or invalidity of Asamboi's concerns, I would have asked Asamboi for clarification in the first place before closing the discussion.) Dionysodorus (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I did have a look through the users participating in the discussion at the time when I closed it, and I found no prima facie reason to think that any of them was a sock or anything like that. I don't think I found that any of the contributors looked suspicious, and I think all (or at least most) were extended-confirmed. Dionysodorus (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that this vague casting of aspersions is actually about User:Koshuri Sultan's active topic ban from Indian military history, and I don't think it affects the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that's probably right, given that Asamboi and others favouring "lead only" were trying to strike out Koshuri Sultan's !vote in the RfC (e.g. this edit, and see also the discussion at User talk:Asamboi#Striking), whereas Koshuri Sultan and Orientls restored it (e.g. this edit). Personally, I wouldn't have thought that a topic ban on Indian military history would apply to this article. But, if Koshuri Sultan's topic ban were considered to apply to this article, that would remove one of the votes against what I determined was consensus, and so would reinforce rather than undermine the consensus indicated in my close. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Shubhanshu Shukla is a group captain and test pilot with the Indian Air Force - he's a serving military officer. Koshuri Sultan's topic ban is: Koshuri Sultan is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed - emphasis added on the important part. The topic ban applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
If so, the consensus indicated in my close has a clearer majority of legitimate participants in its favour than I thought (i.e. 9 against 5, rather than 9 against 6). Dionysodorus (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The Bushranger The topic ban does not apply here because the RfC is irrelevant to "Indian military history". Even the subject is irrelevant to "Indian military history". Wait for more years until his military career (on which Koshuri Sultan never commented on) becomes part of history. Orientls (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The suggestion that a topic ban from Indian military history doesn't apply to the biography of an Indian military officer so defies logic as to boggle the mind, and it certainly calls into question the motivation of an editor who would make such a comment. It is so far removed from reality that ... I don't even know what to say, I'm just so sick and tired of these same editors picking these same fights over and over. I'm going to review the recent Arbcom case and see what kind of sanctions could apply here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The topic ban is from Indian military history. If it includes officers who're serving today then it ought to be a topic ban from the Indian military full stop.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
That's part of "military history". Indian military equipment is included in the WP:CT/SA ECR topic area for "Indian military history", for instance - clarififed that when GS/SA was declared. "Military history" includes the present. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Only if that officer is a part of history then sure, however, this subject is not a part of history yet. There is a big difference between "Indian military" and "Indian military history". Same way, 2025 India–Pakistan conflict would not fall under "Indian military history" right now. The RfC wasn't about any "military", let alone any "Indian military history".
Finally, this comment was made days 5 before the topic ban,[55] so even if we assume that the RfC was related to Indian military history (it wasn't), then still there was nothing wrong with the comment. Orientls (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
...the present day counts as "military history". The definition of military history includes the present. That said, since the edit took place before the topic ban, this is moot. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
What purpose does the word "history" serve if it includes the present day? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
History is made every day? It's a continual process. Yesterday is history. "Military Present" isn't a thing... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
At least two users in the debate have a confirmed history of sockpuppetry:
Some other users in the debate are also IMHO extremely likely to be sock/meatpuppets and you're invited to draw your own conclusions from the evidence I presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699/Archive#10 July 2025, but the SPI did not positively confirm this. Asamboi (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I warned Asamboi in that SPI filing that their repeated allegations of sockpuppetry were disruptive, and that if I saw any more claims of this sort that they would be blocked from editing ([56]). Since this is not just a similar report but effectively the same report (i.e. WP:FORUMSHOPPING) I have blocked them from editing. I'm also not happy to see Orientls here with another frivolous report (per the section Dionysodorus already quoted about not challenging closes only because the closer is not an admin, which this clearly is) but I'll have to come back to that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Dionysodorus mentions that the RfC (started 15 July) was once inappropriately closed under 12 days on 27 July,[57] which was then reopened on 3 August[58] and was closed again by 16 August.[59] It seems that the RfC wasn't even allowed to run for 30 days, and was closed in just 26 days. Why was there so much hurry? Orientls (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
As it says at in the lead at WP:CR, RfCs have no fixed length, and can be closed at any time after the discussion has stabilised: 30 days is just a rough guideline. In this case, the discussion had clearly stabilised, since there were no new comments after 6 August. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Correct link is Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration which says "30 days". You cannot close it sooner only because there are "no new comments" for days. Orientls (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The page that you have linked only mentions 30 days as the period that a bot assumes that an RfC will run for the purposes of removing the RfC tags, but also makes it very clear that "there is no minimum or maximum duration", and that the RfC should run until the discussion comes to an end and the participants or an uninvolved closer decide that it should be closed. There is no basis in policy for your statements that RfCs must always be left to run for 30 days, and the fact that an RfC has been inactive for a while (in this case, 10 days) is normally taken as suggesting that the discussion has run its course. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Orientls, please read rather than just link that section. It says the opposite of what you claim it says. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
@Dionysodorus: You can argue in favor of an early RfC closure when the result is too obvious but that couldn't apply on this RfC. There is absolutely no justification as to why the RfC template wasn't allowed to stay for a full 30 days. It was there for only 21 days. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 04:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, it's simply not the case according to Wikipedia policy that an RfC has to be left to run for 30 days. Any discussion that appears to have stabilised can be closed by an uninvolved editor: see the lead in WP:CR, and WP:RFCCLOSE. (In any case, it wasn't 21 days; it was 32 days from the date of opening, or 25 days if you subtract the week during which the discussion was previously closed by Ophyrius.) It seems to me that these objections to the timing of the close are WP:LAWYERING, since they involve coming up with procedural objections in order to avoid accepting a perfectly legitimate and policy-based close. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
For some reason a lot of people seem to be commenting here without reading this discussion, relevant policy/guidelines or the RFC. Points have been made that have already been answered with links to policy/guidelines. Please, everyone, read before you write. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved (Shubhanshu Shukla)

edit
  • Overturn - The closure appears to be based on vote count. There appears to be a lack of counter argument against the sourced content. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This is a simple question of content. The disputed information is well sourced and the consensus was, rightly, to include it. At issue was whether to place it in the lead. Therefore the prevailing policy is WP:ONUS, which means that removing the disputed information from the lead while keeping it in the body was the policy-compliant outcome.—S Marshall T/C 05:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The closer stated that the majority are in favour of the consensus they found, not that the consensus was based on the majority of voters. I can't see an policy based argument to overtirn the close, and the close itself appears to correctly interpret policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify my comment, from my reading of the close it wasn't done by head count. That a head count was done doesn't immediately mean that was how the consensus was found. The closer found that the more convincing arguments happened to come from the majority, rather than basing the consensus on a vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    There also lots of talk of the close being to early, this is not the case. It had been open for over a month, or nearly a month with it being closed for a period of time, and no new comments had been added for over a week and a half. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I don't see any policy-based justification to exclude the reliably sourced information. Just because there are more people voting on one side, it doesn't mean you have to favor it. This was after all a premature closure, the RfC could have been relisted  minimum. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 13:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    RfCs are not relisted. This isn't AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn - per WP:NOTVOTE. The closer made zero analysis of the strength or weaknesses or each sides arguments as is required by WP:DETCON and merely engaged in a headcount. TarnishedPathtalk 13:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The RfC was closed with an outcome that matches the consensus in the discussion. It isn't enough to argue that the closer did a vote count; it needs to be argued that because the closer did not properly determine consensus—and this is made evident by the closer "counting votes" instead of analyzing the discussion to determine consensus—the recording of the consensus is wrong. Namely, it is possible and more often the case than not that the outcome arrived at after a vote count coincides with the consensus outcome.—Alalch E. 14:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a perfectly reasonable close. I'm very unimpressed by the multiple comments saying that this was just decided on a votecount, when one only has to read the closing statement to see that it was not. And the RFC is about whether the content is suitable for the lead section. There is no need to disprove it to decide that it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn - The information that is doubtful or disputed can be removed from the lead but this was not the case with the information that was discussed in this RfC. Along with that, we are seeing that the close was also technically wrong since it was carried out too early . Lorstaking (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    If any information is doubtful then it shouldn't be in the article at all. But that wasn't the question that was asked in this RFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the close is perfectly fine and judges the consensus reasonably well. JavaHurricane 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse I am perplexed by the rationale provided for overturning this close. The original close was fully within the bounds of acceptability and consistent with established standards. No compelling justification has been presented to demonstrate that the decision was improper or flawed. Accordingly, the reversal appears unwarranted.- Nemov (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't get the "didn't explain at all," given that the references to the strength of the arguments and WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE are referred to as supports right there. I see nothing that meets the burden for an overturn. Nor am I convinced by the "not 30 days" argument. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The !vote count just appeared to be one factor along with weighing the strength of arguments. Was closed after a reasonable amount of time when the discussion at largely stopped. Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I see no basis for the argument that the closer only performed a headcount. The arguments to place the cost in the lead are decidedly weaker: this is a biography, and covering detail not within the purview of the subject needs justification that wasn't provided; also, the lead is a single short paragraph at the time of writing, making the due weight concern stronger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Mentioning the vote count in a close is not the same thing as closing solely based on vote count, especially when the closer describes the relevant policies in the very same sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Involved (Shubhanshu Shukla)

edit
  • Overturn - Yes the "closer stated that the majority are in favour of" something, but RfCs are WP:NOTVOTE. Even the statement above by Dionysodorus, together with mass canvassing in their favor, does not seem to address the concerns raised by OP. Wareon (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the only result that aligns with WP:BLP and WP:DUE. Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn: As per WP:NOTVOTE, with the discussion close being about vote count rather than arguments given. Also, considering how much discussion was going on, the RfC should have stayed open for some more time. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive user don’t accept to follow Wikipedia standards

edit

Hello everyone. The user Yujoong is insisting in add a critics consensus on the intro of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Infinity Castle article, but no major aggregator has attributed a score yet for the film. I warned him that this was not correct, because in every major movie releasing globally, the critics consensus in the introduction is based on what most critics are saying, hence it’s need a major aggregator to list the review so we can see how critics overall see the movie. The user, however, insists in putting his personal opening on how he thinks that is the overall critics consensus on the, without any supporting source from a critics reviews aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. This is how every article for films work, we only add a critics consensus in the introduction when major aggregators show what most critics are saying.

I went to his talk page to make sure he was acting wrongly on the article, by trying to change the article object without discussion and trying to depict a critics consensus when there’s no one listed by major reviews aggregators. He not only ignored my warning instead of start a discussion on this matter, but also simple removed the warning from his talk page. Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYujoong&diff=1307093580&oldid=1307026049

The what’s next? He goes to my talk page to put a vandalism warning, trying to start some sort of war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepGuardi&diff=1307315881&oldid=1307096005

If you go to the history of the article you’ll him with multiple revisions, simply because he wants to add a “mixed” critics consensus when we don’t even have any major aggregator showing what most critics are saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer:_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie:_Infinity_Castle&action=history

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307101045&oldid=1307063341

here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307314022&oldid=1307311146

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307163475&oldid=1307114936

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1306919057&oldid=1306882539

So please if you can stop this user from disrupting the article. PepGuardi (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@PepGuardi, this is pretty straightforwardly a content dispute. Please attempt to resolve it by discussion on the article's talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I believe this issue is being made bigger than it needs to be. My edits were meant to improve the article. The page had several problems before and I worked on improving it including adding the "Reception" section. The editor PepGuardi reintroduced outdated and unsourced material such as calling the film “upcoming” [[60]][[61]] even though it had already been released, and describing reviews as “favorable” [[62]] without citing a reliable source. For the “critical response” part, I summarized the Reception section using the reviews that are currently available. These reviews clearly show both praise and criticism which supports describing the reception as “mixed.” There is no Wikipedia policy requiring us to wait for Rotten Tomatoes or other aggregators especially when they don’t yet exist and "reliable reviews" are already available. Per WP:LEAD, it is appropriate to summarize this in the lead.
I have also made it "clear" on his talk page that once aggregator scores such as Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic become available, I am fine with adding them. My goal is simply to keep the article accurate, sourced and neutral. Not to create unnecessary conflict. Selenne (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No longer require new pages reviewer permission

edit
Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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

I think I have this permission from the days when I was a Twinkle developer, but I haven't been active in that space for some years, nor have I ever been an active reviewer. Thank you for removing the permission from my account. This, that and the other (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Removed. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Giving EC to a bot

edit
Resolved. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi, can we please give EC rights to User:GraphBot? It failed to update Ohio (see User:GraphBot/Conversion Errors) because it doesn't have the right. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Is there a reason we don't just have that perm grouped in with bot? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin According to the group permissions it should already be included. The list of permissions granted by bot rights includes Edit pages protected as "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access" (editsemiprotected) and
Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" (extendedconfirmed) 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Wait... the bot right comes with "Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" (extendedconfirmed)", I'm a bit confused why the bot couldn't edit Ohio. Maybe it's because the bot right is temporary? I'm not sure. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 14:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@Matrix The error message doesn't say anything about protection or missing rights, and the same error was produced for pages that weren't protected, e.g. Demographics of Burundi. Could another issue have caused the error, such as loosing internet connection? 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I find that somewhat unlikely, since it created the .chart and .tab pages in Commons before mysteriously giving this error. Usually if there is an error with GraphBot in my experience it doesn't create the .chart and .tab pages. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 14:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the code, it appears to be some kind of catch-all error message. Some more precise logging might help. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I have no idea why that happened. I'll take a look at the logs at let you know. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the error was that the page is protected:
2025-08-24T14:33:06.862954Z ERROR page_handler:run_on_page: graphbot::graph_task: Failed to update page Ohio: Page is protected
GalStar (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@GalStar: That's strange. Can you try logging into the bot manually and making a dummy edit to Ohio? If the edit saves, then the issue must be some check in the code that is assuming it can't edit the page even though it can. If the edit doesn't save, this is a MediaWiki issue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=1307778826 GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@GalStar Are you using a bot password or Oauth to allow the bot to log into it's account? If so did you remember to grant the confirmed and extendedconfirmed permissions to the password/Oauth grant? 86.23.87.130 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the catch. I didn't grant it editprotected. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The "page is protected" error occasionally happens to User:DatBot too, and it's a mask for the 'real' error which is that the authentication drops: Your username or IP address has been automatically blocked by MediaWiki. The reason given is: :__NOEDITSECTION____NOTOC__ You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. '''''You are still able to view pages''', but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.'' Editing without an account from $1 is disabled as it is a [[private IP]] range. This is probably a result of a problem with your Internet connection. You may be able to edit if you [[Special:UserLogin|log in]] or [[Special:CreateAccount|create an account]]. . *Start of block: 20:42, 11 June 2025 *Expiration of block: no expiry set *Intended blockee: 172.16.0.76 Your current IP address is 172.16.0.76. Please include all above details in any queries you make.
I'm sure there's a way to root out the underlying cause but I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and it happens infrequently enough for it not to be a major concer. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh good point, auth tokens do expire, but then edits would stop being listed as being done by graphbot, which isn’t the case. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Wow I literally linked to that and looked right past it, didn't I. Guess I'll remove the right as redundant. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 15:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Also the expiration for bot rights is late september, do I have to apply for a extension? GalStar (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block from Edit

edit

Please I am blocked from edit(s) though I can't remember my Username & Password for and I just created another account with Username - Star Egejuru, yet I am not logged-in. Please unblock My-account now. 102.88.109.145 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, SuperMarioMan pblocked the /16 of this IP from article and talk spaces for two months ten days ago. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Which looks to be tied to 21 edits that were mostly talk page spam. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Star Egejuru and SuperMarioMan: I've created the account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Pal! Star Egejuru (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for revision deletion

edit
Rev-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

I'm not entirely sure this belongs here, but this is neither a privacy violation nor a threat per se, nevertheless a grossly inappropriate edit summary: Special:Diff/1304035008. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Inactive mentors

edit
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Hopefully this is the right place to request a non-urgent admin action. Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list#Mentors automatically assigned to new accounts (scroll down to the table and sort by active data ascending) lists about 4 active mentors who have not been active for at least a month. It would be great if someone would change their status to "Away", as newbie questions are not being answered. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I have been manually doing this at the two-month threshold for a while when I remember. While I don't have any objection to setting a smaller threshold, I think the community should agree on how long we should wait before setting someone as away. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
See WT:Growth Team features#Mentor inactivity threshold. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appealing "temporary" indefinite block

edit
Unblocked by Voorts * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello all, I have a "temporary" indefinite block on my account which reads, “Temporary block until editor responds to recent questions about their edits on Jewish terrorism.” I have responded to all of the questions on my talkpage in this section: here, here, and here. I outlined that my edits were made in good faith. I also made a discussion about them on the talkpage at the time, and only got one reply. I did not undo the reversion of my edits because the user who made the comment made a good argument and I did not feel the need to contest it further. A couple of editors were concerned with some of the edits I made and mentioned it on my talkpage. While I meant to respond to the editors, including @Doug Weller: @Sean.hoyland: and @Theofunny: I got busy with other things and forgot to respond.

Several weeks later, on August 2nd, I received a block that seemed intended to force me to respond to questions about my edits. Over the course of the month, I responded to the questions raised, as the blocking admin requested. I had responded to the article's talkpage as well as to the questions on my talkpage. I made sure to acknowledge where I went wrong with my edits and how I would improve in the future. Namely, that I understand now that WP:EXCEPTIONAL only applies in extremely rare cases when it pertains to removing sourced content, and that my edit summaries in the past were not as detailed as they should have been and I will make them more detailed moving forward. Two days after the block, the blocking admin Doug Weller stated, “I'll leave it to another Admin to decide.” I asked for clarification regarding his block on his talkpage and did not receive a response. Then, I responded to his comment on my talkpage asking for further clarification if any of the conditions regarding my block remain outstanding. He still has not responded to those inquiries.

I feel like I have tried everything. I feel I have done my best to address the reasoning provided for the block on my talkpage and elsewhere. I have appealed the block three times. I have taken this to the Teahouse. I even learned how to operate the Libera IRC Chat as is recommended by Help:I have been blocked.

I am starting to feel incredibly hopeless.

I have acknowledged what I will do better moving forward, specifically making more detailed edit summaries, and not removing sourced content. Though I initially removed some content citing policy mentioned above, I now realize that in order to remove sourced content, it must first be taken to the talkpage for consensus to be reached, even if that is my rationale. I also realize now that my edits may not have been as supported by policy as I had first believed, something I would have learned if I took it to the talkpage first. I have been editing for over two years and I have never been blocked before. I acknowledge where I fell short in my comments, but this whole process has been insanely frustrating and I have felt ignored and left in the dark, like someone threw me in a prison and lost the key. Is this "temporary" block truly going to last forever? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I told you what you still needed to respond to: why were you using misleading edit summaries? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The issue is not, as you stated above, that your edit summaries were not detailed enough. It was that they were fundamentally misleading. Until you can honestly and adequately respond to straightforward questions without deflecting, you will remain blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
When I deleted Zealotry in the 1st Century, there was only one source that listed the Zealots as terrorists. I removed the content per the policy reason stated above and put the edit summary, "rm content overly reliant on one source." What I should have done here is (1) not remove the sourced content and instead have taken it to the talkpage to see if WP:EXCEPTIONAL applied here (this of course would apply to all three) and (2) assuming that did not happen (which it would not moving forward) put the edit summary, "Removed the sec. Zealotry in the 1st Century per WP:EXCEPTIONAL in which "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Only one source listed mentioning them as terrorists"
The other two are pretty similar, I removed a Mandatory Palestine section because I thought WP:EXCEPTIONAL applied because it was a whole section based on one source. The edit summary was "rm content overly reliant on one source." Instead, I should have put "removed Mandatory Palestine section per WP:EXCEPTIONAL in which "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", only one source lists this as terrorism."
The third edit on Jewish terrorism has the following edit summary, "rm unsourced content." I stated on my talkpage that my rationale for this edit was, "I did this based on my understanding from a past discussion I had seen somewhere in the past where it said every sentence required a source but I am thinking now that this must have been incorrect, or I misinterpreted the discussion." Therefore, now I would have made the edit summary, "Removing uncited sentences in Post-1948 sec., more sources are needed to bolster the content asserted." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. What about Special:Diff/1292754088/1293772349? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Generally, my thinking was that a lead should summarize the body. However, in this case, the content was word-for-word copied from the criticism section, I felt that removing it from the lead made it more streamlined. It seemed overstated rather than summarized, which felt WP:Undue for inclusion in the lead, but should definitely be included in the body. In hindsight, I think that the wording in the edit summary should have been more clear, along the lines of, "Removed to streamline lead that had duplicate AIPAC criticism per WP:UNDUE in which "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I think Gjb has explained what went wrong and committed to proper communication going forward. Okay if I unblock? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Go ahead. Might not matter anyway, given the US has requested all Arbcom records, etc, Wikipedia as we know it might not be around much longer. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
In addition to what @Voorts says here, Admins are volunteers. Your pending unblock request is no more important than anyone else's. It will be reviewed and actioned when an admin feels their concerns are answered. Star Mississippi 00:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

creating Talk:Niggas in Paris/GA2

edit

Special permissions are needed to create Talk:Niggas in Paris/GA2. I would like to perform the review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Ergo Sum

edit

Information icon There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Ergo Sum for Ergo Sum to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Rosenborg BK Fan

edit
WITHDRAWN
Rosenborg BK Fan (talk · contribs) has withdrawn his unban request. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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

I am copying over an unblock request from Rosenborg BK Fan. Their block was placed as a result of Nationality-based attack by Rosenborg BK Fan, so could be considered a WP:CBAN. That references a prior block which was the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Help_with_bigotry_&_xenophobia. I currently take no position on whether or not BK Fan's request should be granted, I am simply presenting it to the community for discussion. Note that I'm away starting on Saturday, so hopefully others can copy over any of BK Fan's responses. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good day! I truly hope this message finds anyone reading it well! I am hereby applying for an unblock request once again in the hope that this time my unblock request will be taken into consideration. I would like to enlist a series of noteworthy reasons for which I personally consider that I deserve to be unblocked but, first of all, I would like to sincerely apologise for my previous disruptive behaviour and acknowledge the fact that it was entirely my fault. The previous disruptive behaviour, from my particular perspective at least, occurred mostly on my talk page and not within the main space (i.e. it was definitely not vandalism).

As I previously mentioned, I would like to enlist a series of noteworthy reasons for which I honestly believe that I deserve to be unblocked:

1) I did not create any alternative accounts during this relatively long blocked period on Wikipedia (nor do I personally want to create any in the future as well as I perceive this particular aspect, solely for me and in personal regards, counterproductive).
2) Over the passage of time, I have created several meaningful articles (the vast majority of which can still be read and were therefore not deleted) and contributed a significant number of positive edits which are still in place across the English Wikipedia.
3) I am not blocked on any other version of Wikipedia nor am I any longer blocked on Wikimedia Commons.
4) Wikipedia has been a very dear and important part of my life and a tremendously useful project in which I contributed in the past and I am willing to contribute more (including on this version of this project) in the future. It is a precious source of information which I highly respect. Additionally, I also donated in the past for keeping it up and running and I intend to do so in the future as well.
5) I am a user who considers himself predominantly non-conflictual, polite, responsible, and able to contribute to the best of my capabilities on a wide range of subjects.
6) I have a series of approved contributions on other projects which are still in place and I am an active contributor on several other versions of Wikipedia as well.
7) After the last unblock appeal (which was partially accepted and for which I am deeply grateful to this day), access to my talk page was restored. Even though my previous unblock request was not taken in consideration at that time (a decision which I respect), I did not (and will not) use my personal talk page for disruptive editing or any other personal rants which are obviously not allowed and extremely counterproductive for this project, even on a personal talk page.
8) I am a user who strongly believes in and supports the culture of dialogue.
9) For some of my contributions (which were deemed relevant enough for this project), I received a thank you note at the beginning of this page.
10) Last but not least, I consider the fact that I learnt my lessons quite well, I understand very well why I was blocked, it was my fault, and, once more, I would like to sincerely apologise for the inconveniences that I created. Furthermore, I strongly believe that, if unblocked, I will still be a valuable and productive contributor (to the best of my capabilities, that is) to this version of this project.

Therefore, these are the main reasons for which I consider that I deserve to be unblocked, if deemed acceptable that is. Lastly, thank you very much for your time, attention, and readership! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The above was copied over from User talk:Rosenborg BK Fan. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose - admins should see UTRS appeal #104345, which was declined for not adequately addressing the reasons for their block (which go much deeper than just "disruptive editing"). This request is essentially a copy of that UTRS, but also see their UTRS history of repeatedly submitting unsuitable appeals, and resubmitting copies of appeals that have already been declined, both after being told to stop. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Copied over from BK Fan's talk page:
I just read what a certain admin/user wrote about my unblock request in the respective space. First of all, I'd like to thank him for his time and reply. Secondly, I want to underline here that the technical reason (which is also stated in my block log) is disruptive editing per ANI if I'm not mistaken. I also acknowledge the fact that what the respective user/admin mentioned there is correct and for this particular inappropriate aspect I also extended sincere apologies (on more than one occasion).

However, my genuine remorse keeps getting rejected and ignored in spite of my goodwill and willingness to change. While it is true that my past behaviour which led to that block was more than just disruptive editing per se (a decision of opposition of the respective user/admin which I respect, cannot contest, and is accurate), I felt threatened here, met with relative indifference, or a subversive passive aggression (which I do not want to reply with in the same manner and I respect these particular decisions as well), only because I wanted to communicate and reply to another user and I had to reword (in a non-controversial manner) some of my previous replies.

From my particular perspective, it is very sad that after all the relevant reasons that I enlisted, after all the time that I invested here, the polite and appropriate as well as respectful messages that I submitted so far, I am still met with coldness, but I respect the respective admin's decision as such. Lastly, I feel humiliated... Either way, I genuinely wish the respective user all the best and plenty of success here on Wikipedia and beyond. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - they seem to have a good sense of what they did wrong and are committing to not cause similar issues again. They've been active globally, and I don't see obvious issues there. They were unblocked on Commons before coming here, so the admins there took them seriously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    P.S. I am very grateful for the time, attention, and decision of user/admin SarekOfVulcan. Finally, I feel understood! The respective reasons perfectly sums up how I feel (i.e. 'they seem to have a good sense of what they did wrong and are committing to not cause similar issues again.') Once again, I am not a threat to this project, on the contrary, I respect, I appreciate it very much, I even love it because it helped me in many ways throughout my life and all I want is to give a little bit of what I can on as many constituent versions of Wikipedia as possible, especially on the English Wikipedia where I've been active the most throughout the passage of time. Furthermore, I am not a vandal nor do I breach other rules in the main space. I can collaborate quite well with other users and show as much gratitude and respect for their help and guidance whenever needed. I strongly believe in the culture of dialogue, I mentioned this before and I am mentioning it once again. All the best and plenty of respect, SarekOfVulcan! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Above copied from BK's talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I am only writing this here as my final comment before potential admins (whom I respect regardless of what I perceive as their opposition or hate or disrespect towards me, despite my continuous rightful efforts to change, identify what was wrong, and prove that I can change) and their decisions: I will wait for a final consensus in the respective talk space to be reached when it will be reached and not remove my unblock request from my talk page. From my understanding and humiliation by now (which, from my understanding once again, could potentially bring happiness to some users I presume), I think we all know what the result would be. If it is opposition I can't but respect your decision and never apply for another unblock request here (although I respected Wikipedia's guidelines for unblocking on more than one occasion) as I take I am blocked for life (even though, technically, an admin could not tell me this particular aspect per se, but it's crystal clear). No genuine apology or remorse seems to be enough here and that is fine by me now. It's just that I too was humiliated way too much (and one cannot change how some feel behind the screens, so to put it) and I sincerely wish no one involved in this discussion feel what I am feeling right now (you wouldn't even be able to understand me at all, but that's completely fine as I am not asking for something that absurd here). In the end, I truly wish this great project which Wikipedia is (and, implicitly, the English version of Wikipedia) will thrive in the future and become better and better, more reliable, more well-sourced, and with fewer and fewer main space-based technical or factual problems. I truly wish this particular change should happen with or without me. That is what I wish in genuine good faith/goodwill for this project. Oh, and last thing: I truly wish no one would feel what I am feeling right now or go through the multiple humiliations and indifferences that I went through while respecting the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia in terms of unblocking. Whatever decision you reach I respect it and genuinely wish you plenty of success here in whatever you do and all the best even if you despise me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Copied over from BK's talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. BK's continued statements that he's being humiliated and that other editors are just seeking to undermine him does not bode well for constructive editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Voorts; this editor is playing the victim card and it doesn't sit well. GiantSnowman 20:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I think this and this constitute a withdrawal of this request, but since I've !voted here, I won't close it. I would also recommend revoking TPA. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good day! I truly hope this message finds anyone reading it well. I want to hereby clearly withdraw my former unblock request so as not to leave room for any ambiguity regarding the last failed attempt and so that the respective section involving me on the AN can be officially closed as I do not want to waste anyone else's time (an important aspect which is quite common sensical on my behalf). Lastly, I want to genuinely thank all users involved in the respective section for their time, attention, and readership, and, in particular, I am very grateful to the understanding of SarekOfVulcan whom I respect very much (for many years on Wikipedia, believe it or not, I finally felt myself understood by someone and this felt priceless). Last but not least, I truly respect the decision of opposition towards my previous failed unblock request and I strongly believe that I deserved it and I sincerely apologise for wasting some users' time. I feel already very bad about it. Plenty of success here on Wikipedia and a great time editing in the main space and beyond! Please forgive me for this additional unwanted inconvenience. All the best and plenty of respect! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to highlight that I am not a victim (and sincerely apologise if that came off as such when that was definitely not my intention and not the case) and that the final reached decision in the respective space is just (i.e. it is an overwhelming 3-1 no vote which I fully respect and cannot contest under any sort of circumstance as I have absolutely no right to do so). Thank you once again and I apologise for wasting your time as I truly did not mean it. All the best once more and take care! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The two above comments were copied from Rosenborg BK Fan's user talk page at Special:Permalink/1308433330. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A recall petition has passed

edit

Information icon The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Ergo Sum for Ergo Sum to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator recall. Sohom (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Questioning the suitability of Gheus to be an AfC reviewer

edit
Withdrawn by TheJoyfulTentmaker. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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

I came here as recommended by @Rosguill, since I have concerns about @Gheus being a suitable AfC reviewer. I would like the admins to reconsider this advanced user right given to the user. Here are the details: The user had declined an article draft submitted by me, and chosen the reason Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone as their justification, which did not make much sense to me, given the article was written in a fairly neutral tone. I understand that there can be disagreements about neutrality, and also that the stated reasons may not always perfectly reflect what the reviewer was thinking. However, the subsequent AfD nomination by the same reviewer made me further suspect that the user, as an AfC reviewer, did not spend any reasonable time to review this article. In the nomination, the user claimed that the article had not changed since the last nomination, which clearly was wrong. I shared the diffs in the AfD discussion showing that the article had changed substantially since the last nomination. Then I delivered a feedback on the user's talk page, which was not responded and got deleted by the user. When I brought this up on the users request about the renewal of the rights, I received this somewhat adversarial response, with links to two assays that are completely unrelated to this situation. (The user might incorrectly be assuming that I'm someone else, but regardless, the tone of response is not one I would expect to see from someone who is an advance rights holder on the English Wikipedia.) Please note that the outcome of that particular AfD does not matter at all, all I am asking is that if someone has volunteered to review AfC articles, then they actually spend some time to actually review them before they make a decision about an article. Declining or accepting articles just for the sake of clearing a backlog without properly reading them is not constructive. I had spent significant time to save that article, and Gheus ruined the chances for it to get a proper review. After it is declined once having waited so long, it is very unlikely that another reviewer will pick it up to review anytime soon after the last decline. And I believe AfC is very important, especially for newcomers to the project. So I would have expected an advanced rights holder to act more responsibly, and be more receptive to feedback, and be more open to responding to messages from draft submitters. The example of behaviors I see here might be indicative of the fact that this user is not suitable to hold this responsibility. Thank you for considering this request. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The article is written in a promotional manner. I would have declined it also, regardless of notablity. TarnishedPathtalk 03:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I never interacted with you before the review of your draft, so you should assume good faith. After the review, you just moved it to mainspace yourself ([63]) - If you disagreed, you should have submitted it for another review to prove me wrong, but you didn't. Why are you so upset, and what is your relation to this advertising executive? This is the wrong noticeboard for such discussions and should be moved to WP:ANI. If you are questioning Rosguill's admin actions, you need to use Wikipedia:Administrative action review. If you are questioning my reviews, then you need to show a pattern of consistently poor judgment. You have to do the legwork, the community won't do that for you. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this complaint. Gheus declined the draft. The author disagreed and published it anyway. Gheus then took it to AfD (which seems to me entirely consistent with their decline), and from that the author concludes that Gheus "as an AfC reviewer, did not spend any reasonable time to review this article". How does that follow?
And even if – purely for the sake of the argument – that decline was wrong, how do we get from that to "the fact" (!) that Gheus should not be reviewing at AfC or, apparently, at NPP either? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing I only have concerns about the user's AfC reviewing actions, as I explained above. The NPP right allows them to do AfC reviews, that's why I added my oppose statement there. But I appreciate your feedback. I might be missing something. To be clear, I have no objection for Gheus to be a new page patrol. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
After it is declined once having waited so long, it is very unlikely that another reviewer will pick it up to review anytime soon after the last decline. Honestly, if you didn't engage with the reviewer before resubmitting on how else the article can be improved, it would most likely be declined pretty quickly again unless there is marked difference in how the subsequent reviewer reviews the draft. The question is, did you ask how else can the article be improved instead of demanding for it to be re-reviewed while assuming that Gheus did not spend an appropriate amount of time reviewing it? (Am sorry, but the feedback you gave, I read it more of like a demand) – robertsky (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Robertsky for the feedback, this is helpful. Given that three neutral editors disagree with me, I withdraw this request. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Script block

edit

Hello, I wanted to make an edit on the page 2025 Tour de France Femmes to add the route to the infobox, since it is now available. However, I wasn’t able to do it because a script blocked me, saying I had made too many edits in a short period of time. But this was actually my first edit of the day. Is this an error, or did I miss something? Thanks.

Translate with Google Guillaumrs (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The route has (now) been added by you, one minute after you wrote your message here. Were you logged in when you tried to add it the first time? Lectonar (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, @Lectonar. Yes, I checked. Guillaumrs (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Alors, j'ai aucune idée :)...a glitch perhaps Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for Restoration and Merging of Deleted Articles and Wikidata Items – Honoring Sheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi

edit

Dear Administrators, I am Hidaya Chemmad, and I am writing to respectfully request the restoration of content from three previously deleted articles related to Sheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, a globally respected Islamic scholar and the current Vice Chancellor of Darul Huda Islamic University, Kerala. He is widely recognized as one of the foremost Muslim thinkers of our time — a visionary leader, reformist educator, prolific author, and an influential voice in global Islamic discourse.

He is the founder of a progressive Islamic academic movement in Kerala, combining traditional scholarship with modern pedagogy, and has made lasting contributions to the development of Islamic higher education. His scholarship has positively impacted communities across the globe, earning recognition not only in India but also in the Arab world, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

He maintains an official website and is listed on Freebase: Google Knowledge Graph reference.

Request Summary

edit

I am not seeking to fully undelete these articles into mainspace or to reopen deletion discussions. Instead, I humbly request temporary restoration to user space or provision of the deleted article content from the following pages, in order to review and merge well-sourced material into the existing, currently active article: Bahahuddin Nadwi.

Articles previously deleted:

  1. Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi – deleted without a community discussion
  2. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi – deleted via AfD
  3. Bahauddeen Nadwi – deleted following first and second AfD nominations

I believe much of the previously submitted content was fact-rich, neutral, citation-supported, and improperly discarded without sufficient attention to reliable sources or notability, particularly considering the subject's enduring academic, social, and cultural influence.

I kindly ask for these materials to be temporarily restored or made available for editorial review, with the aim of respectfully merging factual, encyclopedic content into the current live article.

Wikidata Merge Request

edit

There is currently a duplication on Wikidata referring to this same individual:

Proposed action: Merge the two items, as they clearly represent the same person. Suggested primary label after merge: Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (Aliases can include "Bahauddeen Nadwi", "Bahahuddin Nadwi", and other transliterations for accessibility.)

I understand that this portion may fall under the purview of Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, but I am including it here for completeness and continuity.

Closing Note

edit

This request is submitted in the spirit of upholding Wikipedia's mission to document and share knowledge about globally impactful individuals. Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi’s scholarly leadership and transformative contributions to Islamic education are well-documented, deeply notable, and deserving of accurate, well-maintained representation on Wikipedia.

I appreciate your time and consideration, and I am happy to assist further in the editorial or sourcing process to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policies.

With gratitude, Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated requests will not be considered. Also, this really seems like a matter for the deleting administrator. Lynch44 01:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
I’m requesting the content restoration of all deleted articles, without further investigation. One of the articles was deleted without any discussion, and others were deleted multiple times without proper community review. This is not a request to restore them to mainspace — only to access the deleted content for review.
The goal is to identify and merge any well-sourced, encyclopedic material into the current article. The subject is clearly notable, and valuable content may have been removed without full consideration. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
That is not true. There were multiple AfDs, which by definition are community reviews. One version was recreated despite those AfDs. If you want to request deletion review, please go to WP:DRV, not AN. But since there is already a live article (again), I see little point in reinstating deleted content to anywhere to see if it's got anything that isn't already in the mainspace article, since they were deleted on grounds of lack of indicated or substantiated notability and borderline promotional content, so the content wasn't satisfactory at those times. One version was in fact userfied, and still exists in user space. Look at the deletion log. Wikidata is its own project, you will need to address any duplications there. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Hidaya Chemmad, I have seen some editors have success asking the deleting administrator to email them a copy of the deleted article. I would suggest being flexible here and approaching the administrators who deleted these articles and see what they would be open to rather than insisting on the restoration in your User space. After all, the goal here is for you to see the deleted content, right? So, work with these admins and see what they would be willing to do to help you out rather than having a formal noticeboard discussion which, truthfully, could head off on a lot of different tangents. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Why do admins continue to marginalize the documented legacy of a globally respected Muslim scholar and the renowned university he built from the ground up — an institution that has redefined Islamic scholarship for an entire generation? The repeated deletion of well-sourced content, without balanced review or due diligence, reflects not just editorial oversight, but a disturbing pattern of systemic bias and intellectual gatekeeping. Wikipedia claims neutrality — but these actions betray that principle. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
FYI, I have done the wikidata merge, which is not an administrative matter, either here or on wikidata (which is a different project over which this noticeboard has no control). DrKay (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: I have removed the CSD tag from the article as neither G4 nor G5 apply to the article as it stands now. It is substantially different (and expanded) from the version deleted at AfD, and a significant number of editors have substantially edited it since it was created by a sock of a banned editor. Technically, G5 wouldn't apply anyway as the banned editor wasn't banned until four days after the article was created. AfD will have to be the method to delete it now. Black Kite (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for removing the CSD tag from the article — you're a fair-minded admin.
    But I have to ask: why are administrators relentlessly targeting every edit connected to this university and its founder? This no longer feels like standard editorial oversight — it increasingly resembles a coordinated pattern of erasure aimed at notable Islamic scholars and the institutions they’ve built. A similar case was the deletion of the Al Jamia Al Islamiya article, which many editors also viewed as unjust and lacking a fair evaluation of its notability and sources. The repeated removal of well-sourced, encyclopedic content raises serious concerns about systemic bias, double standards, and editorial gatekeeping within parts of the admin community. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User: Swatjester

edit

I have tried adding a mention of Johann Fischer’s 1825 Austrian patent for a revolver to the main revolver page but the user Swatjester refuses to countenance the idea that it was in fact a revolver patent despite me providing tonnes of evidence indicating it was, which you can find on both the revolver talk page and swatjester’s talk page. I have tried reasoning with him but he is often condescending at best and outright vindictive at worst with his dealings with me and judging from his history this is a common theme with him. For instance, rather than wait for third party arbitration, which I have called for twice, the first time stating that I would respect their decision either way and being ignored both times, he has shut down the debate and refused to allow anyone to comment further on the topic. This seems like an abuse of his admin privileges to me and frankly his open hostility combined with the former makes me wary of confronting him further on my own so I have come here for help. SQMeaner (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@SQMeaner: my reading of it (from Swatjester's talk page and Talk:Revolver) is that you're trying to impose your OR/synth-based view, while Swatjester (whom you don't appear to have informed of this discussion, BTW) is quite reasonably trying to explain to you some of our policies, which you're refusing to take onboard. And when you didn't get your way, you decided to come here and start attacking Swatjester ad hominem. Not a good look, IMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for not informing Swatjester, that was a mistake but I assure you not a deliberate one. Personally, I thought it was quite clear based on the evidence I provided that Fischer patented a revolver in 1825 but if you think otherwise I won’t dispute this. Frankly I’m just glad a third party finally intervened in some form. That being said, I still feel Swatjester was out of line and repeatedly took a threatening and condescending tone when it was completely uncalled for in addition to ignoring my requests for third party arbitration. You say I am attacking him ad hominem style but if you go through his history you can see that I’m not the only one who has had issues with him in the past in this respect. SQMeaner (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Just because multiple users have "issues" with someone means very little: here you're having "issues" with Swatjester, and my very point is that your issues are without merit. Admins in particular tend to get more than their fair share of insults, accusations, personal attacks, and other garbage hurled at them; that sort of goes with the territory, and doesn't in and of itself tell us anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
PS: Oh, and can you please point to where Swatjester was acting in administrative capacity, let alone abusing their position, because I must have missed that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
By shutting down my post on his talk page, is that not using his administrative privileges to scare away any and all further debate on the topic? SQMeaner (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
No, because a non-admin could have done the same thing. Everyone is entitled to remove content from their talk page. There was no invocation of administrative authority here; this is just a content dispute. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
So it would have been OK for me to continue the debate on the revolver talk page? If that’s the case then I probably wouldn’t have made this topic to begin with but I thought at the time Swatjester was declaring an end to any and all discussion on the Fischer revolver across all of Wikipedia period. SQMeaner (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that do not reply further here, this conversation is concluded refers to Swatjester's talk page, where it was posted, rather than to the almost one-year-old discussion on Talk:Revolver#Fischer_revolver. Meters (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, it didn’t seem that way to me. What can I say, I clearly misunderstood his intentions if that is indeed what he meant. SQMeaner (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I've tried like 17 times to reply and keep getting edit conflicted, but y'all are saying, more concisely, essentially what I was going to say. However, I'm not going to let the insistence that I'm somehow "ignoring requests for a third party arbitration" slide -- that's just a nakedly false statement. I said, word for word, You can involve whatever third party you'd like, but they can't simply ignore our policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. That's neither ignoring, nor refusing to wait for something to which I never agreed to participate, in the first place. (FWIW, my assumption was that they meant WP:3O). Which apparently they did but with no notification either to me or to the article, so how would I even have known? ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have quoted my first attempt to involve a third party below, which you completely ignored at the time.
’ Again, I think this conversation would really benefit from inviting someone with more knowledge of the French and German languages to weigh in on it. If we can find someone with a working knowledge of French and/or German who agrees that my sources are too ambiguous to be used then I will withdraw my edits without further debate but I would appreciate it if we could wait for that to happen before either of us takes further action on the main page.’
the second time I am referring to is when I started a new topic on your talk page and again requested a third party to intervene which you responded to by declaring an end to the conversation. At the time I thought this meant an end to any and all discussion of the Fischer revolver on all of Wikipedia but if you just meant on your talk page then I apologise for the misunderstanding. SQMeaner (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Ignoring for a second that is referring to a different edit, with a different set of sources being used, and a different underlying issue (SYNTH in the translation), it is not at all the case that you get to force in your preferred version of edits, and then say "Hey, let's agree to just let me have it my way until some unspecified time in the future when we find some other person who may or may not agree with me." No, why would anyone agree to that, particularly when the sourcing was defective in the first place? ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure what you mean with all your ‘different’ talk but I suppose you’re right that by the strict letter of Wikipedia’s law my initial edits were out of line and it would only have been right and proper to leave the main article in its original state before my edits. Am I still clear to post on revolver’s talk page? SQMeaner (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't think you should try to beat the dead horse with this issue without significantly improving both the sources you're bringing to the table and your understanding of our policies, but if someone else wants to tell you to go ahead that's on them. To be very explicit, I'm not saying you cannot do it, I'm just not going to be the one who tells you to do so because I think it's a bad idea. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm willing to chalk this up to SQMeaner making a series of misunderstandings in good faith -- though tbh that last part is starting to wear a bit thin for me. It's 3AM for me on a holiday weekend -- I'm going to bed. I think we can likely all move on, but if not and I'm somehow an ultra-bad admin and need to be taken out back and dealt with harshly, may my last words be "Unranked FSU beat Bama 31 - 17, go 'Noles!"⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)

edit

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of AmandaNP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)


WP:AE

Click to reveal noticeboard


Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

edit
Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by IdanST at 10:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

User_talk:IdanST#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by IdanST

edit

Hey,

Since I was topic banned nine months ago, I’ve made over 500 substantial edits on English Wikipedia, as well as more than 18,000 edits across Wikimedia projects.

I apologize for my past behavior and acknowledge that I wasn’t ready to contribute constructively to contentious topics at the time. However, I now believe I’m better prepared and could contribute more effectively if the topic ban were lifted.

asilvering, sure. Prior to the topic ban, I was blocked twice for WP:ECR violations. Then, I translated Rapid Response Unit (Israel) from its Origin[he] in he.wiki, which resulted in a fast deletion and topic ban for WP:ECR, reviewing RS of Air Force articles and using the word "terrorist" in that translated article . I specifically disagree with the latter part, since there are dozens of articles that use that word, and in this case it was simply a cross-wiki translation.
After I was topic banned, I began editing in he.wiki, where I have made over 20,000 edits and translated more than 300 cross-wiki articles. A lot of my work has focused on aviation-related articles, but I have also translated a few politically sensitive articles, such as Basel Adra, We Will Dance Again, and others. All of my articles have been received in good faith. While some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV, not a single article I translated there has been deleted — whereas all of the cross-wiki articles I translated here were deleted.
As for what I have learned: almost all of my blocks and sanctions were due to WP:ECR, but I have long since moved past that, so it cannot be repeated. In addition, when I first started editing, I did not always behave well because I was new, unfamiliar with procedures, and unsure how to remain polite in difficult situations (as SFR once wrote, I "must assume good faith"). Since then, I have learned these lessons while editing in he.wiki. Furthermore, due to my past experiences with translating articles here, I will no longer translate articles into en.wiki. IdanST (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
BTW, although all the articles I translated were deleted, Bybit was later recreated by another editor, but none of my earlier edits were restored. The rest of the deleted translated articles remain deleted. IdanST (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin, I never said I had "run into POV issues" in he.wiki, nor was I ever involved in such. Also, please elaborate on your conclusion that I am "still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards," because I was never accused of not being neutral in he.wiki. All I said is that some editors made edits to a few articles I translated. To elaborate, some of them believe en.wiki articles themselves are not neutral. So, do you mean by your words that en.wiki is not neutral?
Tamzin, Anybody on he.wiki can edit articles; that doesn’t necessarily mean they are in bad condition or have NPOV issues. IdanST (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

edit

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Arbitrator response from when this was originally filed at ARCA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

edit
  • @IdanST: the Arbitration Committee generally isn't the right body to appeal a CTOP restriction to, if it's on the basis of changed behavior. We only overturn CTOP actions under very narrow circumstances, usually having to do with the CTOP action being problematic when it was placed. Like the sanctioning administrator said, a better place to plead this case would be at WP:AN or WP:AE, if that's the path you're looking to take. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with leeky above; Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On community review (ie. AN or AE) allows for an appeal on the grounds that "the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" which seems to best align with the purpose of this appeal, while the three criteria ARCA can consider does not include this. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Recused, as I placed this sanction. I do agree with what was said by my esteemed colleagues though, which is why I said to appeal at AE or AN in my response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning IdanST

edit
  • It seems nobody wants to comment on this, so I guess I'll tackle it. The appeal is a bit lighter on details than I would like, but at the same time IdanST seems to have gotten into no trouble at all in the hundreds of edits and many months since their most recent block expired in February, so we may as well give them a chance, and if there is recidivism a re-ban is always a possibility. (Other admins may well see differently; my positions on user conduct matters are idiosyncratic at best) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish: Would you like to comment (as the sanctioning administrator, not as an arb) on this appeal? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
    My thoughts are roughly what I expressed at WP:ARCA recently, the topic is still to "hot", for lack of a better term, to unban editors in this topic right now. In this case, the behavior was less severe and there's recent editing that looks constructive, so I wouldn't be strongly opposed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • IdanST, can you give us a bit more to go on? For example, can you explain in your own words why you were banned, what you've learned since, and how you'll avoid the same problems? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Idan's candor in acknowledging having run into POV issues on hewiki, but to me that sounds like a pretty big deal. Idan's POV is closer to what hewiki defines as neutral than to what enwiki defines as neutral; if Idan is still having content faulted on hewiki for not being neutral by their standards, that bodes poorly for letting them back into the topic area here on enwiki. And the fact that there's no engagement with this issue—no introspection into why their edits were seen as non-neutral there—bodes even more poorly. I don't see grounds to unban. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    @IdanST: I'm just going off of your own statement that some of the political ones were later edited by other users who felt they were not fully NPOV. If what you mean by that is that you were copying enwiki content blindly without regard for whether it complied with local policies, than that would seem to just be the mirror-image situation of what you describe happening here leading up to your TBAN. The English and Hebrew Wikipedias have different policies, guidelines, and norms, and an editor translating from one wiki to another is expected to ensure that their article is in compliance. You take responsibility for every edit you make to a wiki, even if it's derived from something elsewhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Gianni888

edit
Closing without further action - editor has now been properly warned about ECR asilvering (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Gianni888

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Gianni888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia#GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 10 August 2025 turns an article on a surname into a clan in violation of ECR
  2. 1-7 August 2025: Created Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families


If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory is engaged in disruption only which discussed Gianni tangentially. I've already ECP-ed Sagoo as an AE action since it's been subject to a long, long history of hijackings of that sort, bringing this here to discuss sanctions for Gianni888, which is an area I prefer to stay out of as an admin (and promised I would in my RfA). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

In response to SilverLocust, at least the edits to Sagoo were disruptive on their own merits (unilaterally attempting to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagoo) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Bump to prevent this from being archived unanswered. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Gianni888

edit

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

Statement by Gianni888

edit

Sorry if i broke any laws of wikipedia but i was just trying to associate the saggu/sagoo page with caste identity because my grandmother is a saggu/sagoo and to find out her history ask my father and therefore i thought that it would be useful to show that Saggu/Saggoo Lineage belongs to Jat and Ramgharia

And for the Draft:List_of_Kamboj_Personalities_and_Families, my fathers lineage is Kamboj and whenever i meet a Kamboj they never know anything about the history of the Kamboj community so i thought it would be a bright idea to show people and my family the notable Kamboj/Kambohs of history

the main reason i origninally created my wiki account was to edit the Kamboj page

Sorry if i broke any rules on Wikipedia

Sincerely Gianni888

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning Gianni888

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Since Gianni888 apparently had not been specifically told about WP:ARBECR before this, I wouldn't sanction them merely for violating ECR (beyond a warning). The alert templates {{subst:Alert|topic=sa}} and {{subst:Alert/first|topic=sa}} have since been updated to include ECR information. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Tiny Particle

edit
Tiny Particle tbanned from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". asilvering (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Tiny Particle

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Tiny Particle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:GENSEX
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 August 2025 [64] [65] [66] Copies text from likely-to-be-deleted article Dutch Protocol to four other articles
  2. 15 August 2025 [67] [68] Reverts change with edit summary including text You are actively trying to salt the Dutch Protocol, so the depth is needed here.
  3. 17 August 2025 Makes strange comment linking to all the new articles at an ArbCom case.
  4. 17 August 2025 Another strange comment linking to comments made by several of the article subjects.
  5. 17 August 2025 Yet another strange accusatory comment, this time implying he's doing this for anti-trans POV-pushing reasons.
  6. 17 August 2025 When the above comments predictably get one of the people at the Dutch Protocol AfD to notice and bring the new articles to AfD also, accuses her of meatpuppetry for notifying the Dutch Protocol AfD of the other AfDs. (Update: this diff has been struck at the urging of other editors.)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16 February 2025 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 12 August 2025 an AfD was opened for the article Dutch Protocol, which Tiny Particle was largely responsible for writing based on the Dutch wiki's version. The issue, as pointed out by the opener, was that the article largely served as a WP:POVFORK to puberty blockers. As an apparent attempt to circumvent the AfD, Tiny Particle then created a bunch of other POVFORK articles about all the names mentioned in the Dutch Protocol article, explicitly copying text from Dutch Protocol to do so. When challenged on some of this new text they admit that they're doing it as a reaction to the AfD.

Then, a few days later, they made a series of strange comments at an ArbCom case they're not a party to. In these comments they linked all the new articles and made a bunch of weird comments seeming to assert that being trans is a mental illness (against an explicit community consensus to the contrary). They also linked to several articles on a trans activist site saying the subjects of the new articles are anti-trans or gatekeepers, though they did so in apparent approval of the article subjects' (alleged) gatekeepiness. Another comment of theirs supportively quoted Wes Streeting saying that trans women are not women, which suggests to me they're doing all this for anti-trans POV-pushy reasons.

Shortly after, probably because of the attention that these comments drew to the new articles, those were listed at AfD as well. In reaction to a notification of this new AfD on the original Dutch Protocol AfD, Tiny Particle accused the lister of meatpuppetry (which isn't even the right policy, I think they mean WP:CANVASSING).

Basically I think this person is showing huge WP:OWNership behavior and is generally trying to circumvent AfD to push a POV through a bunch of POVFORKs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Discussion concerning Tiny Particle

edit

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

Statement by Tiny Particle

edit
   Tiny Particle's statement contains 445 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
  1. 15 August 2025 [70] [71] [72] Created Four articles, each one of which is WP:Notable so "building the encyclopedia"
  1. 17 August 2025 This is a Arbcom workshop Comment by others: which I am perfectly entitled to make

I was asked a question. The OP post was in three parts and contained a question directly addressed to me

  1. 17 August 2025 I address point 3
  2. 17 August 2025 I address point 1&2

The remaining diffs presented:

  1. 15 August 2025 [73] [74] I believe the Reverts follow WP:BRD
  2. 17 August 2025 The accusation of meatpuppetry is due to blatant WP:Canvass Here

It is nonsense that the dutch protocol is a WP:POVFORK/duplicate article to puberty blockers. I have never read or commented on the Puberty Blockers. The links I added were by means of CtrlF. Also the administration of PBs is just one disipline in the multi-displinary dutch protocol. Problems which don't require deletion, including articles needing improvement, duplicate articles, or POV problems. The Dutch protocol AFD is malformed claiming that the dutch author is banned. I believe this is untrue.

Yes I am not party to the current ArbCom case which is why I left my comment at Comment by others: I believe I clearly made the point that, no matter what the consensus, You can't have your cake and eat it. If there is no illness then there will be no (free) medical care as it is not needed by definition.

Addressing YFNS below I asked AI how to do an author-link3 I also asked for a reliable source link for Peggy C-K's dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I copy alot from other articles because there is so much overlap. If someone has already written a sentence about say a football/soccer match there are potentialy 11x2=22 articles where that article could be incrementally improved.

That you have a Phd does not change the fact that "Medication is a drug used to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent disease" Your document [75] mentions "Non-Surgical Interventions". Per wiki Intervention (disambiguation): Medical intervention, therapy to treat health problems.

They are WP:Notable by the sheer influence they have had outside their own country.

I can see one editor blocked for 9 months. By repeating an error it becomes a lie

@Asilvering::I commented above I asked AI how to do an author-link3 I also asked for a reliable source link for Peggy C-K's dob to start the article. I find AI to be too verbose and inaccurate to be much use for a content writer. I am not aware of the elsewhere that you mention?

Statement by YFNS

edit
  YFNS's statement contains 547 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

I raised issues with Tiny Particle's editing on their talk page which they never replied to[76] Some particular issues include:

  • Using the "A Wider Lens" podcast by pro-conversion therapy group Genspect as a source despite being told repeatedly that's not good
    • TP knew this was a bad source - at Dutch Protocol I removed poor sourcing[77], TP reverted and asked me to do it source by source, which I did, particularly noting the AWS podcast[78]. After that, TP makes an edit just to add the AWS podcast to a BLP[79], redirects the podcast name to it's host so knows who created it[80], and then adds the source to another BLP[81]

Further, I want to flag the use of AI, these articles where apparently written using ChatGPT as the UTM codes for chatGPT where present in the citations[84]

Regarding what TP has said here:

  • They are not WP:Notable, I explicitly said as much, noting the articles are written almost entirely based on OR of things the subjects wrote with little to no independent coverage[85][86]
  • The comment left at ARBCOM was espouse a FRINGE view that the community has found MEDRS don't support[87]
    • Moreover, they claim the NHS endorsed this view. I quote the NHS saying the opposite[88], Loki notes they're getting the definition of gender dysphoria backward[89]
    • They claim Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary. - this seems like an LLM hallucination? I've written about trans healthcare for half a decade now, and am getting a PhD in it, I have no clue what this means.
    • They then claim that an unelected health minister is the one we should look to, and accuses me of removing evidence The UK Health Minister has said those who used to argue “trans women are women” should have the “humility” to admit they were not right. He changed his mind when presented with evidence. The evidence is out there but YFNS likes to remove from this encyclopedia.
    • Bizarelly, accuses a number of BLP's of pathologizing trans people because their studies used the term "gender identity disorder"[90]. I need to point out, when those studies where written, that was the name of the diagnosis (which was pathologizing, but was a field-wide issue addressed a decade ago).


Regarding the article of the NLWiki Dutch Protocol being written by a banned editor, it absolutely was. No other editor has disputed that. TP keeps arguing they're not in a way that borders on sealioning[91][92][93][94][95]

  • Here is the AE case that resulted in a near-instant NOTHERE block for that editor, which links to the NLWiki cases resulting in blocks[96]. If you ask me to dig it up, I can find account blocks and IP blocks across multiple wikis and globally for that user.

Their behavior has been really weird. I don't have better words than that for it. I'd support a TBAN for wasting other editors time. I originally thought it wasn't necessary and tried explaining issues to them directly, but was ignored, so now we're here I guess. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Re LLM hallucination: The NHS only gives hormones when there aren't comorbities[97]. So another false claim. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Licks-Rocks

edit

Wasn't really planning to involve myself, but I ended up Warning this user pretty harshly just prior to their first escapade into arbcom because by then a visit to AE was already pretty much unavoidable. Safe to say they haven't listened.. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering (just pinging you in case you forgot about this, which seems to me to be the case) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by DanielRigal

edit

A lot of this looks like an overconfident editor acting like a bull in a china shop, which is normally just grounds for a warning to dial it back a bit, but diffs 5 and 6 are different and more concerning. Those cross the line into unfounded accusations and personal attacks. The use of LLMs is also concerning as LLMs are very good at (intentionally or otherwise) making bad content that looks superficially plausible. Finally, the doubling down when problems are pointed out is definitely not encouraging. I think some sanction is required. I'm not sure how severe it should be but their statement above does not give me much hope that Tiny Particle will be able to edit constructively in this topic area. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Cdjp1

edit

As a note on potential LLM content, the phrase highlighted by YFNS, Yes there is "Gender dysphoria with mental illness comorbidity" - we have a patient for treatment. "Gender dysphoria without mental illness comorbidity" - no taxpayer funded treatment necessary., I would argue isn't generated by an LLM, the structure is much more akin to human written shorthand. While I haven't done a deep dive through Tiny Particle's contributions, having a peruse of their comments around articles highlighted as evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything that causes me concern on LLM usage. I would honestly put down any concerns on the logic of the arguments down to poor reasoning and arguments. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning Tiny Particle

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Diff 6 is obviously inappropriate; YFNS's edit to the AfD was in no way WP:CANVASSing, but that post on the arb case might be. -- asilvering (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Tiny Particle, a number of editors have raised concerns about your use of LLMs, here and elsewhere. Would you comment on that, please? -- asilvering (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Tiny Particle, if you want to ping someone, you need to sign your post.
    As for the rest, well, the text copied into various articles from Dutch Protocol was also clearly an attempt to get around the ongoing AfD, transparently stated as such in the edit summaries. And if we're not looking at LLM hallucinations, we're looking at either pov-pushing or WP:OR indistinguishable from pov-pushing, the most striking example of which came in after this case was filed: [98]. Accordingly, unless another admin jumps in to object in the next 24 hours or so, I will tban from "transgender healthcare, broadly construed". Narrower than GENSEX, but appears to be sufficient in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks @Licks-rocks, I sure did (at least twice). Closing now. -- asilvering (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Request: Add List of The New York Times controversies to Arab-Israeli conflict sanction

edit
Page restriction declined. Newslinger gave reasons to decline, and a single-admin response is generally plenty for a request for page restrictions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Apologies if this is not the right venue for the request, but I would like to request that List of The New York Times controversies be added to the Arab–Israeli conflict sanctioned articles, as there has been a clear revert war on content related to this topic -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

You may request arbitration enforcement at WP:AE. Izno (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion concerning List of The New York Times controversies

edit

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

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning List of The New York Times controversies

edit

Icecold

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Icecold

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Icecold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
GENSEX

Diffs:

Icecold has been just sort of, crashing out at people for the last month over what appears to be the Graham Linehan page, and making no other edits beyond that.

Jul 16 2025 [99] Accuses other editors of being activist editors

Jul 16 2025 [100] ditto

Jul 16 2025 [101] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way

Jul 1 2025 [102] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.

22 May 2025 [103] Aspersions against pretty much every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”

22 May 2025 [104] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [105] ABF, personal attacks

22 May 2025 [106] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [107] Aspersions

22 May 2025 [108] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[109]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[110]


Discussion concerning Icecold

edit

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

Statement by Icecold

edit
Over-length statement as of 26 August
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This is my final statement on this matter, I will not be engaging with this process futher, I've spent far too much time on this arbitration already. I do request an additional 200 words (from my current 800 [111]) because this arbitation has been unarchived and reopened and I need to express my complete opposition to this.

This case was previously archived without formal action. It was unarchived and reopened by an involved party, apparently due to dissatisfaction with the outcome. Reopening closed cases without new evidence or process error is against best practice (see WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:GAME) and undermines procedural fairness. My understanding is that such actions should be taken only by uninvolved administrators for legitimate reasons. @GraziePrego is not an uninvolved party in this arbitration.

@Tamzin suggested a recent comment I made on another user's page was disruptive. The comment was made after this case was archived, and my intent was only to caution another editor to avoid the same difficulties I faced, not to canvass or disrupt. I now recognize such remarks could be misinterpreted and I will avoid them in the future.

I think the worst criticism of me is that I'm NOTHERE. I think this is completely wrong. This account is 19 years old, this isn't a new fly by account here to edit on one topic. I've made small edits on varying different topics, from cleaning up vandalism [112] to adding new news [113] to challenging incorrect facts [114]. I've since made another unrelated edit after this arbitration was originally archived [115]

So to accuse me of NOTHERE because of edits on talk pages about a contentious article is, in my opinion, disingenuous and casting aspersions on me for my reason for being here. People are also trying to criticise how half of my total edits are on the Graham Linehan talk page, I also think is disingenuous. I had proposed a change request and I obviously had to respond to people who were discussing that request. I've never been involved in a contentious discussion before, so it's clearly going to skew my stats. Pointing to this as evidence I'm only here for one thing, is trying to twist the narrative to get a result they want.

People are trying to link me with a now banned editor, to try and make me look guilty by association. I reached out to this editor because we were arguing for the same changes to the article, and I reached out for advice and to help build a consensus as they appeared to be more knowledgeable about Wikipedia process. No, I hadn't studied their edits and realised they were relatively new editor when I spoke to them. Other involved editors also posted on the banned users talk page and no-one is criticising them for doing so. The other accusation I stand by, I do believe, fundamentally in all aspects of life that any accused person deserves a right of reply, even people who have committed the very worse of real life crimes, so the failure of Wikipedia to allow a user to have one is imo a failure of Wikipedia process. I never defended the user from the ban, just their right of reply.

As for editors speculating on what I might do as an attempt to push for a full Wikipedia ban, you cannot punish people for what they might do. The only controversial article I've edited is Graham Linehan and its talk page. Despite what other people have said I will probably do, in the 2 months since my request was rejected, I haven't edited any other page, I haven't edited other GENSEX articles, or any other “culture war” topics.

Then my stalking allegations. I stand by them, it was clear to me that GP was constantly appearing across 3 talk pages to respond to me when they hadn't been tagged [116] [117] [118]. Once or twice could be a fluke, sure, but more, implies they were following me around. Since this arbitration even, GP has also made a number of edits on my talk page, despite me asking them to leave me alone ([119], [120], [121], [122]. The argument that GP may have other friendly editors on their watchlists falls apart when we consider user Gazumpedheit, whom GP clearly disliked. Editors are defending GP and saying it's not stalking, but if I had engaged in similar behaviour to GP, that these editors would be accusing me of stalking. I was accused of all sorts, such as bludgeoning, when all I was doing was responding to people's arguments against my request, which I feel as someone proposing a request I had a duty to do.

I also stand by my comment that at least one editor was editing based on personal feelings and not following the evidence [123] [124]. If I had said something similar, it would have been brought up against me at this arbitration. That editor earlier got banned for admitting they were editing based on a personal feeling not based on the evidence. Reminding people of that editor's comment isn't a personal attack. I apologise for accusing others of arguing in bad faith, my biggest frustration was that I was asked to find various reputable sources to support my claim, I did so (finding more reputable sources for my claim than reputable sources on the article supporting the status quo), and then this was still denied. My proposed change also brought that article more in line with other equivalent articles that use my wording, so I was following precedent, but that was still denied. That says to me that the article wasn't being evidence-led, but guided by people's opinions, against wikipedia policy.

I am now p-banned as a direct result of this arbitration being unarchived and reopened, after originally being closed with no action. Since a sanction has now been imposed in response to the reopened process, despite my record of voluntary disengagement and the fact that no action was taken when this case was originally closed. Given this I believe that further action would be unnecessary and disproportionate. I request that this arbitration now be closed (again), and not revived for a third time.

Off-topic, but replying to people on an arbitration from mobile is absolutely appalling and practially impossible.

Over-length statement as of 18 July
(when SeraphimBlade said "Further responses from you will be removed")
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Firstly I'm quite suprised to have had this notification.

I'm going to answer each accusation each in turn.

> Jul 16 2025 [47] Accuses other editors of being activist editors

> Jul 1 2025 [49] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.

I'm going to answer these both together. I've had editors openly admit that they are editing based on their own feelings:

"Yes, I'm biased against bigots. You'll find that's normal." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290708077

"Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1290695156

So the accusation that I've made is justified when I've had people actively tell me this. I also think that the very existance of this arbitaration to try and shut me down because I'm disagreeing with the editors that hang around that page kinda confirms my point.

> Jul 16 2025 [48] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way

No, i'm accusing someone of gaslighting by saying to a editor that they just need to find reputable sources and they can then get the page changed, because thats what I was told to do, I found these reputable sources (which outnumbered the existing reputable sources that countered it), and then was told my reputable sources didn't matter because editors that follow their own moral compass have already decided what to do.

> 22 May 2025 [50] Aspersions against pretty m>uch every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”

> 22 May 2025 [54] Aspersions

GraziePrego appeared to be stalking me. The full history of what happened is on my talk page, but as a quick summary. If I went to an editors (not GraziePregos) user page to ask a question of the editor, without being tagged GraziePrego would turn up and start getting involved in the discussion. This happened across 2 or 3 different editors talk pages. It felt like my contribution log was being monitored by GraziePrego and then they were jumping in and getting involved in everywhere I posted.

I also was good enough to drop the matter and not persue it at arbitration, something that has clearly ironically been used against me now.

> 22 May 2025 [51] Personal attacks

I had just been accused of taking wikipedia too seriously with an accusation that I was "making a frightful exhibition of yourself." I just pointed out that it seems a bit rich to accuse me of taking wikipedia so seriously when they are a such a prolific editor, and dare say take wikipedia much more seriously than I do. But if that counts as a personal attack, I apologise.

> 22 May 2025 [52] ABF, personal attacks

Thats the same example as the previous one, so I'm not sure what your point is there

> 22 May 2025 [53] Personal attacks

Not a personal attack, I was disagreeing with their editing, made no personal references at all.

> 22 May 2025 [55] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors

Using an LLM isn't against the rules, and I haven't done it since people complained. The reference to attacking other editors is a direct reference to ref 49 which I've tackled there.

So to summerise, I've been told that me saying that certain editors are making moral opinions and not looking at the facts, when at least one editor has ADMITTED that to me, is apparrently wrong.

I've also been told that accusing someone of stalking me, when they appear to be stalking me, constantly appearing on other editors talk pages when I have posted on them, joining in the discussion, is apparrently wrong, which just seems like you're going after the victim rather than judging if the accused actually did have questionable behaviour (which I think they did).

I haven't contributed to any GENSEX article since the last attempt in May, only 3 comments since May on a talk page. I hardly think thats disruptive behaviour.

I have consistently been evidence led in my contributions to attempting to change an article. Like all editors I have a private view, but I am letting the sources guide the language and any attempt to change it. I personally think any kind of topic ban is a heavy handed approach, and I think sends out the wrong message.

Moved from other sections

  • @Seraphimblade:To summerise my response to your points as briefly as I can to keep within the word limit
    I have no problem disageeing with people, but I've had at least one heavily involved editor actually say
    > "Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes."
    then I think my stance that people who have a particular view of it and are not open to evidence changing their mind, is correct. I don't think reminding people of this comment is a personal attack. I also think the context of my comments is important, for example some comments that have been interpreted as personal attacks were in response to comments that could be interpreted as personal attacks against me. It also depends on your definition of a personal attack, posting a laughing emoji at a statement someone made about a page which I think is laughable, I don't think is a personal attack, I'm laughing at the sentiment expressed.
    I also am not happy that because I didn't persue formal action against a user I felt was hounding me, that is somehow a black mark against me - I was trying to stop the situation escalating and avoiding wikipedia drama. The user, to their credit, did stop following me after my comment and so I never persued it.
    I admit that some of my comments may not have been worded in the best way, and some may have been percieved as more agressive than they needed to be. However I stand by the core sentiment of my comments. I don't feel like people have been acting in accordance to wikipedia rules and sentiment.
    For discussion of being banned from things - I think it's a rather futile discussion because I've basically given up from editing any contentious articles on wikipedia because I feel like it's unfortunately being shaped by the views of editors and not being a well sourced neutral encylopedia. Unlike GraziePrego implies, I don't think it's a conspiracy, just that editors who are heavily on one side of the argument are totally dominanting GENSEX articles. My total contribution to Wikipedia since my change request was rejected is 5 edits to the Graham Linehan talk page, contributing to existing discussions and not starting new ones, so I don't think a ban is needed. Icecold (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
    just to add in response @GraziePrego
    >I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors.
    I don't think what one editor believes I *might* do is a good enough reason to ban someone. As I've stated, I believe it's a waste of my time and my time could be used more constructively elsewhere than fighting losing battles. Icecold (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @EvergreenFir:You've admitted I've had 261 edits over 19 years and have contributed to a varied range of articles and then you state I'm not here to build an encyclopedia.. I only tend to get involved if I see something that is wrong, I have a full time job and family and haven't got the time or desire to edit Wikipedia all the time... Icecold (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@Springee:Hey, thanks for the constructive comment
I do have a question about passing aspersions though, in my case the editor in question literally admitted to using their own moral compass to guide their decisions, and I don't think pointing to that comment is passing aspersions as that's what they literally said. As for other editors, I concede that some of my comments may have been a tad aggressive, but I did feel attacked.
I have tried to reach out on user pages, and I feel like I was genuinely trying to improve the article, having picked the most neutral wording I could. I even (as others like to point out) ran it through an LLM in order to make sure it was as palatable to others as I could make it. I spent quite a bit of time researching sources, and went in with good intentions. I have largely stayed away, just making 4 or 5 small comments on the talk page, but not reopening the debate or anything, my comments were mainly to people who would come in with similar suggestions to mine, because I feel like that side of the debate is under represented on Wikipedia.
As for your suggestions, I probably wouldn't propose a ban based on number of edits, only because it's taken me 19 years to reach over 200, so by that time frame it'll take me almost a hundred years to make those edits! Also, to be honest, this whole episode hasn't been a very welcoming or a positive experience, so I'm not in a rush to contribute more, but I'm happy to agree to a time exclusion ban.
Also, sorry just a final question, I don't know how these things work, when you say don't reply in the admin section, just reply in yours, but I'm word limited and I've already gone over the word limit, so I don't understand how I can reply to people there? It will also be out of context won't it? Sorry I'm just not understanding :) I'm happy to move my comments if need be? Icecold (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@GraziePrego you were making personal attacks against me too. You've likened me to a spent firework coming back to earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291620900, said I'm making an exhibition of myself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraziePrego&diff=prev&oldid=1291619966, and you were jumping in on every discussion I had on people's user pages.. Was a bit odd. Icecold (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ I really take issue with your statement - you're attempting to link me to a banned user to imply that I am on wikipedia for the same reasons as that banned user is. I have been on wikipedia for 19 years, and over those 19 years I have made edits on various articles - yes I've not made thousands of edits, but small edits here and there. I reached out to that user (before they were banned) to possibly collaborate because they had been supportive of my request to change, and I thought together we might have been able to create a better request. I then expressed suprise that that user was banned within half an hour of being informed that there was an investigation into them with no right to reply. I stand by those comments - I think that anyone, on either side of any debate has a right to reply, I would defend anyone's right to reply even if I vehemently disagree with them. Icecold (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego I apologise if I crossed the line - but I stand by my comment that you were stalking me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290348015

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HandThatFeeds&diff=prev&oldid=1290535049

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795322

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290795569

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291554802

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TarnishedPath&diff=prev&oldid=1291618219

Are all examples of you replying to me on other users talk pages when you weren't tagged or mentioned. So unless you regularly visit all those editors talk pages, you were clearly following my edits on wikipedia.

As for your other points, we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm way over my word count I think. Icecold (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)


@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ I'm not sure what bigoted statement you're referring to, but just because I reach out to a user that doesn't mean I endorse all their viewpoints? I also didn't realise they hadn't been around for long. I was reaching out because I thought wikipedia encouraged people to reach out to gain consensus? I also fundamentally agree with everyones right to reply. I don't agree with aryan supremecy, but someone accused of advocating it in my opinion has a right to defend themselves. IMO Wikipedia is in the wrong here.


@User:TarnishedPath I don't think that discussion shows that at all - I just wanted to make the page more accurate. I have been a member of wikipedia for 19 years, and since this Graham Linehan debate I haven't gone on to edit any other pages and I've only made 5 contributions to the talk page since. So to state I'm going to go on a culture war quest is clearly an incorrect assumption. And Maybe GraziePrego is on your page a lot, but yours wasn't the only page they commented directly to me on. It felt very much like I was being stalked.

@Icecold: Do not make any further comments or edits in this thread (including in other users' sections or the admin section) without explicit permission from an administrator, or they will be reverted and you may be blocked. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by GraziePrego

edit
  GraziePrego's statement contains 601 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I think everything has been well covered, thank you Snokalok for starting this thread- I was strongly considering starting one myself about Icecold's behaviour. I would only add

  • this, where Icecold casts aspersions and personally attacks User:HandThatFeeds, describing them with " it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful". This is on top of repeatedly casting aspersions about HandThatFeeds in the previous discussion, the diff for that is already linked I think.

My personal feeling is that Icecold isn't going to move on from their previous discussion on Talk:Graham Linehan not going their way, and they are now going to reply in every single discussion that begins on that talk page to complain about a conspiracy of activists silencing their viewpoint. In my opinion, this is disruptive.

(Editing to add a little to my comment) I would be in favour of a GENSEX topic ban for Icecold, as their desire to work against "activist editors" is not just limited to Linehan's page, they believe it's a conspiracy that extends to other GENSEX related articles. I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors. GraziePrego (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my comments based on what Icecold has said so far. I think the fact that they can look at this diff where they called my editing "moronic in the extreme", and said "You argue in bad faith", and Icecold looks at that diff and denies that they were making personal attacks and just commenting on editing? Seriously? I'm not seeing much understanding from Icecold that they was being highly personal with their comments. GraziePrego (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Icecold, which is a personal attack out of "your editing is moronic in the extreme" and pointing out that you were making an exhibition of yourself by:
  • bludgeoning one discussion,
  • going to remonstrate with those who disagreed with you on their talk page,
  • restarting the discussion immediately when it didn't go your way,
  • then going and remonstrating with the closer when that also didn't go your way,
  • and then making a second post on their talk page attacking them when they closed your first attack on them,
  • and then coming to my talk page to accuse me of stalking you?
To me, that is making an exhibition of yourself- and that entirely describes your *editing*, and is not an attack on you personally. I never accused you of behaving in bad faith- you made no secret of accusing everyone who disagreed with you of acting in bad faith, including me. GraziePrego (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I am unarchiving this thread as it rolled into the archives without any decision being taken- it seemed like there was mood for action to be taken. GraziePrego (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Snokalok as this is originally your thread :) GraziePrego (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir@Guerillero@Seraphimblade@Valereee@TarnishedPath@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist@Springee pinging previously involved in the discussion GraziePrego (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
The allegation by @Icecold of forumshopping and gaming is clearly spurious. This thread was archived with *no outcome* by an automatic bot, not closed with a decision taken. The allegations only have weight if this discussion had concluded with no action being taken, and I had freaked out and just created a new thread. That's very different to what has actually happened. GraziePrego (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

edit

Icecold, while your account isn't new, I would suggest based on your limited recent edits you should be granted a bit of wp:ROPE that is frequently given to new users. The path you're on is clearly not working and at best it will result in a tban and possibly an outright block. I think at least an outright block could be avoided if you understand and agree to the following.

  • Do not comment on users (unless the statement is clearly positive). Many online forums draw the line at actually insulting people (exp: Editor Patel is stupid). Wikipedia's CIVIL policy is stricter than that. Suggesting someone's motives are other than trying to improve the content of the encyclopedia is casting aspersions. This means you should not suggest someone is "clearly a conservative/liberal/right/left/up/down/etc". It is of course acceptable to argue an edit might make a reader think the article is biased or that a source is biased and that negatively impacts it's WEIGHT etc. But just don't comment on the other editors as a person. If in doubt I'm sure the admins below, if contacted on their talk page, would help you understand where the limits are if you aren't sure about a comment.
  • Stick to the facts, not emotions. Yeah, sometimes it's naturel to think, "what the Belgium[125] is that person thinking". However, sometimes it's just our own failure to understand their perspective that is the issue. Trying to reach out civilly on user talk pages may not always work but I've been pleased how often it does.
  • Agree to stay away from the Graham Linehan page for a while. I would suggest 6 months or/and until you have say at least 1000 edits. The idea is to work on other parts of Wikipedia to show that you understand how to work with others. If you declare a self imposed tban, and stick with it, that will show that you are trying to avoid issues.

I think it you agree to the above and stick to it you should be able to avoid a formal tban and certainly an outright block. People around here can be quite forgiving if they see that an editor has understood and fixed a problem. Also, one more thing, don't reply in the admin space, just reply in your own section. Springee (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Icecold, unless the admins say you need to reply to the other editors, you don't. Also, it seems that the admins are open to the idea of you stepping away from the Linehan page. It's not clear they would accept a voluntary tban but if you feel you can stick to it I would offer it. Do make sure you understand what broadly construed means - don't edit content about Linehan on other pages. Even if you get an article/tban, it seems like they are otherwise giving you the benefit of the doubt and just a warning to not do the same things in the future. Again, no reason to reply to the other accusations unless admins ask. Springee (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Statement by YFNS (Icecold)

edit

Just want to note they were collaborating with and defending a user blocked for NOTHERE behavior and transphobic rants.WP:AE/Archive353/Gazumpedheit

In May 2025, IceCold went to User talk:Gazumpedheit to say (regarding Graham Linehan) , but it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful. ... So I was reaching out to see if there's some way we can appeal in a way that doesn't allow them to shut down the discussion unilaterally, either through a RFC or DRN? While I would rather not lose the argument, if I feel like I've lost the argument fairly, by consensus, then I can take it, when it's artificially shut down by activist editors then I cannot take that lying down..

  • When the response is Hi @Icecold, welcome to Wikipedia of 2025. I'm afraid I can't have much to offer rather than to ping Void if removed for their advice, as a person who has far greater knowledge of the mechanics of Wiki than I. I would wager that Hand That Feeds owes you an apology to be honest, for their unqualified dismissal of your valid point
  • IC responded But yeah, it's very scary. In both the UK (due to the supreme court judgement) and the US (with Trumps exec order) the overton window is shifting to stopping the shutting down of gender critical viewpoints by calling them transphobic, but yet if you come onto wikipedia (or reddit), you're told that any criticism or worries raised is transphobic and bigoted. I've had gender critical accused of being the same as racism which is pure hyperbole. Wikipedia isn't representing society, and is clearly, on several contenious issues, just representing the opinions of a Wikipedia editors, like like how Reddit moderators enforce their opinions on their subreddits.
  • Gazumhedit once again pinged in VIR
  • IC responded I've just seen they've banned you without seemingly a chance for you to respond and then gloating about it on your talk page. Classy.
  • Followed by arguing Gazumphedit's NOTHERE block was unfair since they couldn't defend themselves [126]

Pretty plainly WP:NOTHERE and seeking to WP:RGW IMHO. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Icecold, you reached out to request help from a user who, it had been noted in the thread they replied to you in, made bigoted comments[127]
An editor who'd made less than 20 edits (not a good idea to ask advice based on that alone) and who you reached out to as the only person who agreed with you. You insulted other editors on their talk page.
And WP supports no right to reply. If somebody came on insisting that the truth of Aryan supremacy would win over the next few years, they'd be blocked. Not given a chance to explain why they said it (because the answer is bigotry). Bigotry is a no-go here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
IC accusing GP of stalking over Gazumpedheit's page is particularly nonsensical. GP edited the page before IC did[128] so was presumably watching it, and gave IC a very neutral clear answer to their question about how blocks work.[129][130] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

edit

The discussion which YFNS referred to at User_talk:Gazumpedheit#Linehan page, indicates that IC is WP:NOTHERE. It appears that they are here to engage in culture war WP:BATTLE. I don't see that a ban from Graham Linehan or from GENSEX more broadly is going to cease the disruption as there is plenty more in Wikipedia that editors can engage in culture war battle over. TarnishedPathtalk 02:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@Icecold, I can tell you for a fact that it is not uncommon for GP to visit my talk page. We have overlapping interests and I would make a bet that they have my talk on their watchlist as I do with them. TarnishedPathtalk 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego and @Icecold, please move your comments to your own sections. TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

edit

If Graham Linehan is the 'only' article, that Icecold has been discussing, in relation to this report? Than as a preventative measure, I'd recommend a 1-month pageblock. This will give an editor enough time to cool off & reflect. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rankersbo

edit

I am new to arbitration so not aware of what actions can be taken. The main issue with Icecold is that they use a passive-aggressive smokescreen of objectivity to try and reframe the debate around their own biases, claiming that neutrality lies around their own position, when it lies far from it. Their constant claims that other editors are "activist" constitute aspersions of bad faith, and use of performative victimhood such as accusations of stalking and cries of "leave me alone" in response to reasonable interactions are a continuation of this behaviour. The comments warning another user of a ban are inferring that the system is at fault rather than the behaviour.

The root does appear to be the Linehan page, but has spilled out onto user talk pages. Comments made in this arbitration and elsewhere on personal talk pages do not show someone who has accepted fault with their attitudes and behaviour with contrition, or who intends to take on board criticism in order to learn and grow.

I note a page block has been made, but am unclear as to whether this is sufficient, and given the nature of the behaviour, if anything beyond that can be done. Rankersbo (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (Halbared)

edit

The Graham Linehan page is blocked and taken care of, GoodDay's suggestion of a 1 month pageblock to allow matters to cool may be a suitable step forward, and perhaps also a two-way interaction ban between grazieprego and Icecold.Halbared (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Icecold

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • So, as appearing in order:
    Diff 1 ([131]), comment on content, not editors. You're certainly free to disagree with other editors, but trying to assign bad motives to them is unacceptable. In many cases, reasonable people can disagree.
    Diff 2 ([132]), same as diff 1.
    Diff 3 ([133]), same as diff 1, and the "laughing" face at the end even more so. While again you are free to disagree with other editors, ridiculing them is totally out of line.
    Diff 4 ([134]), same as diff 1.
    Diff 5 ([135]), expressing frustration in one's own userspace, and users are allowed pretty wide latitude in their own userspace. Not as concerned about this one.
    Diff 6 ([136]), criticizing someone else for contributing a lot is completely inappropriate.
    Diff 7 ([137]), casting aspersions. If Icecold genuinely felt like someone was inappropriately stalking them, they should have brought that up in the appropriate venue, with actual evidence, to request action on that. However, it is not uncommon for editors interested in the same topic area to run into one another at more than one article. While one can tell other editors not to post on their user talk page, one cannot demand that another editor [l]eave me alone in general; that would effectively amount to a unilateral interaction ban.
    Diff 8 ([138]), the nastiness and sarcasm is unacceptable and unnecessary.
    Diff 9 ([139]), talk page discussions are open to participation by any interested editor; again, Icecold may not unilaterally decide that another editor should not participate. And, again, editors interested in the same area may have one another's talk page on their watchlist; that is neither uncommon nor inappropriate.
    Diff 10 ([140]), while the use of LLMs is not strictly forbidden, disruptive behavior is, and in practice, LLM usage often leads to disruption. Icecold has committed to no longer doing this, so as long as they uphold that, this is again not as much of a current concern.
  • All that said, I think Icecold needs, at minimum, to be removed from the subject of Graham Linehan, as they clearly don't have the appropriate temperament to edit on that topic. I'll give Icecold an additional 300 words to explain why that shouldn't just be a GENSEX topic ban overall; as they're relatively new, I'd prefer a narrower restriction if possible, but not if that just means the disruption will get moved elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
  • They are not relatively new. The account is 19 years old. The problem is that of their 261 edits, 100 are from 2025 and 70% of those are on Talk:Graham Linehan. This user is being disruptive and at minimum a partial block from Graham Linehan is needed. I would argue, however, that this is beyond AE and just a case of NOTHERE. I see no evidence that the user is here to improve the encyclopedia. I only see WP:BATTLEGROUND. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'm applying "relatively new" in terms of experience at editing, not account age. There's a lot of fighting going on, certainly, but there seems to be at least some concern for article quality and reliability in with that, so I'm reluctant to give up any hope. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Icecold, you are far over the word limit. Further responses from you will be removed unless you request and receive an extension (which at this point is unlikely), and there is no need for you to reply to everyone who comments here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I'd support a p-block from Linehan, certainly. If the problem recurs in other GENSEX topics, a tban. Icecold, you say I'm not allowed to respond to every allegation about me, due to the word limit. That is incorrect. You have plenty of space if you write short. Spit it out on the page, then edit it down to what's necessary. I could edit out a third of your statement easily. Learning to write short is extremely valuable here. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    (I'd say learning to write concisely is a valuable skill in general, and on Wikipedia in general, not just for AE. Whether or not I'm always good at it is a separate question.) I was thinking as a topic ban from Graham Linehan enforced by p-block but also applying across the project, since a fair bit of the disruptive behavior was on user talk pages and the like related to that subject. I think Icecold needs to step away from that subject entirely until they've gained more editing experience elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Icecold, a topic ban from Lineham means you cannot discuss him -- or anything closely related to him, such as his works -- anywhere on Wikipedia, including in talk pages. The only place you can even mention him is within an appeal of the topic ban. The reasoning behind a topic ban for a very inexperienced user is to prevent you from being disruptive while still giving you the opportunity to learn how to contribute productively by allowing you to edit in other topics.
    I (and most other experienced editors) would advise editing in noncontentious topics while you learn. Arguing about the appropriate use of "gender critical" vs. "anti-transgender" in a BLP is a minefield even for highly experienced editors. And accusing someone of stalking you because they appeared at the talk pages of other editors you both have interacted with is evidence of your lack of experience. That is completely normal. I do it literally every day, and it happens to me regularly. Valereee (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I think a full topic ban from GENSEX would be preferable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Icecold claims "I have voluntarily stayed away from editing controversial pages". Yet only minutes before this thread was unarchived (which is procedurally permissible, to be clear), Icecold posted in support of another user who made the same types of POV-pushing comments regarding Linehan. Above I see a clear consensus for some kind of sanction, with admins on the fence between a narrow or broad TBAN. Given that we now have evidence Icecold saw the need to return to this disruptive editing a month after getting off on a technicality, I'm satisfied that they are not currently able to be a constructive presence in this topic area, and think a GENSEX TBAN is the minimum viable solution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I've pblocked from Linehan and its talk as an individual admin action. No objection to anyone else deciding the make an AE tban from GENSEX, I just didn't see that yet, but felt the pblock was clearly indicated. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @GraziePrego: You are also over your word limit. Do not add anything further (or remove anything to get more words for replies) without permission from an administrator. (And in the future, please ask an administrator to reopen an archived arbitration enforcement thread, even if it was never closed.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Lt.gen.zephyr

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
ZDRX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Lt.gen.zephyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 23 August - Created problematic Battle of Rajasthan (1965) by copy pasting an article created on Simple Wiki by an LTA (banned on English Wiki) just 2 days earlier. [141][142]
  2. 24 August - Wrongly claims that "Mentioned pages doesn't cite the casualties number", when the source supports it.[143]
  3. 24 August - Unnecessarily asking another editor to "Show where it is mentioned" despite getting exact URL to the page number.
  4. 24 August - Restores his misrepresentation of sources and accuses me of not reading the source.
  5. 24 August - Doubles down with his misrepresentation of sources by citing page numbers that don't support his claims.
  6. 24 August - Continues to double down with his claims
  7. 25 August - Still misrepresenting the source. He is still wrongly claiming that "victory claim is mentioned" on this page, when it is not.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[144]


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Lt.gen.zephyr is not addressing the concerns about his edits here and he is not admitting any of his faults. He cites "victories in the deserts of Sindh" (see Thar Desert of Sindh) to be descriptive of "Battle of Rajasthan" when Sindh and Rajasthan are both separate from each other. He is still doubling down with his misrepresentation of sources. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
First of all, it is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the article that The Battle of Rajasthan refers to several clashes and skirmishes fought between Pakistan and India in India's Rajasthan state and Pakistan's Sindh state during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.
If one examines the reference book, under the title Sulemanki and Munabao (A town in Rajasthan) (page number 124-125 in slider), it notes that Pakistan's 51 brigade repulsed the Indian attack on Sindh and subsequently captured Indian town Munabao alongwith the railway station. Just a few lines later it says Their victories in the Sindh were welcomed. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[145]


Discussion concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

edit

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

Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr

edit
  1. 2- Source number 9 (Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed) says Indian killed in action was 3,712 and Pakistani killed in action was 1,500. That's why I had used an range to determine the losses. Later when I was given additional reference, I didn't revert it and let it stay there. Sadly I couldn't access the other source, source number 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World).
  2. 3- Unfortunately the user who had shared me a link didn't take me to the page number. I could only see the book's name, topic and the information about the writer. Later I was provided additional sources by another user, I proposed to add both of the casualties figure. The meesage where I was provided with additional sources to cross verify - [146].

I didn't make a change later as it was proven to me that the numbers for India and Pakistani losses were 3,00 and 3,800 respectively. The sole reason for me to change was the source in the infobox which was accessible said 3,712 and 1,500 whereas the inaccessible source said the other thing. The 9th source is accessible and is mentioned here -> [147]. Another major thing is source 10, (Encyclopedia of Wars) which is used as neutral claim also says APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: India, 900,000; Pakistan, 233,000 CASUALTIES: India, 3,712 killed, 7,638 wounded; Pakistan, 1,500 killed, 4,300 wounded TREATIES: Conference at Tashkent, 1966. Since there are two different numbers, I used a range to clearify it. Another speech I'd like to share regarding source 11 (The Roots and Consequences of 20th-Century Warfare: Conflicts That Shaped the Modern World) is the page cited 267 talks about Byzantine–Ottoman Turk War (1453–1461),(1422) and (1359–1399), not about the 1965 war. So the claim of the 3,000 and 3,800 goes null and void.

  • Edit 1 : Attaching Encyclopedia of Wars's link here for users to verify my statement - [148]
  • Edit 2 : Replaced Encyclopedia of Wars's link as that version was partially available. The page number is 602.

Battle of Rajasthan (1965),

I already mentioned the territorial change's source in the talk page when the user asked. [149]. Anyone may crosscheck by seeing page 256 - (Origins of Political Extremism: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century and Beyond)

About Pakistan victory, it is mentioned in (A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections, 5th Edition) in page 108 (as per slide 125) saying Their victories in the deserts of Sindh were welcomed, which I told earlier in the talk. [150]

I never claimed Bharat Rakhshak to be official publication, I stated they publish official Indian documents in public ___domain. I have changed each and every sources written by Pakistani officers who took part in the war, only one or two are there and that only exists in the article for the information of the commanders in the battle. I hope you'd check the sources before commenting. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by MBlaze Lightning

edit

I share the same observation that Lt.gen.zephyr's conduct in these contentious war articles of late has been troublesome. While this very report remained open at this board, they edit warred on Battle of Hussainiwala, making three reverts in a matter of hours,[151][152][153], to anyhow retain an unreliable source Bharat Rakshak, falsely claiming them to be Indian military official publication and thus an WP:RS, while the website stated in its very self-description that it was run by everyday "military enthusiasts".[154]. They have also posted long blocks of texts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hussainiwala, and continue to clutter the discussion and bludgeon others with same arguments, all the while refusing to get that blogs written by military officials who fought the battle did not constitute WP:SIGCOV according to our policies. Given their present conduct despite this open report, I don't think they plan to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines in this highly contentious topic going forward either. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning Lt.gen.zephyr

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Alaexis

edit
Alaexis is warned to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Alaexis

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 11 Aug 2025 POV pushing and BLP violation at the article Anas al-Sharif, a Palestinian journalist recently killed by the Israeli military. Alaexis changed a sentence from "Since October 2023, Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, refusing to evacuate the north despite repeated Israeli orders and direct threats to his life." to "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza, [...etc]". The only source they added for this claim is an unverified primary source, supposedly an "archived link to a post he made on Telegram".[155]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. No previous sanctions that I'm aware of.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Long time editor in the topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a long time editor in the topic area who is fully aware of our policies regarding NPOV and BLP. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@SilverLocust, I wasn't aware of WP:BLPSPS. The editor who reverted Alaexis' edit cited WP:BLPPRIMARY. Having now read BLPSPS I'm not sure I understand how these two policies don't contradict each other.

Also I didn't rush here seeking sanctions, I first emailed an admin about my concerns and asked how to proceed and was told "I would agree it violates NPOV (specifically DUE) and BLP, as well as OR since it goes beyond straightforward paraphrase. I would suggest bringing the matter to AE." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester, don't you think there's a big difference between Alaexis' edit stating as a fact that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks", compared to how The Times reported it using phrases such as "an Israeli journalist has claimed" and "allegedly"?
Another article in The Times reports it as "Eitan Fischberger, an Israeli journalist and former IDF soldier, also published an archived Telegram post which purported to show Sharif celebrating the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis died."[156] and +972 Magazine reports it as "The message, which appears completely inconsistent with Al-Sharif’s posting history on or after the events of October 7, was deleted soon after it was published. Many of Al-Sharif’s news updates on that day were copied and re-posted from other groups, chat rooms, or news sites. This means that the statement could have been an accidental post that he deleted as soon as he was made aware of it."[157] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde that an important element of this is that the claim was "not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career". What kind of sentence is "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks and became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza [...]"? This is not how RS describe Al-Sharif. RS speak of him how Wikipedia did/does as ~"[Since October 7th 2023,] Al-Sharif became one of the most visible faces reporting on the war in Gaza". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alaexis#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion


Discussion concerning Alaexis

edit

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

Statement by Alaexis

edit

Just saw that there is a complaint against me. I understand that the problem was with using primary sources for a BLP topic (WP:BLPPRIMARY). I did exercise caution in using a primary source: I checked that this comes from the same account that was listed in the article about Al Sharif and looked at other content in that channel. We have RS that cite the same channel without any caveats.

Another issue noted below was with my wording: I wrote that Al Sharif "celebrated" the attacks whereas he wrote heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are. I'm not sure it counts as an interpretation but if this were the main problem then the right way to fix it would've been to replace it with text that follows the source more closely.

I believe that I could've been more careful with sourcing and I'll definitely be more careful with BLP topics from now on.

The contentious content was removed from the article some time ago, and I would have been open to discussing these concerns at the talk page to reach consensus on proper sourcing. Alaexis¿question? 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by LokiTheLiar

edit

As a totally uninvolved editor who stumbled across this filing, I'd like to point out that in addition to the problems Tamzin pointed out with step 6, there are also problems with steps 2 and 5:

The issue with step 2 is that, just like how Alaexis did not cite an interpretation of that Telegraph post, he also didn't cite a source saying that that is in fact the subject's Telegraph account. Now, reliable sources agree it is, but for a similar reason to why interpreting the post himself is bad, not giving a source that proves this account is the subject's account is a BLP violation, and a separate one to the OR interpretation of the post. It's not like it's impossible to impersonate someone on social media: if you want to cite someone's social media for a controversial statement you do in fact have to have some kind of evidence that it's actually them saying that.

The issue with step 5 is IMO much more clear: WP:NONENG says directly that Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people, and this is clearly both, so relying on Google Translate is definitely inappropriate. Now, there's actually no reason necessarily to believe that Alaexis did this: Alaexis used the Arabic directly as the source (which is separately problematic for a BLP since it's hard to verify but that's neither here nor there). But I think that AE very clearly should not use machine translation to support any interpretation of that Telegraph post, positive or negative. We don't know if al-Sharif called anyone "heroes". We know Google Translate says he did, but Google Translate is itself not a reliable source and very easily could have mistranslated a word or missed nuances of language like sarcasm. Loki (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

edit

Incidentally, the statement is a Quranic allusion and partly a direct quote (Q17:5).

If this ends up in the article, then +972's report that it was soon removed and contradicts his other posts should also be there. We don't know the story behind it and shouldn't pretend that we do. A possibility is that he praised it as a battle but removed the post on learning that it was more of a massacre. Zerotalk 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TylerBurden

edit

While I'm not familiar with Alaexis's edits in this topic area, they recently made this edit within WP:RUSUKR creating a section about ″energy infrastructure″ on the Russian invasion of Ukraine consisting mostly of content about Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure or Ukrainians being arrested for sabotage. I think this was a pretty plain violation of WP:NPOV, albeit in a different CTOP, given the fixation on Ukraine being the main culprit of attacks on energy infrastructure despite Russia being widely covered in WP:RS targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly during winter times, their edit mostly focused on attacks damaging Russian energy incomes. TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning Alaexis

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @IOHANNVSVERVS: Which of the following steps, if any, do you disagree with/object to (enough to merit sanctions)?
    1. WP:BLPSPS allows use of social network posts by the subject as sources of material about himself.
    2. Seemingly nobody has contested that https://t.me/anas1020304050 is his Telegram account.
    3. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine is the web archive most frequently used on Wikipedia (and any evidence that one of its archives has ever been faked would be of great interest).
    4. The archived text on "Oct 7" is "9 ساعات ولا زال الأبطال يجوسون خلال الديار يقتلون ويأسرون.. الله الله ما أعظمكم 💚💚💚."
    5. Google Translate's translation of that is "9 hours and the heroes are still roaming the country, killing and capturing... Oh God, how great you are."
    6. Alaexis wrote, citing that post, that "Al-Sharif celebrated the October 7 attacks".
    ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think the difference between celebrated the October 7 attacks versus referred to October 7 attack participants as "heroes" "killing and capturing" is so significant as to require a sanction. (What IOHANNVSVERVS questioned on Alaexis's talk page was just the authenticity of the post, not anything about there being another way to interpret it.)
    It's certainly fair to respond that it should just quote precisely what he said (to avoid interpretation) or that available secondary sources should be included alongside the post (and separately from the refs not related to the post). All I'd support is an informal reminder to do those things. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    Though I said informal reminder, I'm also fine with a warning. Regarding the comments about the +972 piece's (mistaken) assertion that it was deleted soon after, the post was archived 50 days later and then again earlier this year, so the deletion was sometime between this April and August. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The edits in question, about Sharif's telegram account and his celebration of October 7 appear to have been previously in the article here where they were cited to The Times, a reliable source. "Anas Al-Sharif celebrated the protagonists of the October 7 terrorist attacks as “heroes” while the pogrom was under way, an Israeli journalist has claimed." The same The Times source also reiterates many of the same claims found in the Times of Israel source which details the IDF's claims and evidence of Sharif's status as an actively-paid Hamas rocket-launching team commander -- claims which have been scrubbed from the article in the past two weeks. So, I'm struggling to see how this is UNDUE, insignificant, or not published by a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    @IOHANNVSVERVS: Quibbling over the exact wordsmithing is one thing, but that didn't happen here, did it? From what I can tell the edits were reverted wholesale, at least twice. If the content would have been acceptable with some better variation of including the word "alleged" and noting that the Times is reiterating another journalist, that raises the natural follow-up question of "why that didn't happen and why this was escalated to AE instead." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, this is a conduct noticeboard; but this is not a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute in which very little attempt has been made to seriously justify any claims of misconduct nor do there appear to have been significant attempts to resolve this directly with the user in question. We don't get to have it both ways -- either this is not subject matter for this forum in the first place (in which case it should be summarily closed), or it is and the substance of the edits in question are relevant to the dispute. The WP:PRIMARY argument holds zero weight with me when there had been pre-existing attempts to include the same information sourced to perennially reliable secondary sources, and it was summarily removed. Come on, we're supposed to be better than that kind of procedural nitpicking, something that resembles the Committee's recent finding that "Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia." Do you think that sanctioning Alaexis for this on the basis of WP:PRIMARY demonstrates the degree of perspective that satisfies the greater good of the encyclopedia when we *know* that non-primary sources use the exact wording in question and the only underlying issue is around categorizing it as an allegation? I certainly don't. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    A serious BLP violation doesn't stop being a serious BLP violation just because there's a way to make a similar edit that wouldn't be a BLP violation. If there weren't the case, we'd never be able to sanction anyone who overstates the extent of a felon's crimes or pushes some gossipy stuff that happens to be true. That's not procedural nitpicking or objectively minor. That is a major aspect of BLP enforcement. There's two questions for us to answer here: 1) Did Alaexis introduce policy-violating content to an article? 2) Is a sanction necessary to prevent them from doing that again? On (1), the answer is straightforwardly yes. On (2), I reserve judgment pending response from Alaexis. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    Except the subject is dead, and was confirmed dead by reliable sources at the time the edit was made, and this is a further reason why WP:BPD is bad policy, because it states a general rule that Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. but then goes on to state that The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. So how long does it extend here and where/when was that decided vis-a-vis this article? An indefinite, indeterminate period providing zero guidance as to how that period should be calculated as an exception to a general rule that it would not apply, is too vague to reasonably be grounds to sanction an editor IMO.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    You're welcome to start another RfC on the wording of BDP; I closed the most recent one, which restored the current wording after a previous undiscussed weakening of the rule. But just as it isn't AE's place to decide whether Alaexis is on the right side of the content dispute, it isn't AE's place to rewrite policy. There is no ambiguity as to whether BDP, as currently written, extends BLP to Anas Al-Sharif, who had been dead for all of a day at the time the edit was made. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I was the one who suggested that Iohannvs file here. In my view, the answer to SilverLocust's question is point 6: It's an editorialization—a plausible editorialization, perhaps, but still an editorialization—and thus violates WP:PRIMARY (Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.) and WP:BLPSOURCES. Pace Swatjester, it makes no difference to me whether other sources exist that would support including that sentence, because Alaexis didn't cite those sources. This is a conduct noticeboard, not a content noticeboard, and if Alaexis does not understanding the issue with saying a recently deceased person celebrated the October 7 attacks sourced only to their own analysis of a social media post he made, that is a matter that needs to be addressed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • We require editors writing about BLPs to rely on secondary sources to characterize them, not on their own analyses of the subject's own words. If secondary sources attribute a position to this person, add that by all means, but OR from a telegram channel? This is basic stuff: I would call this a more clear-cut NPOV violation than is usually brought to this board. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Swatjester and SilverLocust: The subject's recent death is secondary. Interpreting a person's own words to paint them in a negative light in a lead sentence that was about their career, not their views, is a violation of NOR and NPOV. We've been over this many times with other subjects with a penchant for controversial soundbytes. Secondary sources are required for interpretive statements, and I'm surprised admins think otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that the BLP policy applies. I'm not aware of an alternative reading of those words having been offered by any source or editor (saying those words do not celebrate participants (i.e., "extol or honour"), namely as الأبطال (the heroes)), and another reading isn't obvious to me, which is why I don't see it as sanctionable interpretation absent reason one should have known that it wasn't permissible description but rather just one possible interpretation. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    It still requires editorial interpretation, no matter how obvious, and it was not presented as an isolated statement about his views, but as a negative veneer for his career, in the article's lead. It is a long-standing principle of NPOV that we do not interpret primary sources in this way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Alaexis' response here satisfies me that they understand the issues with their edit. I'd support closing this with a logged warning to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
    I would support such a closure. The response misses some things: the key point here is not verifiability, it's neutrality and due weight. I don't think people realize how easy it would be to construct an unfavorable biography of anyone who's active by cherry picking their social media content. But it's sufficiently reflective and conciliatory that nothing further would be justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Viceskeeni2

edit

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user
Viceskeeni2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
Topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed
(imposed at AN § Disruptive editing of Viceskeeni2, logged at AEL § User sanctions (AA))
Administrator imposing the sanction
Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Notification diff

Statement by Viceskeeni2

edit

I hereby ask the Arbitration committee to please lift the sanctions put on me in March of 2025, which restrict me from editing on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the sanctions, I have made approximately 385 edits to Wikipedia in various topics, contributed to various topic areas, made 4 articles (Sawt Safir al-Bulbul, Jabal e-Malaika, Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf, Ya Ali (phrase)), greatly contributed to 3 articles (2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, Abu Fanous, Ya Ali), gotten into 0 problems or conflicts (atleast I cannot remember getting into any, if I have done so please correct me), become more mature over the last 5 months and gained more knowledge in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and other topic areas. I genuinely regret past mistakes and promise to try not to repeat those mistakes, e.g. when I mistakenly edited on GS/AA article and then didn't contest the sanctions, knowing I did a mistake and will have to pay for it. I ask you to please lift the sanctions on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the conflict, because I have been on sanctions in connection to these 2 countries for almost a year now and have learnt from my mistakes, promising to become a better editor now and in the future. I would be very happy if the committee accepts this request, have a nice day. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

edit

I'm generally well-inclined to the written content of the request (demotion of Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf to draftspace notwithstanding as notability/translations were not related to the issues for the original block/ban), but asked Viceskeeni2 that they bring it here given that there's a longer history of related blocks and bans that I think is worth considering before moving forward. My understanding is that the full chronology of prior sanctions is:

  • 28 August 2024 -- Blocked by me for 31 hours for GS/AA violations
  • 6 September 2024 -- Blocked by me, indefinitely, for further GS/AA violations, battleground attitude, and noting quality issues with edits outside GS/AA
  • 19 November 2024 -- Unblocked by HouseBlaster with a conditional topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, both individually and the conflict.
  • 18 February 2025 -- Tban partially lifted by HouseBlaster, now applies only to the conflict, not the two countries individually.
  • 20 March 2025 -- Tban from Armenia and Azerbaijan individually reimposed by me, following report of violations of the conflict-only tban at AN (Special:Diff/1281448939#Disruptive_editing_of_Viceskeeni2).

My overall impression is that the latest appeal says the right things, and there don't appear to have been signs of disruption since the last ban. I am a bit concerned, however, by the repeated problems with prior iterations of the tbans, which, in line with my assessment at the time of the 6 September 2024 block, would seem to indicate a persistent battleground attitude towards this conflict. Reviewing all of this now, I do also note that on 1 March 2025, while still facing a tban from the conflict, Viceskeeni2 added a custom userbox to their userpage expressing This user opposes ethnic separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh... and most of the rest of the post-Soviet separatist conflicts, which seems like another straightforward topic ban violation that went unnoticed and which is still on their userpage at the moment (the contraposition of opposing these "separatist conflicts" while supporting Chechen and Turkestan independence is left as an exercise to the reader I guess). signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought editing on userpages and sandboxes doesn't have anything to do with topic bans as they're not public articles or areas. If it actually violates the ban, I will immediately remove it and apologize for my mistake. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

edit

Statement by (involved editor 2)

edit

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Viceskeeni2

edit

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

edit

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

edit

Result of the appeal by Viceskeeni2

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CorbieVreccan/Admin_Toolbox&oldid=1279217572"