Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Administrators' notice board)
Latest comment: 24 minutes ago by Hidaya Chemmad in topic Request for Restoration and Merging of Deleted Articles and Wikidata Items – Honoring Sheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    edit
    XFD backlog
    V May Jun Jul Aug Total
    CfD 0 0 6 33 39
    TfD 0 0 2 13 15
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 2 2
    RfD 0 0 0 60 60
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


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

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago96 comments41 people in discussion
    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)Reply

    Notified: [1]

    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)Reply

    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)Reply

    [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)Reply

    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)Reply
      • 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)Reply
      • Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[2], 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • Overturn. No policy-based rationale for unilaterally voiding the previous RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply

    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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I agree with everything HB has said. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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)Reply
    • @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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      "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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      I was repsonding to your assertion that Commonwealthers writ large care about these things. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • Overturn. HouseBlaster and The Bushranger are correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply

    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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    What is PAG is an acronym for? Gecko G (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    Closes should be based on the strength of the argument, not hyperbole. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply

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

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago26 comments9 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    • Previous appeal in February. —Cryptic 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      More or less where I stand too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      • User:Jax 0677/Histmerge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        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)Reply
        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)Reply
        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)Reply
        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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply

    User:Lorraine Crane

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    @フランベ, why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Lorraine Crane first? Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply

    RfC closure on Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago51 comments24 people in discussion
    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)Reply
    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)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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,[3] 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)Reply
    ...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)Reply
    What purpose does the word "history" serve if it includes the present day? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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 ([4]). 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)Reply
    Dionysodorus mentions that the RfC (started 15 July) was once inappropriately closed under 12 days on 27 July,[5] which was then reopened on 3 August[6] and was closed again by 16 August.[7] 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply

    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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      RfCs are not relisted. This isn't AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • Endorse as the close is perfectly fine and judges the consensus reasonably well. JavaHurricane 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply

    Involved (Shubhanshu Shukla)

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

    Disruptive user don’t accept to follow Wikipedia standards

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    @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)Reply
    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” [[8]][[9]] even though it had already been released, and describing reviews as “favorable” [[10]] 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)Reply

    No longer require new pages reviewer permission

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

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

    Giving EC to a bot

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago19 comments5 people in discussion
    Resolved. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

      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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=1307778826 GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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)Reply
    Ah, thanks for the catch. I didn't grant it editprotected. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    Fair enough —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 15:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block from Edit

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    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)Reply
    Which looks to be tied to 21 edits that were mostly talk page spam. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Star Egejuru and SuperMarioMan: I've created the account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks Pal! Star Egejuru (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Request for revision deletion

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    Rev-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

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

    Inactive mentors

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
    Done * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

    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)Reply
    See WT:Growth Team features#Mentor inactivity threshold. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Appealing "temporary" indefinite block

    edit
    Latest comment: 10 hours ago10 comments5 people in discussion
    Unblocked by Voorts * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    Thank you for clarifying. What about Special:Diff/1292754088/1293772349? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    creating Talk:Niggas in Paris/GA2

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

    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)Reply

      Resolved

    An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Ergo Sum

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      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)Reply

    Unblock/unban request from Rosenborg BK Fan

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago15 comments7 people in discussion
    WITHDRAWN
    Rosenborg BK Fan (talk · contribs) has withdrawn his unban request. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

    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)Reply

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

    • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • Oppose per Voorts; this editor is playing the victim card and it doesn't sit well. GiantSnowman 20:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply

    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)Reply

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

    A recall petition has passed

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      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)Reply

    Questioning the suitability of Gheus to be an AfC reviewer

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion
    Withdrawn by TheJoyfulTentmaker. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)Reply

    The article is written in a promotional manner. I would have declined it also, regardless of notablity. TarnishedPathtalk 03:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 ([11]) - 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Script block

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    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)Reply
    Thanks, @Lectonar. Yes, I checked. Guillaumrs (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Alors, j'ai aucune idée :)...a glitch perhaps Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    edit
    Latest comment: 24 minutes ago10 comments6 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply

    User: Swatjester

    edit
    Latest comment: 48 minutes ago16 comments5 people in discussion

    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)Reply

    @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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply

    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)Reply

    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply

    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)Reply

    Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 hour ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    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)Reply

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1308747112"