Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
V	Jan	Total
CfD	83	83
TfD	12	12
MfD	5	5
FfD	48	48
RfD	96	96
AfD	0	0

WMF research on admins

There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 1 through 18 are the summary? That report needs a summary of the summary. Lol. Anyway, if you open it in a PDF viewer and you open the navigation sidebar that shows all the bookmarks/headings, the heading names are a pretty decent summary of the key findings. For future reports, a table of contents might be a good way to summarize things as well. Will try to get some time to review this in more detail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Wikipedia. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.

On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this line 1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured. That was my experience! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was intrigued by the decision of the Portuguese Wikipedia to allow rollbackers to block vandals for up to 24 hours.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure request for ITN RfC

CASE CLOSED

Case is cerrado. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick skim of it makes it seem like it may be better closed by a panel. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of dedicated venue to request panel closes? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu - Wikipedia:Closure requests ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but a request to close that RfC has been sitting there for 3 months. Is there a special page to request panel closes? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... with panel, if they'd like to announce themselves here they can :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youse! Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reverse partial blocks are coming to MediaWiki!

Hi! I’m excited to announce a new feature—reverse partial blocks—which I developed for the admin toolkit and is coming soon to MediaWiki core. I’m posting here to gather feedback, discuss usage policy, and answer any questions. I think it's important for developers to communicate with the community (in this case Admins) effected by new changes or features so we can work together to find out the best way to implement them.

What is it?

Reverse partial blocks allow admins to block a user sitewide but exempt specific pages or namespaces. This was based on a wish from Barkeep49 and implemented in MediaWiki. (Note: TPA access works separately, based on the "allow user to edit their own talk page" option on Special:Block)

The code is complete, passes all tests, and is waiting for approval from WMF Trust and Safety. You can track progress and view the code here on Gerrit. Once approved, it will go live on English Wikipedia the following Thursday.

Try it out

I’ve set up a Patch Demo instance where you can preview the new features, including the updated Special:BlockList and Special:Block interfaces. Log in with admin username Patch Demo and password patchdemo1 to experiment with reverse partial blocks, but please reset block settings to how you found them once you've finished, to allow others to experiment. (Note: if you're a wannabe admin or just curious about how the tools look, you can use this account as well to test them out).

To see how it works for a reverse-partially-blocked user, log in as Mallory (without TPA or account creation, editing only allowed on their "ArbCom case" page) with the same password.

Your feedback

If you could change anything about this feature, what would you do? (I will implement any wanted suggestions!)

If you don’t have time to try it, what would you expect from a feature like this? When do you think it’s appropriate to use, and when is it not?

I’m happy to answer any questions about how it works and would love to hear your thoughts!

Thanks for all the great work you do as admins! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're naively optimistic about the code review process - it's more likely in my opinion that this will languish unreviewed for months. Cool idea, and thanks for coding it up, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, I was just so excited to have actually coded a new feature! Maybe it will be approved in time for the 1.44 release in mid-April but we will have to see. Thank you for helping me with rechecks! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MolecularPilot, I'm curious for the process of this coming together. Is there a discussion page you can point to that followed the progress of this admin tool? It seems to come out of nowhere but maybe I don't have the right pages on my Watchlist. Except for obvious vandals, I don't do a lot of blocking so I don't know how much this feature will impact the work that I do here. I'll have to consider this a bit more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see phab:T27400, that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope it can be useful to you admins once it gets approved and merged. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting feature. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the message at [1], unless I'm missing something, it seems to be saying he (she?) is ONLY prevented from editing the Arbcom page, as opposed to being blocked sitewide except for the ArbCom page. "blocking the page ArbCom/Cases/Mallory with an expiration time of indefinite". Doesn't that sound like they can't edit their ArbCom page but can edit anything else? --B (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying it and providing this feedback! Yeah, I totally agree and am fixing the log message now :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I feel like this feature could be very useful. However, the block log message seems kind of counter-intuitive and inaccurate because it is still the standard P-block message, only a "reverse" label added to it. This could create confusion because it is still literally worded "blocked (user) from editing the page (page title)... (reverse)". This still implies that the user is blocked from editing those specific pages, when in reality the user is blocked from editing every other page except those pages, so this message isn't really that much accurate. I think something along the lines of "with the exception of pages (pages)" could work. User3749 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mallory" is an autogenerated account by PatchDemo, I'm not quite sure about their gender lol, but yeah, the log message does need improvement, thank you for your time in trying it out and bringing that up (with a perfect suggestion for the new message). I'm fixing the code now. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on feedback: I've successfully improved log messages as requested (thanks for the feedback!), they look like the below:

Log message
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
02:36, 25 January 2025 Admin (talk\|contribs\|block) changed block settings for MolecularPilot (talk\|contribs) blocking them sitewide except for the page ArbCom/Cases/MolecularPilot with an expiration time of 1 week (autoblock disabled) (Blocking with this summary) (unblock\|change block)

Additionally, someone noted on the Patch Demo wiki that there was a bug with revoking TPA but using a reverse partial block. This has now been resolved, it is possible to revoke TPA but use the new feature to still allow them to edit some pages.

This isn't avaliable on the Patch Demo or gerrit yet, but will be soon. Thank you to everyone for their feedback! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that was me testing the feature, I needed it because I run a bunch of other MediaWiki wikis (mostly Miraheze). Should I also note, that once I tried reverse partial blocking for a specific page while also blocking account creation, and while logged in as Mallory I don't think I was actually prevented from creating accounts (I didn't actually try to create one but I was able to access Special:CreateAccount which normally should not happen) which might be an issue caused by this. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for helping to find bugs! Yesterday I submitted the new code (with better log messages, fixed TPA, rpbs via the API) to gerrit and today I updated the patch demo instance. I tested it (locally and on patch demo) and it seems the behaviour is that you can go to Special:CreateAccount and fill out all the fields etc. but actually pressing submit will tell you "you are blocked from doing this", and it's the same with regular old partial blocks w/o account creation. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a terminology note: rather than calling it reverse partial blocks, which to me feels like I have to mentally invert the set of affected pages a couple of times, perhaps the feature could be called something like block exceptions? isaacl (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Admin dashboard

Resolved. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just noticed that "Administrator instructions" at the top right of Template:Admin dashboard is a redlink. Could someone with template editing experience please fix it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we perhaps just remove the link as there's not really much dashboard-specific to explain while each of the noticeboards has its own instructions? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has to do with part of the Admin dashboard/rfarfp section. Not sure how to fix it though. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's its purpose? Giant Snowman 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be coming from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Header. Perhaps someone more skilled in the art of template-fu can help. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the source @Jake Wartenberg. If you remove the portion for perms and hit preview then the red link disappears, but the same doesn't have when removing the AIV bits. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. So, it has to be one of the pages transcluded by Template:Admin dashboard/rfarfp. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the {{Floating link}} at in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav needs an <onlyinclude> to ensure it's only displayed on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and not anywhere else that page gets transcluded to. Nthep (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posted to VPT. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody may have edited something since this discussion started because I cannot see what this is about. I see no "Administrator instructions", red or blue, at Template:Admin dashboard. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav was suggested as the cause but it's not currently transcluded there. It does make an "Administrator instructions" link but it's blue on every page [2] where it's currently transcluded. It's only red on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav itself but that page does not appear to be meant for direct viewing. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is resolved; thanks for pointing that out. Not sure who fixed it or how, though. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was broken 24 January by removing <noinclude> in [3] and fixed 26 January in [4] by restoring it – unless Template:Admin dashboard was transcluding another page which passed on a transclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Large volume of nonempty C1-tagged categories

Typical process, not an issue that needs addressing. Star Mississippi 02:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

In Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, there is a long list of year categories, mostly for crimes, that have the {{db-c1}} tag, even though they are nonempty. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they will be untagged. This happens fairly regularly that categories are only temporarily empty. They were empty when they were tagged and now they are not. They won't be deleted, they'll just have the tags removed, either by me or another editor who regularly untags categories when this happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caste-based POV pushing user

Abhimanyu200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User @Abhimanyu200 makes edits to push Rajput POVs and remove references to the Jat caste on articles without sources.

Here are the diffs of Rajput edits:

1) [5]

2) [6]

3) [7]

4) [8]

Here are diffs of Jat edits:

1) [9]

2) [10]

They also make a veiled threat in the following edit summary: [11] , saying "The language used here was unethical are full of propaganda. Avoid using such language or be careful." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Evidently a caste-warrior with a clear pattern to their edits who is not productively contributing to the Wikipedia project. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like these editing patterns happen all of the time. Is there a sockmaster who edits in this style? I'm not adept at keeping identities straight but it seems like we've seen this before on a regular basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz - There are a few sockmasters who disrupt pages with caste-related POV pushing. I've noticed that usually a sockmaster will promote a particular caste, such as by claiming historical/religious figures belonged to that caste, certain dynasties/kingdoms were ruled by a particular caste, etc (almost always whilst not using any sources or unreliable ones and often removing pre-existing reliable sources/content in the process of doing so). It tends to happen a lot on South Asian-related articles. I have had experience dealing with a few sockmasters related to the above the past few years. You can usually identify their socks pretty easily though as they edit the same kind of articles, have their own style of writing, or make articles promoting narratives or making claims in-regards to a single, particular caste. For example, for the reported account above this is related to Rajputs, whilst other sockmasters I know of make edits about Jats, Brahmins, [insert caste here], respectively. The account I reported might be a sock. Perhaps someone can chime-in if they know of any sockmasters who make Rajput-related POV edits. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, MaplesyrupSushi. I was hoping that you might recognize them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz - Unfortunately I don’t recognize any sockmasters that might be connected to the above account. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has the patience may search the sockpuppet archive. For example, the last twenty reports containing the word 'Rajput' go back to August 2024. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston - Would the best course of action to be to submit a SPI there? Thank you. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that User:Abhimanyu200 is engaged in caste POV-pushing, you could open a complaint on his talk page and give some examples. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Achar Sva editing restriction violation

Achar Sva has been indefinitely blocked from Article space by Cullen328. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Achar Sva has had a community-imposed editing restriction for just over two years prohibiting their repeated removal of sourced content from articles. With this edit, they have broken their restriction again after being warned about a violation last month and blocked for numerous violations in 2023. I don't believe this editor is capable of upholding the requirements of their restriction nor adhering to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, can you provide a link to the discussion where this restriction was imposed? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you buried the notification of this discussion in messages on their talk page from December where they are unlikely to even notice it. Could you post it at the bottom of their user talk page, with its own header? I think this is appropriate for you as the editor who is bringing the complaint. They should be properly notified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Appears to be here: [12] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger, thank you. I'm trying to encourage editors to post all of the relevant diffs and links to discussions when they post a complaint. But thank you for digging this up for them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I provided several links, including this one, where the restriction and ANI permalink were immediately visible. I also fulfilled the AN notice requirement. I've observed editors get criticized for making reports with too many relevant links or for opening new talk page sections, so I kept things brief and concise. If my report precluded editors without the time for a second click, I'm ok with that. Thank you for your interest in the matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I think Pbritti is right, I can't avoid deleting content while editing - but who can? I honestly believe my edits improve the encyclopedia, and although I may be wrong about that, I'd like to keep contributing. In other words, the restriction is impossible - no other editor is asked never to delete anything. Can we have this reviewed? Achar Sva (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't avoid deleting content while editing - but who can? Literally every other editor on the project. It's a simple restriction and one you have deliberately broken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you are not directed to never delete anything. It's not to remove content AGAIN after you remove it and it is restored by another editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, Achar Sva, your comment makes it sound like you inadvertently made some minor content deletion while significantly modifying the article. But at least in the example cited [13] that's not what happened. The sole thing you did with that edit was remove sourced content. Your edit summary makes it clear you're aware that you're removing content. You seem to be disputing if it's properly sourced, but the way to deal with that is to take it to the talk page, if not before you attempted that change, at least after you had attempted it and been reverted. It wasn't to try and edit war your change into the article. If you're so sure your changes are an improvement, why are you afraid or at least unwilling to convince the community of that on the talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think if this editor is capable of abiding by the editing restriction placed on him. His above messages confirm that. Lorstaking (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question at this point, Achar Sva, is: Can you comply with your editing restriction? If the answer is "no", then it may be necessary to block you from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is obviously "no". Prior to the previous block, I observed them make three violations that were each after a posted notice reminding them of the restriction. After the violations last month, I offered to help Achar Sva with the process to appeal the restriction. In blatant cases of violating active editing restrictions multiple time, remedies should be swift. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a significant lack of restraint by the editor to comply. After the editing restriction was imposed by the community in January of 2023, he was blocked for violating it in just a few months in August of 2023. Then even after that, in November of 2023, he violated the restriction yet again and he self declared he was not longer under the indefinite block [14], for which he had to be reminded of that he was. A year later in 2024, he has violated the restriction multiple times causing disruptive editing (past few months). With any restrictions, there should have zero violations. This looks like continual disruptive behavior that restrictions and even temporary blocks will not remedy them. desmay (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Achar Sva's repeated failure to comply with their logged editing restriction, I have indefinitely blocked the editor from editing Wikipedia article space. They are free to make well-referenced Edit requests and to participate constructively on article talk pages and other areas of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just composed a message agreeing with everyone apart from Achar Sva, but edit conflicted with Cullen's imposition of the block, with which I also agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have posted your message anyway, Phil Bridger. We all might have learned something from it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lexa the king

Editor partially blocked for a week from 2025 Belarusian presidential election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lexa the king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continues to add unsourced highly dubious information into 2025 Belarusian presidential election - Account was seemingly created solely to edit this article. I have suspicions the account is trying to edit the article to make Lukashenko look better (such as claiming a banned opposition party had "54%" approval for him). When asked to provide a source for these edits, user has ignored and continued to re-add removed information, despite reverts by me and other editors. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 03:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have diffs supporting this accusation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its basically their entire edit history. At one point they appear to be feigning dumb [15] despite being previously warned on their talk page. Borgenland (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially blocked the user so they are unable to edit the article for a week. Let me know if there are further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revocation of account creator permission (Graham87)

Permission removed by user request. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please remove my account creator permission; I don't need it any more. I was granted it after an RFC so I could work on matching accounts from the August 2001 database dump with modern users. I've since been going through the list of August 2001 account names/hostnames alphabetically and X98A3A3B7.pix.aol.com was the last one that needed this sort of operation. I won't be needing to create accounts like this in the foreseeable future. There's still a lot of Wiki-archaeology work to do though; that'll never end. I received the account-creator permission from a Wikipedia namespace page so I thought it'd be best to ask for it to be removed in a similar manner, rather than somewhere like my user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. Graham87 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original author of Lauren Handy refusing to allow new edits without their approval

Lauren Handy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, User:Slugger O'Toole was the original author of the Lauren Handy article. Handy is an anti-abortion activist so this is a contentious topic. Slugger wrote this article in a very biased manner, clearly in agreement with Handy's cause. Much of what Slugger has included is cited from a Catholic media organization, which is clearly a biased and low quality source for this topic. Slugger has written the article with terms specifically discouraged by MOS:NEO such as 'abortionist' and has presented libelous claims made by the activist as though they are a statement of fact, despite these claims being disputed by other parties. WP:BLP makes it clear that we must not include potentially libelous and/or unverifiable statements and that we must use high quality unbiased sources. Handy was recently in the news, and when I went to her page, I noticed that the article was highly biased, and so I put a tag on the most problematic section inviting users to join in the discussion on the talk page, before I made any edits. Because of the news, the pageviews spiked, and so the article was getting a lot of attention. Multiple users chimed in an concurred that the article was poorly written. Slugger then casted WP:ASPERSIONS, accusing the other users of being my sockpuppets and attempted to weaponize the reporting system against me, opening a sockpuppet investigation. The investigation was completed in my favor and I was cleared of these accusations. I have made multiple attempts, as has another user, to bring the article in line with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, heavily citing policy and rationale as to the reason for my edits. Slugger has been very possessive and continually reverted all changes anyone makes to the article, claiming that consensus must be obtained, despite consensus already being against them. Slugger also largely does not engage on the talk page and provide reasoning/ WP:ONUS for their edits after reverts and calls for consensus building, i.e., WP:STONEWALL. FactsheetPete (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to notify them of the existence of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to their talk page FactsheetPete (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if you can link some diffs so we can easily see each edit you've talked about. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recent history of the article has largely just been Slugger and I, but here is the article's state after a few consecutive edits from the original author (Slugger): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&oldid=1186423354

Here is my first edit to the article, showing that I added only a tag and what the state of the article was when I found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1271406634

There was quite the series of edits after this, but here was the final state I left it in after my efforts to bring it in line with policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&oldid=1272082860

Here is Slugger undoing all of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1272223301 FactsheetPete (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a whole bunch of brand-new completely independent accounts found that talk page at the exact same time! That seems perfectly innocent. Can I just go ahead and block FactsheetPete for insulting our intelligence (or, more policy-based, sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry and edit warring)? Or do I need to wait for other comments? p.s. no opinion on the article itself, it could very well need more attention. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfair to accuse me of sockpuppeting. The pageviews clearly show the article gained a lot of increased traffic recently. Handy was pardoned by the president of the US and all over the news last week. I also recently linked to her page from List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1271404292

Additionally I had added a tag on the Activism section inviting others to come discuss WP:NPOV issues on the talk page, so naturally the talk page would get more traffic too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1271406634

I was proven innocent of sockpuppeting after Slugger opened an investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FactsheetPete

Please review the actual substance of the edits and you will see that I have gone to great lengths to try to make this article compliant while Slugger's version clearly is not. FactsheetPete (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The Checkuser investigation found that the accounts weren't connected to each other technically, as in they're not the exact same person using the same IP. Now the question is, are you violating WP:MEAT? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would I do that! I'm not that invested in this. I just saw a bad article and tried to fix it. I didn't coordinate with anyone FactsheetPete (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were not proven innocent. The SPI notes (and common sense agrees) that this could be meatpuppetry. I'm certain it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for you to be certain on that. I didn't coordinate with anyone. Dang, I didn't expect such hostility! I normally don't ever participate in editing Wikipedia, just got interested in editing and saw a bad article and tried my best to make it right. If you don't care about neutrality and keeping Wikipedia high quality then so be it! I was just trying to make things right. This whole experience has soured me on Wikipedia anyways and I think I will go back to Britannica, so I am completely detached from the outcome at this point. Do what you may. FactsheetPete (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👌 Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually astonished at your overall hostility on the matter, including going from one talk page warning to an ANI report. But furthermore it also raises eyebrows when you exhibit such extremely versed knowledge of Wikipedia WP:PG and mastery of editing tools. Those are things most people stumble over greatly their first year or more of editing. TiggerJay (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a background in software and web design, so the editing tools stuff comes naturally. I spent many hours looking through policy to justify my edits as I was being met with a lot of resistance and wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing and being a good contributor. Maybe I could have been more cool headed, you're right. Maybe there were alternative resolution pathways I could have taken that I am not familiar with. I love(d) Wikipedia as a long time reader and just wanted to help where I saw something that was not right. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that creating things like Eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly and List of proclamations by Donald Trump (2025) for a brand new user seems simply bizarre for me. Especially when they created with the precision that you simply don't see in new users. Along with your other editing behavior quacks like a duck. TiggerJay (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you do software design this stuff is a cakewalk. And I mostly just copied and pasted those from similar articles and make a few small tweaks. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You copied and pasted them? I don't see attribution in the edit history, so there is a bit of a snag here. Do you recall which pages you copied content from and what dates? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactsheetPete: See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details about how to copy within Wikipedia. (We don't expect everybody to know all the rules.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V @Hawkeye7 You're both beating a dead horse. FactsheetPete has already been chased away for good. Whether you think that's a good thing is up to you. guninvalid (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had responded to them four minutes after they had posted, but I guess that I was a day late.

Not necessarily a dead horse as we need to fix those pages attribution. Was hopefully they would be willing to help out, but you are right that they sadly got chased away.

Honestly the whole thing is a shame when they were at least partly correct about the other user, but hopefully they come back sometime down the road in better circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it appears that over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FactsheetPete they came to the same conclusion, although as stated there, "technically unrelated to one another". But there might be some other coordination going on. Haven't looked at the edits specifically, but wanted the SPI results to be known. TiggerJay (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters, it appears to me that most of FactsheetPete's edits are actually improvements (not all, but most). Which makes the obvious meatpuppetry all the more discouraging, as it makes it less likely that the edits will stick. I'm still deciding what to do, but I suspect I'm going to block all the meatpuppets, and if Slugger (or someone else) reverts, leave it to others to discuss content on the talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These other people are innocent. Please leave them be. Just block me if you are going to punish anyone. I don't really want to contribute to Wikipedia ever again anyways. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is complicated. I was just digging through FSP the edits and most of them were quite decent, and not a single one that I've found that should be reverted. But the early and extensive use of the specific term consensus in edit summaries and talk pages, more advanced wiki formatting (pipping, manual reference citiations, etc), is just astonishing to see all this from a self-proclaimed brand new editor. Perhaps as they stated the are simply well researched before they created an account, and they got overly emotionally invested in one article that things escalated faster than it ought to have. Perhaps this is warning enough to FSP, with the knowledge that now even more eyes are watching. TiggerJay (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I learned the term 'consensus' FWIW from mistakenly adding something to 2025 prior to this and being told it was not consensus. I don't know what pipping is, and for the citations I just used the little wizard tool that's available in the editor window. I assure you that I am done participating as an editor, and probably as a reader too. If anything I have learned that editing in factually incorrect info and making it stick is a lot easier than I thought it was simply as a reader, and that there are fewer guardrails and monitoring than I perceived there to be. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a highly controversial person, Lauren Handy, was pardoned by Donald Trump and released from prison a few days ago, it is not surprising that many new editors will be drawn to the article. When the article is semi-protected, it is not surprising that new editors will comment on the talk page. And when the article is written in a somewhat hagiographic style, describing her in an obscurantist fashion as an American consistent life ethic activist instead of something straightforward like "pro-life" or "anti-abortion", then it is not surprising that some new editors will notice that non-neutral tone and object to it. I am not a sockpuppet detective, but I certainly hope that these obvious facts will be taken into account. She is getting a lot of attention. I found out about the recent developments on social media not on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A new editor who knows what he's doing? BAN HIM!!!!! We only want incompetent newbies here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 - she is an American anti-abortionist, how in the world is a the short description "American Consistent life ethic activist" justified? See Consistent life ethic - nothing in her article backs this. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I am not in the habit of looking at short descriptions unless someone mentions one. I guess that you will have to ask Slugger O'Toole that question, or whoever added it. Cullen328 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single reliable source that I have seen refers to her as a CLE. It's been reverted anyway, and if @Slugger O'Toole chooses to litigate this, it's probably going to the Talk page before going to RfC if Slugger chooses to play nice and ANI if not. guninvalid (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggerjay, Wikipedia editing isn't that hard if you have the right skill set, and it's not too difficult to pick up terms like consensus. This is blatant casting of aspersions, please stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam With a pageview chart looking like this plus obvious content issues, the great-minds-think-alike explanation doesn't seem all too implausible to me. That's not to say I'm fully sold; I wouldn't bet money on there being zero meatpuppetry. But absent additional evidence, I'd say that explanation gives a reasonable doubt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% guarantee there is meatpuppetry going on. Several sleeper accounts, if nothing else. And people don’t create a new account because they saw the discussion, but then edit a neutral article first. And I’ve seen how talk pages of suddenly popular pages develop, and it isn’t like this. The problem is like ‘’one’ of them might not be a part of it, and it’s hard to know which one. So apparently legit editors will have to pretend there’s a new “consensus” developed by 5 redlinked accounts. The good news is that the meat puppets want a better version, so the fact we’re being cheated isn’t the crisis it usually is. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now @Floquenbeam, it’s more like 99.7%. But otherwise it checks out. Otherwise, I’d love to borrow your crystal ball for a few other users while we’re at it.. lol TiggerJay (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, can you 100% guarantee that FactsheetPete is coordinating the meatpuppets? Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's by far the least likely to be collateral damage, yes. Not sure what you consider the difference between 98% and 100%, but in my mind there is no significant difference. Don't worry, I'm not going to block someone who's got several admins saying not to. But no, I'm not going to buy the idea that the other four are just his bad luck. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, unsurprisingly, I consider the difference between 98% and 100% to be 2%, but a pretty significant 2% because it is the difference between a modicum of doubt and absolute certainty. I am not saying "don't block". I am just asking "how can you be so sure except that you are self-confident in your meatpuppet expertise?" What's being lost in this discussion is that Slugger O'Toole, not for the first time, wrote non-neutral, activist, pro-Catholic, anti-abortion content, and it only got noticed when the BLP subject suddenly got heavy media attention. Hey, I readily acknowledge that you have more expertise with sock/meat issues than I do, but is it unreasonable to expect something more persuasive than bald assertions? Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the puppet show currently on display, can someone confirm whether Slugger's editing restrictions have been lifted. I don't see them on WP:Editing restrictions but that search can be wonky. It looks like cleanup is in process, and the situation otherwise in hand. Star Mississippi 02:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean the topic ban re: Knights of Columbus, it was lifted in 2022. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh yes, I participated. I will abstain here, but I feel as if some of my comments there remain true. That said, consensus was against me and SO'T is fine to edit in this area, so no TB issue in play. Thanks @The Bushranger Star Mississippi 03:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we could focus on whether or not we have an article that lacks a NPOV that is getting a lot of visits rather than doing detective work on the messenger. They are already saying that they will stop editing this project because of the reception they received. I also wish we could hear from User:Slugger O'Toole. I don't see them reverting all edits and this article is seeing a lot of editing attention right now. Of course, this probably should be moved to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have still been lurking here out of curiosity, but it should be made clear that Slugger does revert all edits, but never directly, preferring to do so somewhat furtively so that no 'reverted' tag appears. This is precisely what this edit was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1272223301

This edit restored the status of the page to what it was before any other editors came in and tried to improve it. Basically, WP:OWN as I called Slugger out for in my subsequent revert. There seems to be a general attitude of, if I did not personally sign off on this, I'm not letting it go in the article. I find it interesting clicking through the history of the topic ban that User:The_Bushranger pointed out above that this appears to be a long pattern of behavior, and others have complained of this WP:OWN behavior in the past, with one editor saying "He seems to believe that the only acceptable behavior of any other editor is to expand the article". I have poked around in Slugger's history and I see this possessive behavior in other articles, particularly when it is Catholicism related. I have already said you all can do what you may, as I am eliminating Wikipedia from my media diet and I no longer have a dog in this fight, but if it were me running the show, I would think that a permanent topic ban for Slugger for all things tangentially related to religion is in order, but that's just my two cents. Anyways, best of luck to you all. FactsheetPete (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion but I was trying to shift the attention away from you to the status of the article. Going after Slugger O'Toole in such an aggressive manner before we have even had a chance to hear from them is a mistake that brings the attention back to you. If I were you, I think you have made your point here regarding this article and it's time to step back from the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently doubtful that Slugger is going to respond soon given their edit history shows they have not edited since the 24th with the exception of the mass revert of FactsheetPete, Isaidnoway, JooneBug37, Mwiqdoh, MusikBot II, TulsaPoliticsFan, and two IPs on the 27th. Might have to wait a couple more days. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least from my reading of the situation, this looks a lot like @Slugger O'Toole and @FactsheetPete just can't get along. I definitely don't appreciate Slugger O'Toole's condescension and preemptive "please don't start an edit war" summaries; but that is the heart of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. At least from my read of the page history, the most suspect edit of "reverting to most recent stable version" looks more like cleaning up the residual of an edit war. I don't see that anything is warranted beyond a trout or a reminder of WP:OWN. guninvalid (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away from editing for a few days and have only reviewed the first few lines ofthis discussion. Since I prefer to focus on constructive article-building rather than prolonged disputes, I’ll provide my perspective here and defer to the community’s consensus on how best to proceed. This will be my only comment on the matter.

FactsheetPete made several edits to the Lauren Handy article. That was great. I'm thrilled. Some were clear improvements, while others I did not think were so. In line with the normal dispute resolution process, I reverted the contested edits and encouraged discussion on the talk page. However, rather than engaging there, Pete repeatedly reinstated their preferred wording—escalating the dispute rather than seeking consensus.

I also noticed that the talk page discussion included several brand-new accounts that appeared solely for this issue. While it’s possible that this is a coincidence, it’s certainly unusual for multiple first-time editors to weigh in on such a specific topic and then not contribute elsewhere ever again. I trust that uninvolved administrators will review this aspect as they see fit.

To prevent further back-and-forth, I reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. My intent was to create a neutral starting point for discussion rather than allowing ongoing reverts to dictate content. However, instead of engaging in that discussion, Pete escalated the matter here.

I want to emphasize that I do not WP:OWN. I am always happy when people improve articles I create—it's why I create them in the first place. My concern in this case was not about change itself, but about the way it was being implemented—through repeated reverts rather than discussion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole's name

A reasonable question, a clear answer, and then a lot of pointless wikilawyering without even the saving grace of being technically right. @Horse Eye's Back, please find something better to do with your time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Maybe I'm missing something key but given Slugger O'Toole don't we have an WP:ORGNAME/WP:ISU problem here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know from their history, @Slugger O'Toole has no ties to the Irish organization and has not posted about them nor otherwise indicated any connection. Star Mississippi 16:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does any of that matter? They're not permitted regardless Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slugger O'Toole was a name in an Irish folk song long before it was the name of a blog. Has the user in question demonstrated any affiliation with an organisation, promotional content relating to it, or shared use as you imply? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no exceptions enumerated in the policy, it simply says they are not permitted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such policy when the account was created. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's a bit tricky to verify, but Slugger O'Toole suggests that for the first few years of existence (i.e. when Slugger created their account) it was known as Letters to Slugger O'Toole. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grandfathering clause to the policy Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There literally is: Wikipedia:Username_policy#Exceptions. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even just citing the text at WP:ORGNAME makes it clear that the policy applies to unambiguously promotional names, which this is not. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now cite the text from ISU... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I guess you're right Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the name of a song and a city. Are you going to request I change my name @Horse Eye's Back? I think you're off the mark here. Star Mississippi 16:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't requested that anyone change their name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have far better things to do with our time (how does building an encyclopaedia sound?) than trying to punish a user for a unproblematic username they've had for nineteen years. Moving on? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What punishment? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interference with attempts to rfc to fix a problem

Traumnovelle and Johnuniq have been repeatedly deleting rfc requests on the Sinfest talk page, thus preventing requests from being made to help solve problems with the article. Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Blue Dude:: First you must notify those editors of this discussion (see the instructions at the top). After that, please provide a link to the specific talk page, and ideally the diff's showing the deleting of rfcs. TiggerJay (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two permalinks showing each of the RfCs that I closed: The Absurdity of This Article's Situation and Request for comment. An easy way to see my comments would to be search Talk:Sinfest for "Johnuniq". Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would listen to Johnuniq's advice. Your attempted RfCs were malformed and would have been procedurally closed by another editor had Johnuniq not done it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never edited the RFC request. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I can sympathize with your perspective and you're trying to get something changes because you appear to passionately believe that there are some critical errors that must be fixed (righting great wrongs), and every place you turn you're running into problems. Let me suggest that in my brief overview of the article talk page there is a lot of good faith and well intentioned people who are more familiar with the various policies and guidelines (ie they're not trying to be jerks, and it is not personal). If you spent twice as much time trying to understand what other people are writing, instead of trying to find a way to do what you know to be WP:TRUE, you'd be in a far better place with understanding the problem and how to go about correcting it. For example, if you took the time to read the policy about WP:CENSORED or the essay over at WP:PROFANE, instead of just presuming what it means, you'll understand why regardless of the forum you opt for, they're all going to shut you down because you're asking (even though it seems reasonable) for the community to take action or a position that is in direct contradiction to policy. That doesn't mean all is lost, but rather you need to listen more, and ask questions of the people who you're already engaged with, and learn how you can positively contribute. Don't get hung up simply on the antisemitic issue, but consider how you can improve the article as a whole. TiggerJay (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPs reverting each other at ECR page

See page history. Presumably merits EC page protection, which leads me onto a further point: am I (as a TBAN'd individual) allowed to flag the need for page protections at WP:RPP in my TBAN'd CTOP if I notice ECR-flouting activity of this type? It's not an example given at WP:BANEX, but it involves flagging an unambiguous rule breach, which is somewhat akin to reporting or addressing vandalism. Or should I just let the IP times roll? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BANEX says, "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons" are covered. This involves policy violation, but is limited to one policy. It seems to imply that policy violations have been considered, but rejected as exceptions apart from one policy, so the answer to your first question is "no". It also says, "when in doubt, do not make the edit." Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected that page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind the BLP exception for bans is that, due to the potential of such violations to harm real people, the community has excepted that removing such violations is above just about any policy, and partial bans are simply on a lower level. Note that removing blatant BLP violations is also an exception to 3RR, as is the removal of obvious vandalism. Animal lover |666| 20:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing behaviour!

It doesn't look like any action is going to come of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request withdrawn because everything looks good! Sorry for the unnecessary discussion. Kindly close this discussion.

User @Garvitpandey1522 has done around 600 edits in the last 10 days, which is good, but their editing behavior seems suspicious. They are directly targeting pages for speedy deletion[16],[17] and the articles he created seem to be AI generated please also check timestamp.[18],[19][20] I feel they doing all these activities from a chatbot without following Wikipedia's guidelines. They seem to just be trying to increase their edit count. He is also blocked on Simple Wikipedia maybe for abusing by multiple accounts.[21] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:S-Aura, why didn't you notify the editor about this discussion? This is mandatory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I have just added it to their talk page. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why @S-Aura is doing this. I haven't made any wrong edits or created non-notable pages. When I pointed out S-Aura Page mistake on Kuldeep Sandhu's page—where he manipulated references by using news sources about different people—I corrected all the references and removed those that didn’t represent Kuldeep Sandhu. I also raised this issue with senior editors. After that, he started targeting me.

Is it my mistake to raise concerns about using incorrect references to make a page seem notable? Or is it my mistake that I am actively contributing to Wikipedia by creating notable pages?

Moreover, the Kuldeep Sandhu page, created by User:S-Aura, is different, but the article he wrote is actually about Kuldeep Sandhu. When I pointed this out in a constructive manner, he started targeting me.

You can check my edits—if I have done anything wrong, please point it out. Most of my articles have already been reviewed by senior editors. If I have made any mistakes, please guide me, and I will ensure I follow the guidelines properly in the future. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am contributing to Wikipedia with good intentions, adhering to guidelines, and welcoming feedback. While I do use AI to help me with grammatical corrections, I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Garvitpandey1522,

It’s not about the Kuldeep Sandhu page it’s about your overall behaviour note it WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I have already explained that the issue happened due to confusion between Sandhu and Singh, so you shouldn’t exaggerate my mistake. I am completely agree with your action on that page. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! But fully depends on AI generated content without proper verification or editing may lead to inaccurate or biased information. It should not be used to bypass the responsibility Read it carefully. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have properly cited references for every line and even every word in my articles. If you are pointing this out, you are also questioning the editors who have reviewed and approved my articles. If I were doing anything wrong, the reviewers would have highlighted it during the review process.Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, I am not questioning the editors who reviewed it, because they can also make mistakes. If it only about a review, Kuldeep Sandhu was also reviewed, but there is an error on that page so please. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be left to the experienced editor to decide. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bullying on edit summary

Resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:IndianBio used a bullying words, [22]. Also, he reverted my warning on his talk page. Please check this user. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:BOOMERANG here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, what do you mean? Is that possible to curse someone in edit summary? Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Camilasdandelions, it's not acceptable, and the edit comment has been removed and IndianBio has been admonished; they really should know better.

However, you also need to be more careful in hurling the v-word around, it has a very specific meaning here (see WP:VANDAL). And you should have notified IndianBio of this ANI, which I don't believe you did. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry and thank you. I'm first time to report some user in Wikipedia, I'll try to notify him if i report someone. Thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the alert to IndianBio already btw. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)!! Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PS: if you post a warning on a user's talk page, and they remove it, you do not need to post it again, and arguably shouldn't. When a warning is removed, that denotes that the user has seen it. They are within their rights to remove most messages from their own talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought we can't delete most messages from our own talk page. Thank you for telling me! Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions: there are indeed some messages one is not allowed to remove, but they are very much the exception; see WP:REMOVED for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "bullying words" were in the edit summary revdel'd by RoySmith.[23] IndianBio has been blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio's been blocked by @RoySmith. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realized that this complaint has been archived but wanted to note that Camilasdandelions has now been blocked twice. Maybe we are archiving these cases too quickly before they are completely resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisms on Dennis Stojković

Blocks and revdels for everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dennis Stojković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users @Esdrongo1, @Esdrongo t and now @Cripollo008 are vandalising the page, with stuff that potentially might need to be revdeleted (blasphemies, racial slurs and insults). Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the accounts, protected the page, and revdelled some. Some more might have to be revdelled; I was relying on Google Translate. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like nonsensical writings, aside from what was revdel'd. Conyo14 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this a real WMF account?

Blocked by voorts. (non-admin closure) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Office_Actions. Just saw it pop up while doing countervandlism, and, want to make sure its real. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editing permenantly protected pages

Asked and answered.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm VidunOriginalezLK, I have permission to edit semi-protected Wikipedia pages now, but I can't seem to figure out the requirements to edit permenantly protected pages.Can anyone help me by sending me the needes requirements? VidunOriginalezLK (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to extended confirmed pages, you can see the requirement here: WP:XC. The requirement is that account has existed for at 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image placement at Influencer

Resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infuencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page at Influencer suggested that it was inappropriate to have a single image as the main image at Influencer. I changed it to a collage of images, but it is clearing after the images and I don't know why.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure what you mean by "clearing after the images" but I have placed the collage on the right. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

lakestan incident

CONTENT DISPUTE

Discuss content disputes on the article talk page first. Also note that Wikipedia, in any language, is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Admin Lakestan incident it was kurdish rebels victory not Azeri persian and Assyrian it was changed by IP i have sources it was kurdish rebels victory:https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C9%99kistan_hadis%C9%99si it was Azerbaijan wikipedia it was said ti kurdish victory and successful invasion and massacre not failed MASSACRE already exists :https://books.google.iq/books?id=N28WEQAAQBAJ&dq=lakestan+incident&pg=PT86&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lakestan%20incident&f=false pls check this page Shawakam07 (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Shawakam07 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a WP:Content dispute which should be addressed at Talk:Lakestan incident, not here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Thalapathy2400 engaging in personal attacks, disruptive editing, edit warring

User:Thalapathy2400 (contribs) has engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, personal attacks against other users and has amassed six warnings. Their only area of interest is films starring Ajith Kumar. In this edit, the user personally attacks another editor in Tamil by calling them an a**hole, adding no constructive message to the article. The user takes reverts personally and addresses the people reverting as haters, calls reverts to their edits vandalism, continues to add unreliable sources after warnings. A majority of their edits have been reverted, yet they continue disrupting articles and reducing Wikipedia's quality. The user also allegedly inflates box office earnings of movies starring actor Ajith Kumar through unreliable sources. These people are getting their fans wars into Wikipedia now.

In this diff, they've managed to stoop even lower, directing ugly insults in Tamil at an IP. The IP responded in an even more ugly manner.

This was already posted by a different user at WP:ANI last month, but no action was taken.

@Bbb23 @Daniel Case @Deepfriedokra

(101.119.183.246 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Please provide recent diffs of misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you only take action against WP:PA if it is recent ? I'd translate those comments from Tamil to English, although I'm not sure if it is appropriate to post those here. 101.119.186.122 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will take past misconduct into account as evidence of a pattern, but we are not going going to take action solely based on old diffs. In the future, please make sure to notify editors when you start discussions about them. This time, I have done it for you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

Might be worth keeping an eye out for any non-policy compliant/non-consensus-based changes to this policy page. FYI. Serial (speculates here) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about just the one soapboxing editor that you didn't notify about this discussion, or is it a more widespread problem? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I start a discussion about an editor, I will certainly notify them. If I thought sanctions were due, I'd have posted at Incidents. If it were an ongoing bevahioral issue, I'd have posted at Incidents. In the interests of keeping things low key, I post here with a request for eyes. And the system works. Not forgotten, I see. Serial (speculates here) 14:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You started a discussion about disruptive edits on a specific page on which only one editor has made disruptive edits. It's a stunning bit of wikilawyering to say that that's not starting a discussion about that editor. And I really don't know what that other discussion you linked to has to do with this at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did, indeed, start a discussion about an editor. You did not notify them. You are required to notify them. Don't WP:WIKILAWYER and instead go notify them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Would you be willing to explain what exactly you mean to say about Ivanvector with that aside, "Not forgotten, I see"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just before anyone else pries that Pandora's box open any further, I'd like to point out that I have long subscribed to the philosophy of not giving a fuck, and if Serial thinks that I commented here because of a vendetta over an utterly inconsequential comment about whether or not I was involved in an unban discussion from two months ago, and not because I'm an administrator and have the administrators' noticeboard on my watchlist, then they are simply wrong. Serial, if this is about something more serious that I've completely forgotten about, feel free to remind me on my talk page.

As for Stevenmitchell, who ToBeFree notified a little while ago: they seem to have been on a crusade about what they perceive as administrative overreach, but they were the only editor disrupting WP:NOT and were reverted pretty quickly. This isn't out of character for them: they've had a list of "Some Articles That I Have Started & Were Deleted by the Heavy Hand of Wikipedian Deletionists" front-and-centre on their user page since 2017. That POV doesn't seem to leak out of their userspace often, but every once in a while they drop a comment like this BLP violation, or this one, or this. Actually a lot of their talk contributions are posts like this, asking leading questions like "why don't we write about this awful thing that this awful person did?" without providing any citations to support what they're suggesting at all, and complaining about other editors removing their comments although I didn't actually see any examples of that. Also, of the six articles they list as heavy-handed deletion: three never existed, one was PRODded, one was draftified and then expired (PROds and G13s are both eligible for WP:REFUND), and one is currently an article which Stevenmitchell added an external link to in 2010 (7 years before creating their list) and hasn't otherwise edited, and that article has never been deleted. I think we may have a WP:RGW WP:NOTHERE case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ivanvector, I admit I did think that wholly unworthy thought. A case of typing first, thinking later. It was undeserved—as well as completely foolish—and I apologise to you for suggesting it or impugning your integrity. Serial (speculates here) 16:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping things low key doesn't work at this noticeboard, which is why requests for revision deletion are prohibited here for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenmitchell, thoughts? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for temporary account block due to exams

Requested self block has been implemented. Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Paradygmaty where a consensus can form on any necessary next steps. Star Mississippi 15:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request a block on my account until February 14th, inclusive, due to upcoming professional exams. I find Wikipedia a bit distracting at the moment, so I kindly ask for a block that prevents me from editing anything during this time. Thank you for considering my request. Paradygmaty (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account for the requested duration. —Ingenuity (t • c) 19:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that prior to this request, this editor received a final warning from User:Deb that a block might be coming their way for disruptive editing and a proposed indefinite block is being discussed at WP:ANI. Maybe prior to fulfilling these requests, we should look into the circumstances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a somewhat longer block than the one requested would help to clear this user's head. Deb (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to commingle the two. If the ANI thread (I haven't looked at it) leads to a community block, that will supersede their self-requested block, just like an admin resigning under a cloud. I don't think we should open the door to scrutinizing self-block requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite protection of Square

Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I saw a post on Reddit ([24]) about the article square (the geometric shape, not the payment processor or the pejorative) being indefinitely semiprotected. The article was protected in 2015 by Anthony Appleyard, who I have not pinged since he died a few years ago. Anthony mentioned frequently reverted IPA edits, which I assume is a typo for IP edits. I went a bit back through the history before protection and it does seem like every IP edit was reverted over a long period of time; I didn't review each one but a few I looked at seemed like typical high school vandalism, which makes sense given the subject. I don't think that any article should be protected forever, so I thought of trying pending changes or removing protection entirely and seeing how it goes, but what do others think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it would have got a lot of rubbish, but please unprotect and we'll see. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My controversial opinion is that pending changes is best for very low-visibility articles, and has been kind of tragically misused for the exact opposite of that. I'd say if you want to trial-unprotect it, just go for it. Can always reprotect if needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I use pending changes for the kind of articles that get vandalism once a year, but take 3 months to be reverted. Semiprotection is overkill but pending changes is perfect for those situations. On popular pages though pending changes kind of just gets in the way. Galobtter (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If each admin watchlisted a couple (or at least one) random article that's likely to get vandalized or spammed, I think it'd help a lot. Just pick a word that's really common, like "square" or "pencil" or "casino". I already got casino because that's an obvious spam magnet. But why not think of a commonplace word and watchlist that article? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on "a couple (or at least one)" (or try to have other outlets). And odd watchlist entries beget more odd watchlisst entries in the medium/long-term, in my experience. Keeping a relatively crazy watchlist of pages I had no real interest in going for many years was a major factor in how I lost my adminship, because I found so much weirdness over the years. Maybe it's just me, but reading about a disruptive user (speaking in general terms here, and I'm talking about both good- and bad-faith disruption) on a noticeboard, etc. is a far different experience from finding them on your watchlist and seemingly being the only user around to clean up their edits. But "seemingly " might be an illusion; there are lots of other admins and editors here, whose attention is often fragmented by their own aims on this project and real life, and who may or may not be as willing to investigate/monitor a user as you are. But we do have way too many articles that aren't properly watched by experienced users, a state of affairs that compromises our integrity as an encyclopedia. But it's worth trying to keep a sense of balance and perspective regarding your watchlist; it's one of the few aspects of Wikipedia editing that's completely private. I don't know where I want to go with this, or even if this is the right place for this mini-rant, but I had to put it out there. Graham87 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all that, I've added a note at that article's talk page in case any watchers of that article want to comment. Graham87 (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the last time I looked at my Watchlist but I think it was a few years ago. I think there are around 200K pages on it. I don't know of a quick way to whittle it down. My advice? Don't click the button that adds every article you edit to your Watchlist or it will grow unmanageable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Special:EditWatchlist/raw; ctrl+a; ← Backspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EditWatchlist/clear also works, and it's two-click! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and theleekycauldron, thanks for the suggestions. I tried using the tool listed on the Watchlist page when it was only 30,000 pages and it didn't work at all. I'll try out these ideas. I'm sure there are a lot of pages for entire namespaces that I can easily remove. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes seems to work fine for Timeline of the far future and Iodine, which receive 21⁄2 times the pageviews. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Looking back at the Reddit post just now I'm a little concerned that I've put together a tasty bean salad, so I'm going to lower the protection to PC with an expiry date and throw the page on my watchlist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to my watchlist. In fact, as I have edited this article and it's in an area central to my Wikipedia-editing interests, it surprises me a little that I did not already have it watchlisted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea that Anthony had died. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelshea04 (formerly Michaelshea2004) unblock request

There is consensus to unban and unblock Michaelshea04 (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm bringing forth an unblock request on behalf of Michaelshea04. Relevant context:

UTRS appeal #99181, the current appeal
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive
User talk:Michaelshea2004, the original account, to which this editor no longer has access
[25], the previous AN unblock request
Yamla has found no technical evidence of VPN use or ban evasion

Unblock request, as submitted to UTRS:

As I have been instructed, I have stayed away for 1 year and now I'll try my best to not make a mess of it like I did my previous one and try to keep it fairly straightforward. I am still globally locked. As you know, I am guilty of my extremely inappropiate and vulgar edit summaries as Michaelshea2004, as well as my non constructive edits where I only changed one or two words, mostly past tense to present tense. Whether or not it was for either reason, I do understand why I was blocked for "not here to build an encyclopedia" because overtime I understood that when I have a user account, I am expected to contribute and actually improve the encyclopedia, not just perform minor edits, because even if I didn't understand that there was anything wrong with that at the time, I do now, and I was indeed "not here to build an encyclopedia" I was only here to act immature and as I said in my previous appeal, I absolutely deserved everything that came to me. Of course, like everyone else, I did not take this well and I had numerous accounts and IP addresses blocked after the same behaviours occurred. In my previous appeal, I did not understand that if I wanted to be unbanned, I had to convince you that I want to actually improve parts of the encyclopedia, and not just that I will not repeat the same behaviours again. By saying that I wanted to just be on Meta and not your project, or by proposing the edits I wanted to make, which was much of the same as before, I believe that is the reason why the decision was unanimously opposing. I do wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, but not to the same articles as before, and certainly not the same disruptive edits as before. I want to contribute to vintage computer magazine articles, any associated software printed in it, as well as any computer music software as well. I promise that I will not just change 1 or 2 words. I will not change past tense to present tense, and I will use the edit summaries properly.

Asked to comment directly about vanishing (see previous AN request for relevance):

[...] I already understood that vanishing just isn't an option. It's as simple as that, I was not intending to game the system, nor am I now, but I can understand why you believed it came across as that, because if I want to be unblocked just to be vanished, what's the point of unblocking me anyway if I am not going to contribute and improve the encyclopedia?. I have no idea if I will get 500 edits, constructive or not, I will absolutely do my best, even it it takes a year like you said, or over that. Like I said, I want to start over with a different and much better editing style and much better choice of articles. [...] No vanishing. It's not an option. It's as simple as that.

With thanks in advance to the community for their consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The original block was, in my view, pretty small potatoes. As for the socking and related disruption that happened afterwards and resulted in the lock, well, that was two years ago, and they've expressed their embarrassment for being a dumbass and pledged to avoid edit-warring. Time for everyone to move on. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. per Asilvering above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looked over prior appeal and user page and contributions, glanced at sockpuppet investigations. Original issue seems to be immaturity. Appeal sounds earnest. This looks like a low-risk (to Wikipedia), so appropriate to give them another chance. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as prior closer, which was purely about consensus vs. any personal opinion on MS' conduct. I do not have any time to look into their behavior, but have no reason to oppose this request either. Star Mississippi 03:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, user now has clue, user wishes to edit constructively. I say let said user edit constructively and unblock them. Jay Cubby 00:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. There's no reason to doubt the appeal. Welcome back. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

HouseBlaster and SilverLocust promoted to full clerks

The Arbitration Committee thanks HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) and SilverLocust (talk · contribs) for their excellent management and clerking of Palestine–Israel articles 5. After consultation with the clerks team, the Committee is pleased to announce that HouseBlaster and SilverLocust have completed their traineeships and are promoted to full clerks, effective immediately.

The clerks team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the team is welcome to apply by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § HouseBlaster and SilverLocust promoted to full clerks

Relentless POV-pushing and ignoring Administrators's instructions, reverting their edits

Blocked under WP:CT/IRP for one week for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Taha Danesh has been taking part in relentless POV-pushing by ignoring administrators' instructions and reverting their edits and making disingenuous edits to pages with the intent to "Iranify" historical personalities. Examples of reverting administrators' edits here [26][27], also he removes content that describes a historical personality as Arab and instead Iranifies him with no source provided here[28] other examples of reverting administrators edits here[29][30][31][32][33] he also removes the part about a statement being a warning to Iran I presume because it doesn't fit his political agenda, in the same vein he downplays the number of political prisoners executed in Iran here a number of times [34][35][36] Montblamc1 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Montblamc1: you are required to notify this editor of any threads that you start here, per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have added is based on highly reliable academic references, including works from many top-ranking universities worldwide. You did not mention anything except claiming that I added information, but in reality, I have provided more than 20 references combined across these pages, all of which are highly reliable and among the best sources available. The number of references is so extensive that listing them here would be frustrating; instead, you can see them in the links our friend has mentioned, which are very clear.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Taha Danesh (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven’t ignored any administrator’s instructions or reverted their edits as far as I know. I believe this claim is false, I haven’t received any warnings about this matter from any user—not from them, nor from any administrators. Taha Danesh (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request a revision to my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban

Dear All. I apologize for placing too many tag templates on articles, and have made every attempt to refrain from doing so. Now that we are approaching six months of my topic ban, I would like to ask for the following amendment to my topic ban. The reason, that I am recommending this amendment, is because the topic ban recommended, that I refrain from adding templates such as {{initiated}}, {{requested move}}, {{stub}}, {{split}} and {{histmerge}} that were not an issue for me.

I would like to have the topic ban lifted, but I would be agreeable to refraining for at least 6-12 more months from adding {{2p}}, {{ic}}, {{+Li}}, {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} tags (if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else), or even making statements on talk pages to either get references added or information updated. I also hope, that I will still be permitted to remove obvious vandalism. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AN/I thread leading to the following topic ban:
Jax 0677 is indefinitely topic banned from applying any maintenance tags or templates, broadly construed, to articles, drafts or other applicable project spaces.
Discussion following imposition of topic ban. Jax has not been blocked since the topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose: Jax has not shown that he understands why the topic ban was necessary to avoid disruption and has not explained why the topic ban is no longer necessary.~~ voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban was needed so that I would add citations to articles instead of adding tags. My plan is to add references instead of adding tags. This is why I listed the close to one dozen templates above that I do not plan to use. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose for now. I'll review your edits further. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The request contains a statement of willingness not to use these templates for several months. Sounds like a decent explanation of why-topic-ban-is-unnecessary to me. No opinion on the whole request, since I don't have time to look into the situation properly. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards