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

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	74	0	74
TfD	0	0	26	0	26
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	14	0	15
RfD	0	0	35	0	35
AfD	0	0	8	0	8

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 52 sockpuppet investigations
• 32 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 16 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 8 requests for RD1 redaction
• 37 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 29 requested closures
• 28 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 13 Copyright problems

Another bad RM closure request

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

---

There's an RM on Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Requested_move_22_October_2025 to change Adolf Hitler to Hitler, which is universally agreed to be a totally pointless discussion; moreover it seems to be posted by the same person behind the recent Donald Trump RM brought up in a previous message on this page. A speedy closure would be appreciated. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 03:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 03:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

A rangeblock might be needed; 2A04:CEC0:C026:FDB:DC27:7CC7:1861:933D was blocked for being a sock, and a look at the /32 shows a fair number of requested moves that don't make much sense; see Talk:Sean Combs#Requested move 21 October 2025, [1], Talk:Pornography#Requested move 23 October 2025, Talk:Perversion#Requested move 23 October 2025, Talk:Human_sexual_activity#Requested move 23 October 2025; a speedy close on some of those would be helpful. IP range calculator said Special:Contributions/2a04:cec0:c000::/42 would be the range for all these IPs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears the merge proposal at Talk:Human penis#Merge proposal: Human penis to Penis and Talk:Penis#Merge proposal: Human penis to Penis have been reinstated, a speedy closure on those could also do good. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Rangeblocked the /42 range for a month, will start closing these other requests. Mfield (Oi!) 04:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Rangeblock, as the individual is likely not going to stop with these waste-of-time RMs. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Back again, (re-)creating more waste-of-time RMs. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay, what is the IP this time? Or a link to one of the waste of time RMs? I don't see anything looking at the /32 of the previous IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Sean Combs. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the previous talk page edits on the /42 of that IP were by this person; some of that stuff is revdel'd, so I'm assuming it was disruptive like this current one, and the non revdel'd ones are "trump is a racist" and "trump is a rapist"; the range to block should be the /46. Blocking the /42 isn't a bad idea either though, it doesn't appear to be that active. Swift closure of Talk:Sean Combs#Requested move 23 October 2025 is another thing to be done. An eye might want to be kept on the /32. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Another one just popped up within the /46 at Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks#Requested move 23 October 2025. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 for 72 hours and rv'd/hatted the RMs. I'm hesitant to hit any of the larger ranges just yet, since this is the first activity on the /46 since August. But if they do continue to use that /46, starting with maybe a month's rangeblock would be reasonable given the lack of collateral damage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Unblock from filespace

I'm writing to appeal my block regarding filespace, as per WP:SO guidelines. I apologize for my past behavior and realize that I was overly strict and sensitive about file uploads and reverts.

In the past, I engaged in edit wars when others reverted or renewed my changes, believing that the files I uploaded were correct and problem-free. I also made improvements to other users' uploaded files, but when I was reverted, it escalated into further conflict as I continued to revert.

When others ignored my good faith efforts I reciprocated in kind. I should have stopped reverting and instead opened a discussion to resolve the issue. I take responsibility for my part in the escalation. My mental state was bad during that time until i ignore the Wikipedia rules due to my temper. It's so stupid of me to think it's fair. Over the block for 6 months, I've reflected on my actions, worked on becoming more mature, and committed to changing my behavior. I've used the time to read and familiarize myself with guidelines. I'm determined to be more responsible and open to discussion in the future. I promise to refrain from repetitive reverts. I'm committed to showing you a better side of myself moving forward and promise to behave more constructively in the future. I will also provide an edit summary. I apologize for my past actions that caused a burden to some users. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to see a longer baseline of unproblematic edits before lifting that restriction. I'd also like to know what you were doing in your sandbox with all those single character edits earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing... I was just bored and did that to relieve stress. I only did it this one time. If I'm wrong, I'm really really sorry, and I won't do that again. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Guess I'll throw the first bolded one down? This seems fine, honestly, and I don't see the problem with the sandbox edits. It's not like they're gaming anything with it, since they're already extended confirmed. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - "overly strict and sensitive" misses the mark by a wide margin; see the original ban discussion. They were persistently uploading new copies of other users' uploads or making copies of their drafts, without attribution and evidently with intent to claim credit; they were also involved in egregious move-warring. The discussion was closed several times after Aidillia seemed to acknowledge and accept their disruptive behaviour, then reopened when they immediately went right back to it. It was finally closed (by me) on 24 January, but the behaviour stretches back at least a month earlier (they have an edit warring block on 11 December). I imposed the filespace ban and an interaction ban in that discussion, and Aidillia was blocked about two weeks later for persistently violating the iban. About a week after that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aidillia found nine sockpuppet accounts, some created several months before the incident that led to the bans, suggesting that they had been abusing multiple accounts for a while and planning to continue. I removed the iban for the other user a month later since it had become clear that Aidillia was the instigator all along. I would have opposed unblocking them at all after so short a time considering their history of sockpuppetry and ignoring lesser sanctions, but they've only been back for 14 days and that's definitely not long enough to demonstrate that they can be trusted not to go off with their disruptive uploads again. And "I was bored" is not an acceptable explanation for anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, my behavior was really unacceptable back then, and I shouldn't have repeated it or violated the rules. All i follow is my temper and desire. All of it won't happen if i control my temper.

  I just want to be unblocked so I can prove myself and don't want to bother anyone to ask to upload. I acknowledge that my past behavior was unacceptable. I've tried my best to show that I'm prepared and willing to follow the rules.

  As I am extended confirmed user, I thought I could do anything in the sandbox as long as it wasn't violating the rules. However, it seems some of you oppose it, so I won't do that again. Additionally, I've been active on other Wikipedia languages for 2 months, where I've been improving, creating, and fixing content. So i thought that's included?

  I'll try harder to prove myself. I will remember my wrongdoings that you mentioned and will reflect deeply on it. Thanks for mentioned it all and i'm sorry for the burden i've caused in the past, and i swear to not do that again. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 23:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aidillia: what constructive contributions do you plan to make to the file namespace instead? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I plan to add the correct link to the source. I've noticed that many files don't have updated sources after uploading new versions. Before uploading, I'll use calculator to ensure the correct size. If the image has a fair use rationale, I'll also add the template parameter `image_has_rationale=yes` to the licensing section. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose was only recently unblocked from an indef. As Ivanvector mentioned, I would also prefer to see a longer demonstration period (six months to a year) of appropriate behavior. Additionally, I find the reason provided here neither convincing nor entirely truthful, especially regarding the stated intentions in the filespace. Upon reviewing the mainspace contributions, it appears clear that uploading accompanying resources was the primary motivation rather than the purported secondary motivation. If anything, FWIW, it seems that the other party involved in the partial block should be the one requesting the lifting of the block first, considering that their conduct has been significantly better, with no sock activity or indefinite blocks following the partial block. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed temporary adminning restriction on UtherSRG

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

There is no consensus to impose the proposed restriction. This means that if action is (still) deemed necessary, a referral to ArbCom is the only way forward. Sandstein 13:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

---

We've arrived at a situation without precedent concerning admin conduct during the admin recall process. UtherSRG has had a recall petition certified against him, and plans to seek reelection in the next admin elections (which means he will remain an administrator for at least 51 days), but during this pendency has again violated the same admin policies that led to multiple successive noticeboard threads [2][3][4] and ultimately the recall petition, and has refused to self-revert.

Namely, the main complaint in the recall petition was a series of WP:INVOLVED blocks, particularly regarding people Uther had content disputes with on species articles (a topic area he also was blocked a few times for edit-warring in long ago). One involved block that was overlooked in those threads (AFAICS) was that of 2605:59C0:20C0:3E08::/64, which came immediately after Uther reverted two of its edits to Pygmy rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article he has edited substantively starting in 2006 and continuing after his block of the IP. While the recall petition was ongoing, a different IP, 2601:346:900:C690::/64, made the same edit; two minutes after the recall petition was closed, Uther protected the article with the summary IP hopper repeatedly making the same reverted edit. (The edit had also been reverted once by Criticize with the first IP and once by Reconrabbit with the second.) Per GreenLipstickLesbian's analysis, while the reverts may have been justifiable, this was a content dispute concerning good-faith edits using a term found in reliable sources; while some kind of "communication is required" block or protection might have been justified, it would have needed to come from an uninvolved admin (and personally I don't think I would have done so). Sockpuppetry might bring the protection into "any reasonable admin" territory, except that the initial block was itself INVOLVED, and I'm not actually convinced the two IPs are the same person—Starlink geolocation isn't that reliable, but at face value it puts them on different sides of the U.S., and 2605 is near-exclusively species-oriented while 2601 isn't.

GLL has challenged Uther on this action, and his response does not show any understanding that this is yet another INVOLVED action, instead giving a response that blurs his role as an editor of the article and as an admin, and saying I find it very difficult to consider what people think about my admin actions vice providing stability to an article, which seems like a rejection of WP:ADMINACCT. Asilvering has seconded this challenge, and Uther has continued to edit without response. As such, I do think some kind of intervention is needed. I don't like saying that, because I've always had pleasant interactions with Uther, but this is a problem that does not seem to be stopping on its own.

If I were able to partially block Uther from making blocks or protections, I would, but that's not one of the available pblock settings. I considered a siteblock, and considered taking this to ArbCom, but I think the path of least resistance here is a temporary community-imposed restriction, to stabilize the situation so that AdE voters can decide for themselves in December. Therefore I propose the following:

Until the conclusion of the December 2025 admin elections, UtherSRG is banned from using the block and protect tools, except to reverse or reduce previous blocks or protections he has made. Any violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure how else to stop the involved tool use. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Need to patch the problem here, December is still a while away. CNC (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either this is worth taking to Arbcom for a WP:LEVEL2, or it can wait a month-ish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Such a restriction doesn't seem conducive to being able to accurately evaluate Uther's behavior between now and the admin elections, which is already under a lot of scrutiny and will probably continue to be as much. Protection isn't used often, and while the change to African pygmy mouse could be overzealous, the same to European mole seemed fine. -- Reconrabbit 19:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HOLES. We can always revert. Popcorn anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to note that Uther has ~48 days to get his act together until the discussion phase for AELECT begins, where his actions will be looked through for one last time until the vote phase, where his fate will be determined. (Non-administrator comment) fanfanboy (block_talk) 21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. The line of least resistance if an admin is running amok is an email to Arbcom for a level 2 desysop. Am not aware of evidence that Arbcom is too slow or unwilling to act when these kind of actions are warranted. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've forced Uther to make a request to remain an admin (We really need a word that encompasses retaining adminship via RRFA and EFA...) If he makes good blocks in the interim, why is it a problem? If he makes bad blocks in the interim, I don't think this makes it likelier for ARBCOM to desysop under level 2. I stand by what I said at BN, which is that a temporary desysop is the way around this. I'm working on such a proposal but won't be upset if I'm pre-empted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• I've been pinged, so I feel I ought to respond, but I'm of pretty mixed and ambivalent feelings. I'd like to be able to agree with Reconrabbit. I don't know that I can. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93. This proposal is not completely unreasonable, but it is speculative. What the admin is saying is a little troubling, but that's ultimately part of why they have been recalled. The admin has done essentially nothing since being recalled. As others have said, should that change, a block or desysop would be available. Arcticocean ■ 12:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as above - sensible proposal in theory, but let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA... GiantSnowman 12:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't understand the process, here. If he's been recalled, then why is he still an administrator? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  @GoodDay see WP:RRfA. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: Because he has time to resign the bit or to seek reconfirmation at an RRFA or to stand in an election. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sorta defeats WP:RECALL's purpose. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's the equivalent of telling someone they're fired but giving them time to clear out their desk. Versus the Arbcom route which fires you and then has security escort you out. -- Euryalus (talk)|

  It doesn't in my book. For my area, the first half of RECALL is a petition and the second half is an election. Someone creates a proposal and passes it around in an attempt to get the signatures required for the proposal to appear in the next election. If it succeeds, then (as long as the state legislature does not intervene) the proposal is added to the next scheduled election to be voted on. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's a fair enough interpretation, and I guess is what happens on de-wiki which our model is based on. On observing the way recall works on en-wp the petition itself is the definitive step. No problems with that: different wikis different customs. But apologies for sidetracking this overall thread, this is probably better discussed at the recall talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: yes please, may I? I'd love some popcorn. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Short version: successful recalls require the admin in question to commit to a re-election within 30 days. If they don't, at the end of the 30 days their tools are removed by the bureaucrats. In Uther's case, as the December adminstrator elections are only a very short time after the expiration of that 30 days, there's a general mood in the community that they would be allowed to run for (re-)election as part of it instead of a seperate RRfA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. While the opposes above make reasonable arguments, my counterargument is thus: let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA - we already have. The recall was because of repeated instances of this exact behavior; enough WP:ROPE has already been expended to tie up a small elephant. They have demonstrated, thoroughly, that they either do not intend to change their ways, or cannot; while requesting an emergency dysospping as suggested might be an option at this point, until or unless that is done, this is still a viable, and sadly reasonable given the demonstrated behavior, option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support - mostly for his own sake - as The Bushranger says, we've been here before. And, I don't know, maybe I've been influenced too much by the afterschool specials of my childhood, but at this point I'm convinced that the only way UtherSRG will be able to admin in the future is if the community forces him to spend a bit of time relying on his words when dealing with editors he doesn't agree with, rather than letting him take shortcuts with advanced permissions. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards support for the sake of ensuring that the block/protect tools can no longer be used while they are under the cloud of the recall, but given how we are about a month from the election, I'm not sure how effectively this proposal will be in practice. Even if this RFC is able to find consensus for support (which given Bush and GLL's !votes above I could see happening), that could take days or a few weeks to form, which closes the gap until the election when the community would decided whether they still trust their tool use. In the event that we need to invoke this and bring ArbCom into this, it's possible that the election happens before ArbCom makes a decision making this moot (unless the election results in them keeping adminship but ArbCom later decides to revoke them), but I'm not too knowledgeable on how long ArbCom would need to act on something like this. Gramix13 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Arbcom can act very quickly (a day or two?) to a level 2 desysop request. But it would probably require more evidence of tool misuse than has been presented here, which is possibly why no request has been made. That's not a criticism of the successful recall, simply that the criteria are slightly different. An admin can lose the community's trust and be fired without necessarily also meeting Arbcom's emergency standard for inappropriate use of the tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• To start, I made MOS:LISTGAP changes to resolve LISTGAP concerns - specifically removing blank lines and changing all indents to start with an asterisk. I'm making that clear since this edit will contain that along with this reply. On that note, I slightly oppose this - though I don't think Tamzin is wrong to have suggested this. Others have made the arguments I would've made - to summarize however, if it's this urgent, then WP:LEVEL2 is thataway. If it's not that urgent at this time, then I don't think there's any community action needed. WP:HOLES has already been referenced, and I agree with that - if this admin wishes to keep digging their hole, let's let them. Any harm they may cause (i.e. if they keep digging their hole through improper blocks/etc) can be quickly reversed by any other admin. Even if this admin may not qualify for L2 procedures right now, they are always available and I suspect ArbCom will be quite willing to consider L2 removal if this admin engages in any egregious conduct between now and their admin election. Any editor should be free (as always) to request L2 procedures if they feel this conduct (or future conduct) merits it. But if it doesn't rise to the level of meriting L2 removal, then I don't think this sort of community restriction is merited.
  Either conduct rises to the level of recall or ArbCom deadminship (whether through level 1 or 2), or it doesn't. The community has decided that, if something doesn't rise to the level of L1/2 deadminship via ArbCom, that the current recall process is how it should work. The current recall process does not provide any method for the community to restrict/remove admin tools pending the RRFA/election. And I don't think it's fair to the admin to attempt to restrict them just because they've been recalled. If the community thinks that there should be some means for us (the community) to restrict an admin from using some/all tools, or to deadmin them entirely pending the completion of the RRFA or election, then we should form policies and guidelines allowing for that sort of temporary deadminship/restriction of tool usage - whether after a recall succeeds or otherwise (i.e. without any recall). But if not, then we should continue with the current process and pursue ArbCom L1/2 if necessary, otherwise allow them to keep the tools regardless.. To have a separate form of community restriction on an admin using the tools outside of recall/L1/2 strikes me as unfair to that admin, since there's not any community consensus (that I'm aware of) for such restrictions on an admin (whether recalled or not).
  I also have concerns over how this would be enforced. Is there any evidence that ArbCom would even care if an admin violated this sort of restriction? Would ArbCom consider a violation of this sort of restriction grounds for L2 desysop? If they would, what conditions do ArbCom have on what sort of community restriction like this they would consider for L2? And ultimately, is ArbCom L2 desysop procedures (the only method by which this could be enforced) proper to enforce this sort of restrictions? Hence my slight opposition - at a minimum, I would want ArbCom guidance on what would be necessary for this sort of a community restriction to "stick" (i.e. warrant L2 desysop if it's violated), and confirmation that they would perform a L2 desysop if a community restriction that was imposed in line with whatever guidance they give as to what is necessary for such a restriction to "stick". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez, why do you think this couldn't be enforced except by arbcom? One presumes tamzin's intent is that it would be enforced the same way basically every community restriction is enforced - by blocks, if violated. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would a block prevent from using the block/protect buttons? My understanding is that it would not, hence requiring ArbCom action if it continued to be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  A block prevents an admin from blocking anyone other than the admin who blocked them (an option that's left intact to avoid a situation where a rogue admin blocks everyone and has the run of the place). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I will note that Tamzin's proposal says Any violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.; personally I would have opted to have it treated as a de facto topic ban, but either way this is necessary, however it is enforced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't mean that at the exclusion of a block to enforce; that's within any admin's powers if necessary to prevent another admin from violating policy, with or without a restriction on tool use. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - Surprised this is not universally-agreed. Uther has clearly made a series of bad blocks, protections, etc., enough to start multiple noticeboard threads and quickly get 25 recall sigs. Of course they shouldn't keep using the tools. And to say we should give them a chance to show what they can do with the tools before RFA or election... seriously? I don't want to risk bad blocks in order to prove what we already knew before the recall. There is a cost to the bad tool use, and the cost is editors. Uther can wait a month before using the tools again. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Levivich, at least some of the not-universal-agreement is because some think an interim desysop is in order. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I don't understand why those folks would oppose this proposal, because an interim desysop (de facto) is what's being proposed. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The proposal is only based on using "block and protect tools", with exceptions. It's not based on all admin tools which would be the equivalent of a desysop. CNC (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I still would think that people who support a full desysop should also support a partial desysop. This is like when people oppose a warning because it doesn't go far enough. My view is: support the warning, also support the stronger action, but support the lesser actions, too, rather than oppose them. Others have a different view of these situations. To each their own! Levivich (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my feeling was that the one strike here post-petition (plus the refusal to self-revert when challenged) was enough to justify a restriction on tool use, but that it would probably take two strikes to get an ArbCom consensus to desysop. Letting someone retain access to the tools essentially in hopes that they'll misuse them and get level-2'd (which is the subtext or outright stated intent of a lot of the opposition here) seems both cruel to Uther and to unfairly treat the use of admin tools as a kind of game in which we're not worried about the effect on individual editors and articles. Thus I do stand by this proposal. If a second strike comes, I'm fully prepared to take this to ArbCom, and to block ad interim if necessary, but to me that's the uglier way to do it. Maybe it's that I came of age in the era when admins still semi-regularly blocked one another, and that I've taken three desysops through ArbCom and lived to tell the tale, but neither is a pretty thing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Levivich, I do broadly agree with "support the lesser action in addition to the stronger action" as a general principle, but I'm not sure it quite applies here. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but part of my own mixed feelings on this is that I think this is a good example of how our current recall process is not truly fit for purpose. We've only so far had one recall that "worked", in the sense that a petition a) succeeded (or failed "as intended" by running out of time at 30 days, though this other intended outcome hasn't happened yet), b) proceeded to an RRFA, and c) that RRFA concluded, having found the consensus of the community. The other "recalled" admins have all been resignations - fair enough, but not really a test of the recall system as designed. At present, we don't really know if Uther has the backing of the community either way; we can only suspect, based on the outcome of the petition. And since the predominant opinion at the current RFC on recall appears to be "it's working fine", well. We appear to have a pretty strong consensus that admins should keep their tools unless arbcom gets involved. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support How ridiculous. The time period between the recall certification and Election was an opportunity to prove they've learned from the mistake, instead they proved again they can't be trusted with the tools. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and refer to Arbcom per WP:LEVEL2. UtherSRG is performing admin actions in a situation where they are involved, several administrators have suggested that they should not (thus removing the "any admin would do the same" exception), a recall petition has been certified regarding this behaviour, yet UtherSRG persists in performing these challenged actions. Also as I understand it, a blocked account with admin permissions can still use the tools, just not to unblock themselves. This is therefore a WP:LEVEL2 situation: "Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behavior is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming." Both conditions are true here, and there is no appropriate response available to the community or its administrators. Send it to Arbcom, this is what the emergency procedures are for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is my understanding that the only action a blocked admin can take is to block the admin that blocked them. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support It's best for the encyclopedia if UtherSRG waits until after the admin elections before using the tools again. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• It is perhaps worth noting that Uther has not blocked or page-protected since this thread was opened. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Unfair Range Blocks

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

---

121.172.0.0/16

121.173.0.0/16

39.114.0.0/16

211.223.0.0/16

118.220.0.0/16

121.164.0.0/16

221.153.0.0/16

196.191.0.0/16

183.103.0.0/16

These blocks are all very old. They might be blocking out so many good users!

45.130.10.56 (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider "4 months ago" as "very old". 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We don't shorten or undo range blocks just because they become "very old". There might be a good reason why the admin placed a long-term block on the IP range, e.g. persistent disruption from editors on that range over a long period of time, as well as shorter range blocks having been tried before but to no success (in fact, if you check the block log of these IP ranges, most of them have had at least one shorter rangeblock applied to them in the past). Or, the entire IP range could be allocated to an open proxy service, hence blocked in the long run straight away, as Wikipedia has a policy that all open proxies should be blocked from editing because of the amount of disruption that bad actors can cause by using them to deliberately bypass blocks on their actual public IP addresses.

In cases where collateral damage is apparent (e.g. a rather high volume of unblock/help requests over a short period of time), the range block may be undone before its expiration date, but I don't see that being the case with any of these listed IPs. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Many of those ranges are heavily populated by dynamic OpenVPN proxies, and have been abused by WP:LTA/SB1. It seems to me, judging by Special:Contributions/45.130.10.57, that the probability of the OP being SB1 is non-zero. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: This is probably related to this query a few months ago. The ranges mentioned were used by quite a few abusers, including Shāntián Tàiláng and BuickCenturyDriver. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Vanished accounts holding user rights as of 25-10-2025

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

---

Username	Rights
Renamed user 242094acfb1a5b2f08e9e78f2e021a40	reviewer
Renamed user 18f539b9811fa7f02284bb5198ee05ee	ipblock-exempt
Renamed user 242094acfb1a5b2f08e9e78f2e021a40	reviewer

Please remove the rights. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the user rights from both accounts (it appears as though you listed a duplicate account here). Fathoms Below (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fathoms Below: Oops, sorry. Here is the correct third one: Renamed user 34971c6624b373bd32a0c14b61407ac8 (reviewer). Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

• I know this is a few days old, but just noting for anyone else reading this that vanished accounts are normally always globally locked (and these were). That means their userrights are irrelevant, since a locked account cannot do anything at all, I don't think you can even log into it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI report, going nowhere

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

---

I think this ANI report, should perhaps be closed. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

You can try asking on WP:CR. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been closed. The editor who was reported, was playing around with the discussion. I figured WP:CR tends to take too long. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appeal block

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

---

Hello, I would like to appeal my block.

I understand now that my edits to the Eslöv school stabbing article violated Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, particularly the part about avoiding unsourced or poorly sourced material about living individuals. I’ve read through WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME carefully.

I now understand that we must not name or imply the identity of living persons accused of crimes unless the information is supported by reliable, published sources and the person has been convicted. I also recognize that any speculation, original research, or mention of non-public individuals can cause harm and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

I apologize for my earlier mistake. If unblocked, I will follow all BLP-related policies closely and avoid editing sensitive topics unless I’m sure I have high-quality, reliable sources. I’ll also ask for help at the Teahouse or relevant noticeboards if I’m unsure about policy in the future.

I'm not interested in editing the article, I am requesting an unblock because I cannot acces the wikipedia library while I have an active block.

Thank you for considering my request. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac: what say ye? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the fact that it took two warnings and a pblock for that information to sink in is problematic. I think that they are only concerned (by their own admission) with getting access to the Wikipedia Library. I also think they already have an unblock request on their talk page and are forum shopping. Other than those thoughts, I have no thoughts about this. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User Slodkiszczur keeps on vandalizing civic coalition (party) page and removing warnings from his own talk page.

The page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Coalition_(party)

The user @Slodkiszczur keeps on removing my sourced info and telling me that it's incorrectly sourced even tho it isn't. I tried to come to the talk page and resolve the dispute but no I also warned him twice but he removed his own warnings and continued his misbehavior. Austragar (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You keep dodging and ignoring my questions. You haven't tried to resolve the dispute. I asked you what authority you have to warn me, and you didn't even respond. How can I treat your warnings with respect when you don't even respond to my questions about them? Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I also asked you where is proof for your claim in the source that you provided. You didn't answear. Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

And your warns came from two accounts. One IP user and then your registered account, Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What is evident on the talk-page is that no consensus has formed in favor of your edits, and that multiple other editors have suggested politely that (both of) you stop edit-warring, and that you (Austragar) need to better respect WP:OR. Both of these pieces of advice are sound; you should observe them. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The WP:OR issue is on a whole other topic/ideological piece not the center-right one. Besides something good came of it as there is a note in ideology now that mentions the party being officially pro-european but Tusk being against the ECHR.

What I know is that my centre-right addition to ideology was well sourced and there hasn't been any condemnation of it on the talk page by others either. So he's removing it for no reason with no support etc Austragar (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one reverting "centre-right". Also my pronouns are she/her. Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Besides unlike a certain user I haven't fought against the consensus of the people when they chose to do what they did with pro-europeanism/the note about ECHR and Tusk they edited it I didn't revert

However in the case of centre-right where it clearly says CONSERVATIVES which is a right-wing ideology you kept on reverting together with an IP user without consulting the talk page. Without speaking to others about it and asking them so please. Austragar (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. There was no consensus because there was no discussion. Slodkiszczur (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Austragar, a few notes:

Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, like adding obscenities or nonsense or blanking pages. This isn't vandalism. But calling others' edits "vandalism" can be seen as a personal attack, so please don't do that. See WP:VANDAL for more.

Editors are able to remove warnings from their own user talk pages. It means that they've seen the warning. See WP:OWNTALK.

If there are questions about sourcing and the discussion isn't going anywhere, you can always start a neutral discussion at the No Original Research Noticeboard.

Without DIFFs showing misconduct, little or nothing will be done here. Woodroar (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

More multiple RMs

It appears that @2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67: has opened multiple RMS. Which appear to be wastes of time. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like it might have to be very wide. Calculator said the /34 would be the range. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a lesser range could be appropriate however. I counted the IPs in the previous /42 when calculating. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ranges will likely need to be widened. The individual behind this latest mobile, is never going to stop with these useless RMs. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK standby, looking at those existing blocks Mfield (Oi!) 03:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK have blocked the /34 for 3 months this time. There's nothing else useful happening in the range. IP had even requested an unblock and that was under discussion here [5], but apparently they have ignored the responses are maybe only interested in being disruptive after all. Pinging asilvering, Yamla, PhilKnight who had responded to that unblock for visibility. Mfield (Oi!) 04:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. Here's hoping temp accounts mean we can actually have a conversation with them on their talk page next time. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have speedy closed the remaining open RMs from this batch. Mfield (Oi!) 04:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

My 20+ yrs on this project, tells me that the individual is seeking entertainment. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

With you there, and if it were just a couple of repeated pages I'd semi protect the talk pages , but they seem to have widened their scope out. Mfield (Oi!) 04:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay, you can probably just head to AIV with these at this point. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Meanwhile, I encourage all to be on the look out. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Amendments to Palestine-Israel articles 4

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.

Remedy 6, Remedy 7, and Remedy 8 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case are repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Amendments to Palestine-Israel articles 4

Mikewem on religious views

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

---

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

I tried for other months to reason with this user (@Mikewem) on Moses and Mosaic Law. They derail every discussion on the talkpage to the point that other Users such as Ermenrich can genuinely not even follow my points (or they just also wants to preomote religious baises I am not srue anymore) and late rbegan also to revert my sourced edits on other pages such as Mephistopheles. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mephistopheles&diff=1318826090&oldid=1318182566

They ignore everything I write on the talkpage and jsut acts deceptive. No aim at reconsilation or aim for improving an article. Their sources they offer do never support a claim they make as in the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&diff=1317886917&oldid=1317861831

and it all started because I pointed out that the scholar allegedly saying that Moses is a historical figure, does not say this in the source provided: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&diff=1312483948&oldid=1312479925

Mikewem began to revert it claiming that it is "hard to decipher" or that there is an "emerging consensus" that I was in the wrong:Moses: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Talk:Moses: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

while other users clearly saw the purpose and agreed with my edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoses&diff=1313360434&oldid=1296387903 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoses&diff=1313393210&oldid=1313383218 (@A. Parrot and @Tgeorgescu) I also then quoted the relevant passage so we can all discuss from the same point onwards.

The instead of adressing the issue, Mikewem discusses somethign compeltely else I never made a point about anyways where also Ermenich seems to have fallen for as Emerich also acts like I made claims I never made but Mikewem (successfulyl) strawman'ed me into. Given that I gave Mikewem the benefit of the doubt and adressed all concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoses&diff=1317773187&oldid=1317770577 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaw_of_Moses&diff=1317926544&oldid=1317890501 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaw_of_Moses&diff=1317775462&oldid=1317769472 Law of Moses: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMephistopheles&diff=1317926823&oldid=1317903856 (I did not reply to the later as the points they made were simply factualyl incorrect. I also quoted the text, and yet the User ignores that. Just as they ignore ay attempts to reach out to find a reconsilation without disrupting articles or otehr editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMikewem&diff=1317787407&oldid=1317771137

Given their history of misconduct and previous sanctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikewem#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction_3) I propose a perma-ban because this User is Not here to build an encyclopedia VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Notable WP:CIR issues from this user. Notable lack of civility. Notable misrepresentations of sources. Inability to respect WP:BRD. I’ll get diffs for these shortly, I’m sad it’s come to this. Mikewem (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

As a participant in the Moses discussion, I have to say I'm surprised that VenusFeuerFalle has escalated this to the noticeboards. To me, this still seems like primarily a content dispute, although I must agree with Mikewem that most of the aggression has been on VFF's part.

Something to note here is that VFF is not a native English speaker, which may partly account for the communication problems and VFF's resulting frustration. A. Parrot (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This is really just an insult from you. Claiming incompetence by someone who cannot even get basic terminology right is jsut appaling. If this does not lead to a ban, I am done with this project anyways. This is an utlimtum, I am tired of admins ignoring clear religious zealots and people who come from a religious baised viewpoints to be given the same credits as a historical secular viewpoint. This is not the Wikipedia I have invested my time and efforts into! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Whatever problems there may be with Mikewem's edits, I don't see what makes them the product of religious zealotry, and I'm rather puzzled that you keep jumping to that conclusion. A. Parrot (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This is all very surprising to me. I'm not familiar with this specific situation but I've collaborated with VenusFeuerFalle on topics related to religion before and would have never questioned their competence. I think de-escalation is likely appropriate here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I will say that, looking at the edit history, it does look like VenusFeuerFalle is engaged in borderline edit-warring [6] and so I would suggest that de-escalation should also involve avoiding that behaviour and engaging at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

With that being said, VFF has raised some good points. For instance this website is most likely inappropriate as a source [7] unless we really stretch WP:EXPERTSPS. So while I would recommend they remember there's no deadline and suggest they should avoid edit warring I'd also suggest that MikeWM should take some of their sourcing concerns more seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I want that source removed and VFF (the editor who originally added the source) insists on its inclusion to the point of being willing to edit war over it. That source, hosted by bartehrman.com is a covert ad, because it includes the statement, This reverence, however, didn’t preclude the occurrence of errors in transcription. For those intrigued by the complexities of textual transmission and its implications, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman offers a compelling exploration of this topic in his course, "The Scribal Corruption of the Scripture." That course is available to purchase at bartehrman.com for the low, low price of $60. Mikewem (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Most recent diff from Law of Moses where they re-inserted the covert ad. Mikewem (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeh thats the issue, you just do not like it therefore I am the evil one for adding it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I misread the diff then. Regardless, I don't think it's an appropriate source. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

thats fine by me, I am confident that we can find a better one. A tag {Better source needed} would ahve done the job. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The suspicion of religious Zealousy comes from the user making irrational arguements against my points. I had this experience now for about a year. It always goes as follows:

I make an edit on matters of religion, often either going against a lie build by "mainstream religious missionaries" or something from a religious point of view. A user finds this alarming, how dare I to bring their views into quesiton.

-> I comment in my edit sumamry the reason and the guidlines for my action.

-> the user ignores what I was saying and begins to edit war.

-> I contintue with more explanationa nd a comment on the talkpage.

-> my talkpage post gets ignored, edit war continues, now I am in an edit war.

-> the edit war gets more attention, so the other User makes claims about me I never did (build a strawman)

-> I refute the person but they just claim new things about me or what I allegedly did. Now everyone is confused and points at "deescalation strategies" which allows the disruptive often religious User to keep their edit. They either keep their version or revert main with the accusation of an edit-war on my part.

-> now, after causing a scene, they leave the discussion until the attention is all on my and I am in the defense.

-> afterthats I am not able to correct somethign or someone cause I am framed as the bad guy.

-> If I try to explain the situation, noone "wants to read through all that". Yeh thanks for nothing.

This happened by now about 4 times and I am full to the brim with taht non-sense. I used different stratgies, for example, avoiding said type of users which only leads them to make even more claims about me, sometimes even behind my back on the talkpage of another user they try to get on theri side (also happened I do not want to call names cause I do not want to escalate it further, but on request I could precisely tell you who is involved and where it happened).

If Wikipedia is not able to protect their editors from harassment, deframing, and such forms of injustice, I genuinely wan to quite. My goal here was to make religio-related articles as much neutral and scientific as possible, of course religious zealots (not the normal ones), hate this cause a lot of their zealous beleifs are build on fragile lies (like the awful discussion we recently had on Yahweh about the claim that Yahweh would not be deriving from a polytheistic pantheon). The majority of religious people are reasonable and wodnerful people, one reason more why I think we must not give in into people with religious biased views.

My conclusion on religious zealousy comes fromt he User's talkapge to be sanctined in participating in the Israel-Gaza war. This points at an emotional and personal involvement in matters of fights about religious matters. But it could also be something else. Strange however, were the edits on the Mephistopheles article I linked above, especialyl this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMephistopheles&diff=1317776866&oldid=1317773570 . Somehow this User has a clear image on what Islam is or how Islam is supposed to be. No matter what is said or what a source says, they always finds an excuse why it is not the case. Even if their own criteria are met, they change the goal post. Sometimes, they also add sources, which do not meet their own claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&diff=1317886917&oldid=1317861831

The source does not even mentioned Mosaic Law as we can figure out in the search system. The source only describe the process of Allah offering a revelation to Moses, which has never been contested. This confusion caused by Mike also leads to Ermenrich to entirely miss my point. I do not discuss with them, as they locked me in as the bad guy anyways already: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&diff=1319086136&oldid=1319053609

And yes, it is an obligation to remove misleading claims or to remove sources which do not back up claims, consensus does not matter, if that is the case and I will stand by that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

edit: another point which plays into Mike being actually doing religious or alt-right propaganda is them on "never playing defense", which was one of the main deceptions by the recently killed "debater" Charlie Kirk. Mike never replied to any of my objections, even here, you only see them accusing me of something but never taking responsibility for anything they did, said, or the things they were accused of. We need Users to take responsibility or less Wikipedia will step by step becoming a playgorund for spreading misinformation.

Btw, I see the discussion here is not advancing at the moment, so I will be heading out for today and porbably a few days. I have been very transparent about my delayed replies, even with Mike (who strangely always replied only after I announced me leaving, strange stange), so please, everyone, take the time to go through what is going on and waht is actaully said. Because Users who are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather push religious or alt-right narratives have become way to frequent in the last two years. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

In this recent comment at Moses, we have Threatening to quit Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions at a large portion of the community, and the use of Wikipedia as a source.

They also deleted a comment from me linking to this AN thread, violating WP:TPO

Given their characteristic walls of text, amount of typos, and insistence on being right, I’m also prepared to describe the user as high maintenance Mikewem (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

do you have anything other than personal attacks? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm going through some of the diffs, for example this source addition from Mikewem. I found this source at Google Books but I'm not able to verify the claim on the given pages ("55–66"). Perhaps I missed it? If anyone can give the actual page that verifies this claim, I'd be happy to look again.

I also checked the removed claim in this diff against the source, also available at Google Books, and the source does say "Moses was in all likelihood a historical figure". It then goes into a variety of issues with the claims attributed to Moses, but none of that appears to undermine the supposed historicity of Moses.

The last thing I'll say is that any accusations of religious biases really should be accompanied by diffs. To my knowledge, the historicity of many figures from the Bible isn't doubted, and it's not a bias to say so. Of course, attributing supernatural abilities to them is another matter. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The historicity of Moses is uncertain. I mean, we can't even be sure that he did not exist, since the data is lacking. If he did exist, he is lost to the historical record. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I've done more research and it does appear that the majority of academic biblical scholars believe that Moses is likely mythical and was not a historical figure. At least that's what I'm seeing from a cursory reading of sources. I believe this has changed in the decades since I studied the subject in college. Interesting! Woodroar (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s a question of whether Schmid and Schröter said it in 2021, as we report they did. Verification confirms that they did say it in 2021. It’s possible we shouldn’t use this source for some other reason, but no other reason has been raised. Mikewem (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

yeh you are right there, but they do not say it:

Talk:Moses: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

VFF challenged the claim from the lead that “Mosaic Law” (or some reasonable synonym of it) is mentioned in the Quran. They did not challenge the same claim’s appearances in the body of the article at Moses#Islam. So I checked that the source does say what we claim it says, then copied the cite into the lead, due to VFF’s challenge. Pg 55 says “Moses is defined in the Quran as both prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul), the latter term indicating that he was one of those prophets who brought a book and law to his people.” Our article possibly plagiarizes this in this Islam section, and that sentence in our article should possibly be looked at. Mikewem (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Does that really verify the source, though? It's rather vague, "brought a book and law to his people". The statement in our article is very specific, "According to the Bible and Quran, God dictated the Mosaic Law to Moses, which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah". I think we should have a source that clearly and unambiguously supports this. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

“which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah” is not completely correct and should be changed. I suggested changing it here, but VFF objected Mikewem (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeh because the statement is not correct it should be changed. Your suggestion would have been made it worse. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Context guys... context.. the source also clarifies that if there was a historical Moses, none of the things attributed to him are true. I also made this clear on the talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoses&diff=1313393210&oldid=1313383218

There is also the compelte text of the relevant passage. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think that VenusFeuerFalle is showing some concerning behavioral and possible WP:CIR issues, which have now culminated in his bringing Mikewem to AN. I think we should focus on this sort of thing rather than the underlying content dispute. It could be that VenusFeuerFalle is right, but he certainly hasn't convinced the people editing at Moses that he is.

1. VenusFeuerFalle claimed that only one person had participated in the discussion, but he did so by only counting one part of the discussion [8], also here. I challenge anyone to look at the discussion at this point he was referring to and tell me that there was consensus for VenusFeuerFalle's changes (and note that his edit is not about the historicity of Moses at all)
2. Personal attacks I feel like I am surrounded my illiterate morons at this point [9]
3. Anyone have a look at the talkpage at Talk:Moses and figure out what VenusFeuerFalle is arguing at any given point - he's subdivided the discussion into multiple parts and does not respond at the end. He is extremely repetitive, refuses to provide sources despite repeatedly being asked, and keeps insisting that he is right. It is very difficult to follow the enormous WP:WALLSOFTEXT that he keeps posting. He appears to be arguing two different things at once and is either unable or unwilling to untangle them - he uses the discussion of one to justify his edits to the other. It's all exceedingly confusing.
4. He keeps insisting he does not need consensus for his edits, resulting in a minor edit war, [10], [11], [12], [13]

I'm not going to say whether anyone else is behaving badly in this content dispute, but I have certainly not found VenusFeuerFalle to be great at coherently explaining his points or acting in ways that accord with the basic principles of Wikipedia editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding this personal attack from the edit war notice on their talk page: it cannot be that Users are free to spread their anti-intellectualism dogshit everywhere Mikewem (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional recent personal attack from Talk:Mephistopheles#Mephistopheles, the (Christian) Devil, and Iblis: Where in your fantasy world do you think I got the quote from? Mikewem (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

yeh truth hurts... I mean, it just what it is and no we should not suggar coat people who are obviously deceptive and dishonest. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m alarmed that even in the midst of your own post at AN, you’re still edit warring Mikewem (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeh, cause as I said, it is allowed to revert lies. The source does not claim what you cited, so it is not even an edit war it is vandalism prevention. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works, and referring to good-faith edits as vandalism is a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

they are certainly not good faith, or explain to me why the user reverts my edits on a different article stating "it is not in the source" after I quoted in fact the source. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

my issue here is also not the matter of historicity of Moses, or the definition of Mosaic Law. My issue is the User. if you think as an admin (?) that there is nothing wrong with them, then Wikipedia simply isn't the communtiy anymore I want to belong to anyways. Too many valuable editors already left for exactly the same reasons I brought this to the notice board. If there is nothing to be done about the issue, and the community increasingly tolerates dishonesty, I do not want to participate in that community anymore anyways. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Also anti-intellectualism is a movement, not a comment on your IQ. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Referring to another editor as an anti-intellectualist is a personal attack. Consider this a once and final warning: your next personal attack will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: VFF’s preferred versions are all live at the three pages mentioned here. What is the correct venue to determine whether VFF gives accurate representations of what the sources say and whether these are acceptable sources to use? Is it at each respective talk page? Is it RSN? Do I need to do 3 RfCs at this point? Mikewem (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It is reading comprehension... VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright I will not describe anyone who pushes for Histroy Revisionism or employs clear strategies of anti-intellectual movements such as Charlie Kirk, Ben Shepiro, etc. as "anti-intellectuals". That being said, anti-intellecuals are in fact very intelligent, else they would not be able to undermine intelelctual institutions. But alright, you are the boss, even though I wonder why Mike does nto get a warning for calling me incompetent, which clearly is a personal attack. (biased?) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if you are right about Mosaic Law, you have to behave according to the rules imposed upon all Wikipedia editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I posted every single fucking rule and guidline but yeh sure I am the one who does not abide. Honestly, lets consider this discussion over. @Mikewem congrats have fun with spreading misinformation. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• This post right here on AN encapsulates a lot of the problems that I have with VenusFeuerFalle's editing and talk page use on this issue. It is an unnecessarily long WP:WALLOFTEXT that ranges and rambles over various things that are far outside the actual point of this discussion (AN is not for discussing content - this goes for everyone). He accuses another editor of "religious zealousy (sic)" on flimsy pretenses - an WP:ASPERSION. He concludes by saying And yes, it is an obligation to remove misleading claims or to remove sources which do not back up claims, consensus does not matter, if that is the case and I will stand by that. - In other words, he does not feel the need to actually convince anyone of his point, so long as he "knows" that he is right. That's what he's failed to do repeatedly on talk:Moses - I can't speak to other articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I ams till not 'he' but it seems I just get ignored (again). basic human decency is obviously yesterday. My texts are nto hard to read, nowadays you can even ask a chatbot to summarize the key points. The accusations are also backed up. If I were not to convince anyone, I would not have writtent he so called "wall of text". But bringing one and one together is probably to hard.

  But I can see when a real consensus emerges. I fought this sorts of misinformation for a year now. It was good as it lasted. Let the walls crumble, I ebt in 5 years you will find something like "criticism on evolution theory" based on Bible scholars in the Evolution article or something, with the citation that some biologists says it is only a model which will eb taken as evidence that "some biologists say it is not reality" and thus" it is disputed among scholars" or something like that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Lets close this discussion, I do not have the time or energy for this. I repeat myself for months, and this is not the first time I have to engage in unncessary discussions on my free-time just because I wanted to improve an open source knowledge webpage. I have better things to do. Good bye!

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

Request for Review of RfC Closure: Talk:Floppy disk

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

---

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

1. Introduction

This request seeks administrative review of the July 2025 closure of the RfC on the scope of the Floppy disk article. Under WP:CONSENSUS, the strength of arguments must be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” The closer appears to have evaluated the discussion primarily on the distribution of views rather than through that required policy lens, and therefore misjudged both the applicable policy standards and the scope of disagreement. Review is requested under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

For convenience, this appeal hereinafter uses the abbreviations FD, FDD, HCFD, and HCFDD for floppy disks and floppy disk drives.

2. Background

The present dispute originated in mid–2025 at Parallel ATA, where an editor questioned whether high-capacity floppy disks (HCFDs) and their associated drives properly fell within the scope of “floppy disks.” Discussion of this position began at that article’s talk page on 5 July 2025.

Shortly afterward, similar removals were made at Floppy disk, prompting concerns that long-standing and reliably sourced content was being deleted without consensus. The relevant procedural history is:

• 5 July 2025 — Scope concerns first raised at Parallel ATA talk page
• 13 July 2025 — Removals of unreferenced and HCFD material at Floppy disk began without prior consensus
• 19 July 2025 — The Floppy disk article was proposed for deletion based on alleged lack of proper scope and sourcing; the community unanimously rejected the proposal and determined that the article should be kept
• 28 July 2025 — Inclusive scope restored following discussion, based on reliable-source terminology and established coverage of the floppy disk generation
• 12 August 2025 — Concerns about tendentious removal at the Parallel ATA article were raised at the Administrators’ noticeboard; no action was taken pending broader input
• 13 August 2025 — An RfC was opened at Floppy disk to solicit wider community views while the earlier discussion was still ongoing
• September 2025 — The RfC was closed with a determination of “consensus for Option #1” (narrow scope)
• October 2025 — The closure was questioned on the talk page, and an uninvolved administrator provided guidance regarding avenues for review, leading to this appeal

Views in the RfC were divided among narrowing, partial inclusion, and full inclusion. As explained below, this review challenges the RfC closure’s determination, which did not reflect the strength of arguments when judged through policy, as required under WP:CONSENSUS.

3. Policy Framework

Under WP:CONSENSUS, the strength of arguments must be judged through core content policies rather than vote count. The following policies are directly relevant to how article scope should be determined:

• WP:TITLE — Article titles reflect usage in reliable sources. Since reliable sources refer to high-capacity floppy disks as floppy disks, narrowing scope would conflict with policy.
• WP:RS / WP:V — Reliably sourced information must be included. Removal requires lack of sources, not editorial preference.
• WP:NPOV — Excluding successor formats risks bias and misrepresents the full historical development of the technology.
• WP:PRESERVE — Preference for improvement over deletion. Wholesale removal of sourced content fails this principle.

Together, these policies support the established inclusive scope and require that any narrowing must be justified by stronger policy-based reasoning than was presented in the RfC.

4. Discussion Strength and Lack of Consensus

The closer correctly noted that an RfC outcome depends on the strength of arguments rather than a numerical count of supports. However, WP:CONSENSUS specifies that strength must be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” In this discussion, no reasoning was offered as to why the arguments for limiting the article to “traditional floppy disks” were stronger or how such a restriction would comply with the core content policies—particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE.

The RfC attracted roughly twenty participants with views distributed among three main positions. Approximate support was ~9 for Option #1, ~4 for Option #2, and ~6 for Option #3/5/7. Their principal arguments are summarized in the table below.

Option	Summary	Key Arguments Cited
#1	Exclude HCFDs; limit to “traditional” floppy disks	As shown in Section 3, conflicts with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE Avoid reader confusion, WP:SURPRISE (cuts both ways) No source for “traditional” floppy disk category WP:RS Small market segment, WP:UNDUE Semantics (e.g., LS-120 disk not called LS-120 floppy disk) (cuts both ways) Simplify readability / organization
#2	Include only unusual sizes or minor variants	Improve organization and focus Treat rare formats as subtopics Ambiguous and inconsistent treatment of HCFDs No clear policy basis for excluding successors
#3/5/7	Inclusive scope (current coverage)	Reliable sources treat HCFDs as floppy disks (WP:RS / WP:V) No reliable source defines a separate “traditional floppy disk” category (WP:RS) Excluding successors risks bias (WP:NPOV) Brief coverage preserves balance (WP:UNDUE) Scope aligned with article title (WP:TITLE) Retains sourced content (WP:PRESERVE)

While the closer correctly observed that consensus depends on argument strength rather than vote count, WP:CONSENSUS also requires that strength be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Editors across the discussion invoked the same policies—especially WP:SURPRISE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS—but applied them differently according to their understanding of scope. The following subsections review each principal argument in turn.

Option #1 – “Traditional Floppy Disk” Only

• Conflicts with policy (Section 3) — Excluding high-capacity floppy disks conflicts with the core content policies described above, including WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE.
• Avoid reader confusion (cuts both ways) — Some readers may expect only legacy formats (WP:SURPRISE), but others reasonably expect all technologies referred to as “floppy disks” in reliable sources.
• No source for “traditional” floppy disk category — No reliable source defines a “traditional” subset. Scope would depend on personal judgment rather than verifiable criteria, contrary to WP:RS. A recent example was an editor’s good-faith addition of an early Burroughs flexible-disk drive to the main article, later moved to Floppy disk variants with a citation added.
• Small market segment — Opponents argued high-capacity drives were too limited to merit inclusion (WP:UNDUE). But exclusion would distort the historical development of floppy-disk technology.
• Semantics (cuts both ways) — Some argued that LS-120 and others are not “floppy disks” because they are not always named as such, but that inference constitutes original synthesis under WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources such as Briggs and PC Magazine explicitly describe LS-120 as a high-capacity floppy disk or floppy-disk drive.
• Simplify / readability / organization — Several editors preferred narrowness for simplicity, but organization alone does not justify removal of sourced content.

Option #2 – “Traditional Floppy Disks + Odd Sizes or Formats”

• Improve organization and focus — This option echoes the clarity rationale for #1 but does not address conflicts with WP:V or WP:PRESERVE.
• Treat rare formats as subtopics — Supports inclusion in principle but favors limited detail in a companion article, such as Floppy disk variants.
• Ambiguous treatment of HCFDs — No consistent or policy-based rationale was given for excluding high-capacity formats while retaining less-notable variants.
• No clear policy basis for excluding successors — Opponents noted that reliable sources cover HCFDs as direct successors, so exclusion creates inconsistency under WP:RS.

Options #3 / #5 / #7 – Inclusive Scope (All Recognized Floppy-Disk Types)

• Reliable-source usage requires inclusive scope — Major authorities (Mee, Porter, Briggs, CHM) treat high-capacity disks as part of the floppy-disk lineage. This directly supports inclusion under WP:RS and WP:V.
• No reliable source defines a separate “traditional floppy disk” category — exclusion relies on editor interpretation, not policies grounded in WP:RS.
• Avoid bias (WP:NPOV) — Excluding successors misrepresents the technology’s full history.
• Proportional treatment (WP:UNDUE) — The article already treats later formats briefly and proportionally, avoiding overemphasis while retaining accuracy.
• Semantics (cuts both ways) — Naming differences do not establish scope; sources explicitly call LS-120 high-capacity floppy disks so exclusion based on terminology alone would be WP:SYNTH.
• Prior local consensus — The inclusive scope was reaffirmed in July 2025 based on reliable sources. No new evidence was introduced in the RfC to overturn that result, so under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO the inclusive version remains the default.

Concluding Remarks

Although Option #1 appeared numerically ahead, WP:CONSENSUS requires policy-based argument strength to prevail over headcount. Here, support for narrowing scope lacked stronger policy grounding than the rationale supporting inclusion. At a minimum, the discussion lacked a clear and shared policy reason to exclude high-capacity floppy-disk designs. The proper procedural result is therefore No Consensus. Under WP:STATUSQUO, the inclusive article scope remains the default unless and until a stronger policy-based consensus supports narrowing it.

5. Requested Action

This request seeks administrative review of the RfC closure under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The closer did not address the central policy issue raised repeatedly in the RfC:

Key policy question for review:

Do reliable sources — including major authorities on magnetic storage technology (e.g., Mee, Porter, Briggs, and the Computer History Museum) — define “floppy disks” to include high-capacity floppy disks?

This question is critical: if the answer is yes, then under WP:RS, WP:V, WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE the inclusive scope is directly supported by reliable published sources; narrowing scope would introduce bias by excluding documented successors; and removal of sourced content could not be justified by editorial opinion.

Requested outcome

If reviewing administrators determine that the reliable sources cited above do include high-capacity floppy disks within the scope of the Floppy disk article, then:

• Replace the finding of “consensus for Option #1” with a finding of consensus for Option #5, retaining the inclusive scope and allowing improvements to readability through subarticles such as Floppy disk variants.

If reviewing administrators determine that this policy-based consensus has not yet been established, then:

• Replace the close with No Consensus, confirming that the inclusive scope remains the default under WP:STATUSQUO unless and until a stronger policy-based consensus supports narrowing it.

This is a procedural request based solely on correct application of Wikipedia’s consensus and content policies, and does not reflect on the good faith of any editor involved.

References

Tom94022 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Break after LLM collapse

@Celjski Grad, Butlerblog, WhatamIdoing, FaviFake, Snævar, Ethmostigmus, Pavlor, Rich Farmbrough, SnowFire, IndrasBet, Tiggerjay, Chipmunkdavis, ActivelyDisinterested, MrOllie, and Markbassett: Pinging RFC participants about this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm heading out, but my initial thoughts are that 1) there really needs to be a word limit for this sort of thing, and 2) Tom's LLM appears aware of WP:V, citing it in #3 Policy Framework with this statement, Reliably sourced information must be included. Removal requires lack of sources, not editorial preference. However, this statement by Tom's LLM completely ignores WP:ONUS (The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.) and WP:VNOT (While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.), which are both part of WP:V. This is actually the opposite of Tom's LLM's summary of those policies... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• This request for review appears to be LLM output and should be collapsed and hatted per WP:LLMCOMM. tony 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: It appears this closure review was written with assistance from a LLM. The "smart" quotes, large number of headings, each numbered, the incorrect capitalisation of every heading and bolded text, the extensive amount of boldface usage, the long bulleted lists using em dashes, shortcuts not being linked and instead being italicised, the incorrect spacing around slashes, the unnecessarily detailed and frequent references, the repetition of the words "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" three times, the unnecessary table, and the eerily uncommon words used make me think this is AI-generated. I've thus collsapsed it, also per the comments above. FaviFake (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure this is LLM output. From the previous RFC, this might well be just how Tom94022 writes. I can see collapsing it as a wall of text, though. (Tom: If you did write this, and I am willing to believe you did, it does not reflect well on your style it's confused with LLM output.) SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @SnowFire See Special:Diff/1318491635 and the rest of their sandbox's history. To me, it is obvious that this was AI-generated after reviewing the history of the sandbox where Tom appears to have pasted and fixed the errors in the AI output. FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I ran the text through GPT Zero and it came back 94% AI based (on the first 10,000 words, if someone with paid access wants to run it all through I'd be curious what the result is)... QuillBot has a similar length limit, but flagged whole paragraphs as likely AI generated. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Here's an edit in which they pasted markdown formatting, and another edit which created a slew of weird, empty references. I'd say this closure review was not written by them. FaviFake (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good catch, and once again I've wasted my time replying to a bot instead of a real person. No wonder the argument was so fundamentally flawed... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is absolutely LLM generated. Check the references (and also everything else about it). tony 22:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Side comment: I see the invisicomment suggesting discussion be done "above this line", but this seems tremendously confusing to have the discussion take place "inside" the challenger's statement. I think there should be a new section beneath the "references" instead for discussion.
• Anyway I am just going to say one quick point: if Tom94022 wishes to overturn the closure in his side's favor, fine, but it should not be done on grounds of "No consensus = revert to status quo = Tom wins". The problem is that the article has changed significantly back and forth in the past 5 years, so there isn't any status quo to revert to. In the unfortunate realm where the close really is overturned, then I would unironically suggest some arbitrary method of picking a "winner" like guessing if the tens digit of the temperature at JFK airport at 12:00 UTC on (future date) will be odd or even, and deciding which side "won" that way. There just isn't a stable, consensus version available to "revert" to. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, I've moved the references to inside the collapsed LLM content, someone else removed the HTML comment prior to that. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think I'm close to the limits of my patience with Tom's behavior over this dispute, so I think I'm not going to comment beyond putting on my RFC process wonk hat and saying that I think the closing summary from The ed17 is reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with WhatamIdoing, The ed17 appears to have correctly summarized the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with WhatamIdoing, the closure seems reasonable and certainly not as incorrect as the closure review makes it out to be. FaviFake (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not my preferred close, but it was quite clear that the RFC could not have been closed any other way. I can't see any valid reason to challenge it, and I would have closed it the same way. I suggest Tom94022 move on to working on how the information about high capacity and odd format floppies can be presented elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• (RFC author) Agree with WAID and all others above, closure summary was correct given the comments made. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

RfC closure review: Talk:Floppy disk

• Section merged with earlier appeal of the same topic CMD (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am requesting review of the closure of the RfC at Talk:Floppy disk.

The closer stated that argument strength was evaluated, but the closure summary does not explain how relevant content policies raised in the discussion (including WP:TITLE, WP:V/RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE) informed that assessment. WP:CONSENSUS requires evaluation of argument strength through the lens of policy. Because the closure did not document that policy-based evaluation, the basis for the close is unclear.

An earlier request for review at ANI was closed as a WP:SNOW close by an editor who self-identified as involved and wrote “please feel free to revert it”, without examining the underlying policy question. The closure therefore remains unreviewed on the procedure required for CLOSECHALLENGE.

Requested action: A new close by an uninvolved administrator that explicitly assesses policy-based arguments presented in the RfC and documents how the policies support the outcome reached. Supporting reliable-source information is available to the reviewing administrator on request to avoid re-litigating content in this venue.

Closer notified 27 October 2025: [14]

Signing as the requesting editor: Tom94022 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Tom94022 you know I'd rather the RFC had been closed differently, but I don't see it being overturned and I strongly suggest you move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about the merits of the various arguments, but given that this does not seem to be a straightforward RfC and there were a variety of opinions, I agree with Tom that the closer should add a bit more explaining their reasoning. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tom94022:, I am an uninvolved administrator. I am advising you strongly to drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, SarekOfVulcan, FaviFake, SnowFire, and TonySt: Pinging editors involved in the collapsed and closed prior close review... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@The ed17: And ping closer of original RfC since they weren't informed of this new close review... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The closer was notified in this notice (see above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Liz The "notice" by Tom above was for the previous discussion which was closed, Tom did not inform the closer of this new reopened discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 11:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

(RfC closer here) While believing that my RfC close was proper, I personally would have preferred that the first close review remained open with sections to delineate RfC participants vs. uninvolved editors. I'm only seeing one uninvolved editor in that thread, making a SNOW close questionable. Now it's just a process mess. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sarek and Bushranger are both uninvolved admins, the former agreed with WAID's comment in the closed discussion above, and the latter endorsed the closure. I think the problem is, with Tom's request determined to be LLM-generated, there was nothing to act on. As the hat notice says Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. (underline added), except for Tom's signature and the header, he basically posted an empty message. Tom's reopened request claims the prior request was closed ... without examining the underlying policy question, but there was nothing to consider as Tom wrote nothing previously. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said, I mainly closed the discussion because the sole supporter of the review was a inhumane chatbot. And this second discussion seems to be another vague, soulless message, just with an addition to the prompt to make it shorter. FaviFake (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I also endorsed the closure after reviewing the RFC, I didn't just agree with what WAID said. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If someone with the time and willingness to collect the diffs were to propose a WP:TBAN at WP:AN/I I would support it. This is textbook disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

On a side note, GPTZero says 96% of Tom's text is AI generated (4% is mixed, 0% is human) and is highly confident the overall post is AI generated. OTOH, QuillBot is coming back 100% human-written. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 03:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Even though there's disagreement between the two AI text detectors, I'm leaning towards it being more LLM generated text based on the hallucination of WP:V/RS (WP:V/RS does not exist) as well as the fact that none of the internal links are linked besides the talk page (which doesn't even link directly to the RFC, just to the page it's on). As FaviFake also noted, ... this second discussion seems to be another vague, soulless message, just with an addition to the prompt to make it shorter.

@Tom94022, you need to use your own words and explain why the RFC closure was incorrect. You have the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (which were provided to you many weeks ago on The ed17's talk page), but I would urge you to consider the warning: Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. Reading the text you've posted in both review instances so far, it appears you want an RFC review that reconsiders the underlying dispute. That is not what an RFC close review is for. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this post is written by an LLM but I'll be honest after trying once with an LLM IMO you've lost your chance at asking for a review especially when no one was interested in taking over your first one. If someone else asks for one you can participate but not from this. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes an LLM is the best people can do, and it's long-standing policy that "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." One hardly wants to reject a valid complaint because someone didn't say Mother, May I? first.

But as a practical matter, unless someone is more sympathetic to the OP's vision for the article than I can be, this request will ultimately be rejected one way or another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia survived for a long time before LLMs burst into popularity, and it's a general feeling, if not outright consensus-through-action, that message-board posts should be written in the user's own words, because otherwise we have no idea if they actually meant what the LLM spit out (or in too many cases can even understand it). Speaking personally if LLM output is the best people can do then they shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So you'd like to make having already learned English well enough to carry on a conversation a prerequisite for new editors to point out BLP errors, copyvios, overlooked vandalism, etc.? I wouldn't, and I don't think the rest of the community wants that, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems a strawman. A closure review has nothing to do with "pointing out vandalism" or copyright violations. FaviFake (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

None of those activities require the use of a LLM. A bad translation pointing out a BLP violation is more useful than the output of a LLM, one may be in poor English while the other has no understanding of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and generally just produces overly verbose junk. The community seems quite adamant that talk page comments shouldn't be written by LLMs -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

An earlier request for review at ANI ...

You're absolutely right, maybe we should move this discussion to ANI. This behaviour is getting disruptive. FaviFake (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

I’ve stayed silent to allow uninvolved administrators time to review this discussion.
For the record, I am the author of the appeal, which reflects my own understanding of the relevant policies.
My remaining question is procedural: whether the RfC closure evaluated argument strength through the required policy lens of WP:TITLE and WP:V, as outlined in paragraph 3 of my appeal. Since paragraph 3 sets out the relevant policy framework, I would appreciate its restoration so reviewers can see the issue in full context.
I will respond to questions from administrators, and I’ll accept the community’s determination on that point.
And with that, I’m officially dropping one of my sticks. Tom94022 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's now been 24 hours without any response.

To clarify, my request is procedural: whether the RfC closure evaluated argument strength using the policy framework required by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. In particular:

• No reliable sources were provided for the proposed “traditional” scope

• The broader, current scope is supported by multiple reliable sources as required by WP:TITLE and as available in accordance with WP:V.

I am not re-arguing the RfC content — only asking whether the closure followed the required policy-based evaluation.

A brief, policy-based response from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Thank you. Tom94022 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve stayed silent to allow uninvolved administrators time to review this discussion.

@Tom94022 Two different uninvolved administrators have already endorsed the closure. FaviFake (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Thanks for the note.

Not all uninvolved admins have endorsed closure, and none have addressed the procedural question I’ve raised: whether the close documented the required policy-based evaluation per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

I was not aware of the relevance of WP:TITLE to the sourcing issue until I began writing the appeal, and this point wasn't raised during the RfC itself. That’s the sole basis of my request. A brief, policy-based confirmation (or correction) from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Thank you. Tom94022 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Not all uninvolved admins have endorsed closure
Oh, I didn't know all 828 Wikipedia administrators had to weigh in on all RfC closure reviews. I guess we'll just have to wait then!

Please keep going, I'm sure it'll get overturned if you prompt your LLM enough times. FaviFake (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

@FaviFake Just for the record, I write my own posts. I’ve added a note on at User:Tom94022 about my editing approach and use of tools.

My request here is still only whether the closure documented the required policy-based evaluation per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Happy to wait for an uninvolved admin. Tom94022 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I'll repeat to you yet again that two different uninvolved administrators have already endorsed the closure. What you're actually waiting for is a third administrator, for some reason. FaviFake (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

And when that one doesn't give the desired response, it'll be waiting for a fourth, and so on. @Tom94022:, you are sealioning. That's not good. drop the stick and move on before you talk yourself into formally having a topic ban proposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tom, you say your request is procedural, but it's not. You're rearguing the merits again. You might have had a point had the narrow definition supporters somehow didn't know about or didn't understand your evidence (e.g. closure overturn due to late breaking information, or due to !voters clearly not engaging with the material and dropping off WP:JUSTAVOTEs), but that's not the case. The "other" side saw your reliable sources evidence and !voted for the narrower definition anyway. That's a loss on the merits, not on a procedural defect. The closer essentially taking !votes as written when the !votes are a thoughtful consensus of good faith editors is fine and what closers should do. So not a procedural problem.
• On the merits itself, you keep writing as if merely finding reliable sources using broad definitions means Wikipedia has to mimic that. The "other" side does not deny that these sources exist, and in fact it's great if you want to use them to expand topics on the broad sense of floppy. But there are tons of sources that discuss just classic floppys, especially during the period of the floppy drive's prominence. Wikipedia has to pick an organizational structure. Nothing's stopping you from still working on the same topic, just in an article structure different from what you'd prefer. SnowFire (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Heads up on potential issues in future

In the wake of Larry Sanger's Nine Thesis (which were discussed to death at VPM) the WaPost published this piece that interviews him extensively. Of note if at the end which has this statement:

Instead, he said, he is working to enlist hundreds of conservatives in the United States and abroad to become active Wikipedia editors, working in concert to revise articles on such topics as the Israel-Gaza war, Hindu nationalism in India, the safety of vaccines and the causes of climate change. “Nothing is stopping us,” Sanger said. “All of us who feel like we have been shut out of Wikipedia, driven away over the years — I think it’s a good idea that we spend a few months, a season, on Wikipedia and see what can happen.”

Nothing to suggest this is happening yet, but I can such a project becoming disruptive, and should be a concern for us as admins. Masem (t) 20:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you sharing this information but I caution against going any further than this. Organized activity to address Sanger's claims (which is all they are right now) just serves to confirm the groundless prejudices that exist that Sanger is referring to. Don't let fears cause anyone here to overreact. Who knows, if some new editors abide by our policies and guidelines, we could gain some competent new editors. Let's not create an us vs. them mentality here which is what Sanger claims exist but actual editors know that the environment here is much more complex than that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but if start to see abnormal/disruptive, coordinated activity on those pages in the topic areas given, we should be aware this method might be a possible vector. Absolutely should AGF even when a new editor is adding controversial material otherwise. Masem (t) 23:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ideological diversity is good. Not sure there's much room for greater weight to minority POVs in our coverage of the safety of vaccines or the causes of climate change, but on political issues like Israel/Palestine and Indian politics we always benefit from having editors on multiple sides of an issue, even if one side is more in line with what the RS say. If nothing else they're a good check against articles being written like opinion pieces for the other side, rather than factually presenting a narrative that happens to align with the other side. If Sanger's acolytes can follow our content and conduct policies and guidelines, then they're welcome here. If they can't, we have a pretty robust structure in place to deal with disruption in these kinds of topic areas, at this point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to monitor policy related pages, as part of the recently proposed "theses" could weaken the security of the encyclopedia in ways that could facilitate coordinated troll farms. There also is apparent pressure against editors with the checkuser right (who do not dictate article content, but are vital for SPI) to reveal their identity. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

206.248.143.75, that comment about pressure being applied to our checkusers is something I haven't seen mentioned. Did you see this at an off-Wikipedia site or is it just a rumored possibility of what could happen? Checkusers already get an unfair amount of harassment from blocked, former editors, they don't need anything more that is based in specific political points-of-view. I hope this is just a "what could happen" fear right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"I hereby call upon each of the persons responsible for these 62 accounts to accept personal responsibility and reveal their names and identities to the public—or resign."[15] 206.248.143.75 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad RM closure by probable POV editor and possible block evasion

Please take a look at Jaybainshetland's closure (diff) at Talk:Shaetlan Language#Requested move 16 October 2025. There was no consensus for this move and the RM had just been relisted. Jaybainshetland moved the page to an alternative title that had not been discussed and that violates WP:SENTENCECASE. I inquired about the closure and move on their talk page and their response indicated that failure to acknowledge opposition to the move was an honest mistake. They submitted a technical request to move the title to Shaetlan, which is not a satisfactory outcome. I have contested the technical request at WP:RM/TR (permalink). Jaybainshetland's name indicates they may be a POV editor with respect to Shetland topics. Additionally, while on their user talk page to ask about the RM I saw a history that suggested prior block evasion. The page move should be undone and the RM should be re-opened. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Fixed link to RM. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

They also admitted in their response to me i am personally in support of the move, an obvious supervote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I've re-opened the RM. I'm not especially worried about the block evasion; the unblock request would have been accepted had Mshoolie submitted it, and the response gave them tacit permission to keep editing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening this and taking a look! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologised and am quite happy for you to reopen the discussion as I definitely closed it without better judgement.

But scrolling through my page and bringing up block evasion due to some issues on mshoolie (an account i had as a child) which have already been dealt with on my talk page. Really?

I’ll assume good faith, but it seems a bit below the belt if i’m being honest. I’m not trying to have a go at you, but please remember WP:CLEANSTART.

All the best, Jay. Jaybainshetland (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Pointing out that you are, in fact, a blocked editor is hardly "a bit below the belt." It doesn't seem like anyone so far has chosen to enforce it, but the fact of it still exists. WP:CLEANSTART is only available to accounts in good standing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, except i’m not a blocked editor, i was given permission to keep editing and am doing my best to contribute productive edits.

Maybe learn to leave the past in the past? Jaybainshetland (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Unblocks usually aren't simply implied, so it's perfectly reasonable to inquire further. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, leave the past in the past!

I’m not talking any more about this as it’s getting petty… Jaybainshetland (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Your attitude makes me think perhaps a block for block evasion/socking is called for. Definitely your claims to have matured since your block seems questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Bot running into abuse filters

Hi, I was doing the test run for User:MatrixBot, and ran into an abuse filter. Since the task isn't approved I don't have the bot flag. Please could someone give EC so I don't run into filters? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Matrix,  Done — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, however it's still hitting the filter for some reason. I've posted at EFR. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

ITNC needs attention

We have a backlog of articles at WP:ITNC that are ready for posting to the main page. I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect creation request for the page "2001 (Dr. Dre album)": "Bitch Niggaz", "Bi*** Ni**az", "Pause for Porno", "Pause For Porno"

These titles are blacklisted, so I'm requesting here. "Bitch Niggaz" is a real song from the album, the official censored title is "Bi*** Ni**az". "Pause for Porno" and "Pause For Porno" are alternate title variants for the song name "Pause 4 Porno". Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've created Bitch NiggazBitch Niggaz. The other three aren't blacklisted. (Maybe there's an edit filter? I didn't try to save.) —Cryptic 17:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Unban request from TheGracefulSlick

• TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Link to CBAN discussion
• Yamla noted no CBAN evasion

Six years ago, I was banned for a consistent behavior of lying to people in the community, as well as going back on promises regarding content I would and would not edit. I tried circumventing the ban with sockpuppets. After making an appeal in 2020, I briefly tried other Wikipedia projects where I wasn’t banned, but I did not have any passion for it and cut off Wikipedia entirely. I am returning now in hopes of showing those who may remember and new people that I can collaborate with others, openly and honestly. If unbanned, I plan to reach out to K.e.coffman (if they are still active) to help with WW2 articles, as is still my interest. I also want to fulfill a longstanding goal of improving the Doors albums to GA status. I will need to relearn a lot on how to edit Wikipedia. I will be cautious and open to help from others. I will also accept any editing restrictions. I hope to demonstrate to you all I am not the same person from 2019. Please allow me that opportunity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 5:48 pm, 24 October 2025, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−4) carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Six ywars is a lot of time and I'm inclined to say sure, but I wasn't around for the original ban and I'd like to hear from folk who were. CoconutOctopus talk 08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock as the blocking admin from 2019. Six years is indeed a long time, and the appeal seems sincere enough. Notably there's upfront acknowledgement of the problems of the past, which is an important precursor to returning to the community. Those problems notwithstanding they were also a (mostly) productive editor before the ban. Let's see if they can be again. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Cautious comment: On the one hand, it's a very good appeal; on the other, we've seen good appeals from TGS before (even with I plan to improve the remaining studio albums by the Doors to GA status[16]) and been disappointed. We might consider unbanning with restrictions, but some in the CBAN discussion supported TBANs from WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, and terrorist attacks until a deeper trust problem was pointed out, after which some !votes were changed to CBAN. Also, pace Euryalus, when you're old enough to have been a Doors fan back in the day, six years ain't that long. NebY (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

An unkind person might suggest that six years listening to The Doors might feel a whole lot longer than six years. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

In six years, you can listen to Rock is Dead almost three times! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Link to 2020 rejection of SO request. NebY (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Unban per the blocking admin's support for this request. Hopefully the project will benefit from TGS's additional years of experience and maturity (I matured once, didn't like it). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock good acknowledgment of past issues, has the ability for good content creation, and it's been a significant maturing period. So concur with blocking admin to give a final chance. If they have any sense they will stay away from the political and contentious areas they had issues with before. KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock, a lot can change in six years.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Unsure I remember TheGracefulSlick well. The misgiving I have is that I remember this editor spending a lot of their time on noticeboards, reporting other editors for what they believed were infractions of many different types. We don't need more editors serving as Project Police. It's hard enough to discourage this habit among existing editors. I'd feel better knowing that this editor was going to focus on content creation and improvement rather than reporting on the failings of their fellow editors. But I feel better just mentioning this habit here in case it becomes a problem in the future if this editor ends up unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Certainly a valid concern re Project Police, of which there are way too many in controversial topics. OTOH per this their mainspace edits are 78% of their total, which is better than many medium-to-longterm editors. I'm not here as their champion (I was the one who blocked them after all), but if they continue in mostly mainspace they might do okay. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock - It’s up to TGS to prove that they have improved since 2019. Welcome back.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Sorry, I'm not willing to give you a third chance here. This request conspicuously fails to mention the previous time we went through this rigamarole in 2018 and had to reban. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much of a time sink. We already went through all this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, borrowing the word of @Premeditated Chaos: from a prior discussion as they're still true. I don't care whether it's happened again since their last unblock. I don't think anyone who has ever used sockpuppets to harass someone while simultaneously pretending to friendly with them is someone who should be unblocked. Passage of time without even addressing the kind of socks used doesn't inspire confidence they learned from that. Star Mississippi 01:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Copied over from TGS' user talk. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)I didn’t plan to make additional comments unless asked, but I think this needs to be addressed. I fully acknowledge the sock puppets from my first ban were used to harass others. I was not ignoring that at all. I was focusing on what led to my current ban. It also was a part of the deceitful behavior I mentioned. I can only offer the fact that I have grown much from my experiences since first editing as a teenager. I matured, gained meaningful connections with others, and developed the empathy I needed to be in a collaborative environment like this. You have every right to maintain your stance, but I hope you reconsider knowing that I am not shrinking from taking accountability for the harm I caused to people in the past.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - A possible flaw in these oppose arguments that I have no clue how to address is the reality that people don't need to be unblocked in order to edit. Icewhiz, one of the original complainants against TheGracefulSlick, whose account was blocked not long after TGS, has chosen a much more effective path than asking for forgiveness. They don't hand over the power of when and where they can edit to admins by asking for another chance, another opportunity to demonstrate that they can follow the rules. They just edit using numerous disposable accounts when and wherever they want, and they have made tens of thousands of revisions since they were blocked. I think the reality that we do not currently have the tools to prevent individuals from editing, we can only block (some of) their accounts, means that people who choose Icewhiz's path have a substantial fitness advantage over people like TheGracefulSlick who try to return to the community with the community's blessing. This is presumably one of the reasons why the proportion of revisions by sockpuppets is substantially higher in contentious topic areas like WP:ARBPIA than in Wikipedia in general. When the chance of a block/ban review failing is relatively high, choosing sockpuppetry over block/ban review can become the rational choice for some people determined to edit Wikipedia. If someone wants to return to the community and demonstrate that they can follow the rules, perhaps WP:ROPE is the least bad option available. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • That's arguing that "sockpuppetry is going to happen so it's actually good" which is a preposterous proposition. The correct way for an indef blocked editor to demonstrate they're reformed is to take at least six months editing without issue on projects where they are not blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Renamed user c00f7e9510f7cf442d589dc3abd6c00e

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

---

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove PCR. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 08:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Killing of Ahmed Abu Mutair

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

---

Killing of Ahmed Abu Mutair is a newly created article that I'm guessing is most likely subject to some kind of editing restrictions and discretionary sanctions. The article's talk page has yet to be created and I wondering whether someone who's familiar with articles about contentious topics could add all the necessary templates (including whatever WikiProject banners might apply) to the talk page. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this after checking the infobox image and have no familiarity with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request has been placed at WP:RFPP already and the template {{ARBPIA}} has been added to the talk page. I marked it as falling under BLP for now since the event was fairly recent. -- Reconrabbit 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Indef ECP per ARBPIA. In the future, simply posting at RFPP will suffice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Reconrabbit and The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I've also created the edit notice, so I think that covers all of the preemptive measures: protection, talk banner, and edit notice. Left guide (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Restore access to creating draft pages

I have requested on my talk page to have my access to creating draft pages restored and I was told to ask here. I was banned from creating pages in the article namespace due to the redirects I had created but I do not see how this ban should also apply to the draft space as that is not used for redirects. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have 12 drafts at the moment. I think it's too soon, I think you need to get these drafts through the process before asking for the ability to create more. --Yamla (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I am currently waiting for most of those drafts to be reviewed, some of the others were rejected. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It might be best tabling your request until they've all gone through, since that'll give the admins a clearer picture to assess your unblock appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

New clerks (October 2025)

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome the following editors to the clerk team as trainees, effective immediately:

• ~delta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GoldRomean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sennecaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Additionally:

• DatGuy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) will join the team as a trainee, effective mid-November
• Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has agreed to rejoin the team as a full clerk to assist with the training process

The arbitration clerk team is grateful to everyone who applied. We are often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § New clerks (October 2025)

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: automatic abstentions for non-votes

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to allow automatic abstentions for arbitrators who have not voted, under certain conditions. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: automatic abstentions for non-votes

Block in violation of site's rules

See also
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cladeal832
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cladeal832,_II

Why are other editors coming in to reword and revert my notice as it's hindering discussion. This isn't a vote on consensus. I'm making a formal complaint for admin review that my rights were violated since even if you take this edit war, admins are suppose to put a warning on the Talk Page before going to a block. Nor is my edits disruptive.

This is about edit made on September 9th so it wasn't an emergency. Suddenly within 24-hour period, an article that got next to no edits got a dump of editors insisting on reverting something that's been there for quite some time without making any contributions to a rather short article. This is Wikipedia:False consensus#Coordinated_actions. The user asked specific accounts who had nothing to do with this specific article which is inorganic to real discussion.Talk:Ella McCay#c-GoodDay-20251030192900-Premise That is was being discussed, but Cullen328 jumped in and blocked in the middle of the discussion. Even if you disagree with my actions, I was doing to the make the article better and the other editors have been throwing around accusations of unsourced, plagiarism, trivial, original research, lack of citation, citation behind a subscription paywall. There are probably others escaping at this point. Original research is meant to bar things like saying I have proof that the Moon landing was faked, this is the plot of an unreleased movie and some context Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader At this point is just silly since this is one sentence where most of the words is just titles of movies. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't an edit war of me just reverting over and over again to get my way. The other user was taken out material well-established in the article and in the middle in the discussion.

Cladeal832 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You were blocked for excessive edit-warring. Also nobody canvassed anyone. In fact, one might even argue, you were showing WP:OWN & WP:BATTLE behavior, at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Noting that all edit warring is considered excessive and WP:3RR is the hard line in the sand at which point participants may be immediately blocked to prevent further disruption, with no regard for who is right or wrong in a content dispute. From the policy "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block" Mfield (Oi!) 04:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) At a minimum, you made 9 reverts [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] to a single article in a 24 hour period, well exceeding the bright line three-revert rule, your reverts did not qualify for any of the 8 exceptions to 3RR. As an uninvolved editor my suggestion is to stop digging. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm contesting the block and the length. Cullen328 is subject to review as much as anybody else.

I was going to Talk Page and making my case and responding beyond the people who are just obsessing over me. For people going on and on consensus, the concept of discussion or another point of view seems to total mystery or source of frustration. I don't want to presume and also YOU edit war since nobody made you except one account kept reverting this so to get around the rules or a bunch of accounts with can't name three things on the upcoming movie "Ella McCay" are massively interested in it on this one single point that was being debating for days. I don't feel a block, let alone forever, is good faith since I've actually contributed uncontested parts of this article which nearly none these reverting accounts haven't done. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What's more likely. A bunch of IP addresses suddenly were concerned about an edit made on Sept. 9th or one person was signing out of the user account and reverting over an IP address to avoid edit war tag and make a false consensus. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Cladeal832, from looking at the history there was exactly one IP involved (173.22.12.194), who has a fair number of contributions on their IP, which makes me think they are just a regular editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

One significant point about WP:CONSENSUS is that you don't get to continue to argue a point indefinitely once a majority concludes a point of debate is decided. You have to be able to accept that consensus and move on in order to be able to continue to edit in a community project. That applies as much to content as it does to community policies and standards of behavior. Not every edit you have made over time will survive more than a few minutes intact, that's the nature of Wikipedia and the terms you agree to as a contributor. The flip side is we routinely indefinitely block editors who are unwilling to accept those community policies as WP:NOTHERE, the project is built on collaborative collegial editing and it will survive better without editors who cannot work within that framework.Mfield (Oi!) 04:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block is not forever. Indefinite is not infinite. The block is until we know you understand that the fact you were going to Talk Page and making my case and responding is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that you were at 9RR and you will never do this again. You are extremely fortunate you were only pblocked from the article and its talk page; many (perhaps even most) admins would have issued a full site-block (if perhaps not an indefinite one) upon seeing such egregious edit-warring. Also nobody has to be able to name three things to edit an article. I'd strongly suggest you step away from editing this article and go edit other things for awhile, re-establish the good faith your 9RR spree threw in the bin, and appeal the block much later when you can point to that re-established good faith as a reason anybody should believe that unblocking you won't simply result in a resumption of your edit-warring, - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It fair to question why all these accounts and IP address who haven't edit this article and seem to have zero interest in the movie "Ella MacCay" flood into this discussion in mass action. It's not organic nor about what's best to the article. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You're exhibiting an WP:OWN attitude again. The page block should remain. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit wars create instability, reports on noticeboards, and generate notifications in watch-lists and thus interest. It is not abnormal for an increased amount of activity on an article to attract more activity. Another reason why edit wars are a bad idea instead of reasoned talk page discussions, and why blocks are used to stop them. Mfield (Oi!) 04:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

At least three of the editors were almost certainly not canvassed, judging by the edit history. Rusted AutoParts and MikeAllen both edited the article before you, and I would assume they probably both had it on their watchlist; which would explain how they got to the article. As for 173.22.12.194, while IPs don't have watchlists, its also much more difficult for them to get canvassed in the first place (no email, no contact information unless they gave it out), they probably got to the article due to the post at this noticeboard; and by the timing of the edits Erik likely got to the article due to this noticeboard as well. Since I also got to the article due to a post on this noticeboard, that would leave two potential canvassed users; GoodDay and Ravenswing. Which I think its reasonable to assume good faith that they didn't get canvassed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I got to the article due to a post on this noticeboard; I've been an ANI frequent flyer for several years now, and in like fashion, GoodDay is active on ANI as well. Ravenswing 06:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I saw the Ella McCay "Premise" discussion happening in the related changes link here that I monitor. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't own the article and have accepted changes to it. It's not realistic to believe this much energy has been put into me. These accounts have written more about me than the whole of the Ella MacCay and seem perplexed that I keep bring it back to me and a massive concern for the edit history for this article which already has mostly me. That's not me claiming any ownership, but a fact that this is weird and concern that a bunch of random accounts who have zero interest in Ella MacCay, the topic of the article, swarm into total agreement anytime I made any edit including on an admin notice board where I haven't mentioned any of them. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that I have explained my reasoning for the pageblocks both on Cladeal832's talk page and on my own. If anyone else has questions for me, I will do my best to answer. As for the last point directly above, this is one of the most highly visible noticeboards on Wikipedia, and it is unsurprising that highly active and experienced editors "notice" what's going on at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

One, it's not your personal rationale, but you did not provide a warning. I know the rules on Blocking. You are suppose to put in a warning. If you are going to dish it out, you are also subject o rules you might like to follow as well and concequences for when you don't follow them. You didn't. Also Wikipedia own guidelines have "Wean in doubt, don't block" since don't expect the user to be grateful.

Two, the board has too much groundthink in general, but this pile it big even for this board and started even before any notice was posted. I engaged in the first notice, it was went nowhere so I figured I get a warning and because make my case then since the first one didn't up mattering. Also 3 notice boards for the article "Ella MacKay" is coordinated.

None of these random user have edited on Ella MacCay nor made a case that I damaged the actual article. Edit warring worked in September since it was so low interest. I tried to point about this wasn't a citation issue (which a lot of just assumed it was), but one guy writing it trivial and my take it was contextual WP:AUDIENCE. None of seemed aware the concept existed or it was very subjective take either way that couldn't site rules, yet one removed it lacking neutrality and another for linking to a site behind a paywall. It was weird.

Wikipedia:VOTESTACK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ella_McCay#c-GoodDay-20251030192900-Premise

This stuff with a bunch of new edits who have never cared about an edit I made on Sept. 9th happened long before the notice board Consensus is just random people (or specifically solicited users by one particular issue which happened and you didn't addressed despite a violation of the rules) just showing up in the Talk Page and voting without any engagement since the points they were making clearly showed they knew nothing about this movie and was pointed out, never responded. If you read the Talk Page of the article, I was in the middle of trying to be fruitful discussion with another user when you blocked me because of rando complains from people don't care the actual article. I keep bringing it back to "Ella MacCay" and the article since that the major emphasis on the consensus page rather than rando votes who come and then leave.

This is odd. Why are so many people massively interested in the edit history of Ella MacCay. Even for this noticed board, within 5 minutes there is more engagement on this then any topic. One the edit reverts was for somebody who claimed that I hadn't proven the state was unnamed without noticing it's mentioned in another part off the article. I've never had this much interested in an edit before and clearly coordinated. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS as in your last two posts above, you will be blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

"have accepted changes to it" is just not true. The fact you've reverted nine editors, spanning over a month, to revert any attempt to remove a sentence from the premise section, shows this. You would even then in edit summaries proclaim your restoration of the sentence "as per talk page" as if an agreement was reached or you were successful in demonstrating to any of us were wrong about the removal. You would revert people simply tagging the sentence for issues. It's not "weird" for people to see your edits and take exception. I created the page, so it's on my watchlist. Editors like Bovineboy and MikeAllen regularly edit articles in the film field, so they likely looked in on the page through that. No canvassing was committed. Because, namely a vote was not being conducted, no poll, a mere pinging to inform editors you reverted or previously chimed in that the discussion was occurring should they have anything to add in. It's profound bad faith to assert that it was a canvass job to try and outnumber you. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What is "weird" is that you've been on Wikipedia for as long as you have and not get how significant parts of it work. For instance, I came across this quote directed towards you: "Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter whether you are reverting the "same or different material". You've been editing for 15 years and have made over 11,000 edits and aren't familiar with basic Wikipedia policies? I find that hard to believe." That was from the ANI archive in July 2021. You've pushed similar riffs on the 3RR noticeboard, both in 2016 and 2023, when you claimed it was alright to break 3RR because you were right and everyone else was wrong. It should not be news to you, after having been brought up several times on noticeboards, that uninvolved editors notice, check things out, and make their own opinions known. Long time admin Black Kite wondered in 2021 whether your persistent refusal to grasp 3RR or how consensus works here was a competency issue, and I'm wondering that myself now. Ravenswing 06:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• endorse block. @Cladeal832: That we have no interest in the article in question means we can assess the situation neutrally and objectively. In my opinion, your behavior at the article and on this ANI thread leaves the impression that you're not compatible with a collaborative project like this one.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also, what Ravenswing said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse block, noting that in my view the block is lenient. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Concur on lenient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose Cladeal832 would view me as an involved editor at this point, so I won't formally endorse the block, but I agree that it's lenient. There's been many an editor with similar views about their inalienable right to edit war at will, took no lessons from multiple blocks for the same, and wound up with community bans for their pains. While the smart thing would be to learn from this and respect Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring, consensus and casting aspersions, the smart thing would've been to learn that a decade ago after the first such block. I expect we'll be right back here in time. Ravenswing 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Noted. I might propose a WP:1RR restriction for OP later. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse block: Cladeal832, you have been on Wikipedia for two decades and have made over 10,000 edits. You've been blocked for edit-warring before. You ought to be well aware that you should not get into a situation where you are edit-warring alone against seven different people. You shouldn't be making nine reverts on an article in the space of 24 hours.
  You say in opening this thread that admins are supposed to put a warning on the Talk Page before going to a block; in fact WP:BLOCK explicitly says that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. As an experienced editor, you are expected to know that this level of edit-warring is unacceptable; you had been warned both on your talkpage and on the article talkpage that you could be blocked and you went on to make several further reverts. You continued to edit war after two separate ANI threads were opened about your behaviour on this article. There was every reason for Cullen to believe that you were well aware that you were edit-warring and did not need any further warnings. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block - and agree that, in fact, it's quite lenient. This user needs to get a clue and get it fast. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Exceedingly generous block given that an editor with this much history on Wikipedia has basically no excuse to not know how consensus works or what edit warring means. The ease in which this editor imagines misconduct from others and makes accusations is especially concerning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Cullen did you a favour by not siteblocking you. Don't whip around to bite him; another admin is very unlikely to show such mercy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Too lenient, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block Also agree with it being too lenient; after almost 20 years the user should have more wiki-experience than he has shown here. Lectonar (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block Who ever said pre-block warnings are mandatory? Cullen has given you plenty of WP:ROPE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Propose WP:1RR restriction for Cladeal832.

Indefinite duration. Appealable after one year and every year thereafter. In this thread, OP's own words make the need clear. We have WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, WP:BLUDGEONing, a lack of WP:AGF, and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. CoffeeCrumbs says it best. "... an editor with this much history on Wikipedia has basically no excuse to not know how consensus works or what edit warring means. The ease in which this editor imagines misconduct from others and makes accusations is especially concerning." A 1RR restriction should draw a bright line that is clear to Cladeal823 and should deter further disruption.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as proposer.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  To brief recap you are writing as you are both proposing this and then also voting on it. That's just redundant. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  No it is not redundant. Just because someone proposes a restriction does not mean they want to !vote for it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I wrote he was soliciting votes because he solicited votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ella_McCay#c-GoodDay-20251030192900-Premise Really, you rando have gotten your way on an article you don't care about and neo-Nazi and flat-Earther don't get this much flack as I get for context over the setting of an unleased movie. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Those editors all were involved in the content disagreement. Of course they should be pinged. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not sure this restriction would properly address the issues. The only thing this would solve is the edit warring, and the other issues wouldn't be solved by this restriction. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Moot now. I was trying to be lenient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

INDEFFed

• I have indefinitely blocked Cladeal832 after the continued disruption here, especially with the latest response immediately above. Leaving this note to serve as documentation that should they be unblocked, the p-blocks may need to be reimposed depending on the unblock discussion. Star Mississippi 16:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well done. I was in the middle of responding to that last comment, which demonstrates how profoundly Cladeal832 either does not get it or doesn't give a damn. Ravenswing 16:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Endorse indef. I had hoped to avoid this with a simple one RR restriction, however, as someone wise once said, "when you're walking on eggshells, don't hop." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Regrettably, he'll likely continue to protest on his own talkpage :( GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Lass ihm. Lass ihm. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  From their talk-page comments post-block, it's clear that either editing here for nineteen years has seen them learn nothing about Wikipedia, or they are deliberatly trying to play at being a victim. Either way they're clearly not compatible with a collaborative project - good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Read over his talkpage. At this point (IMHO) it's no longer a competency issue. He's simply trolling. An administrator will likely soon 'block' their talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Word of caution. Cladeal832 has (many years ago) been blocked for sock-puppetry. Let's hope, he doesn't re-take that route. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Quite a few editors thought that my initial pageblocks were too lenient. Consider this: the editor's response right here and on their talk page to a very narrowly crafted sanction made it crystal clear to everyone that there is a much more serious problem with this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I don't think anyone's casting shade on you. Leaning towards the side of lenience is surely preferable than the alternative. Ravenswing 03:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Lenience, or forbearance if you will, was the right course of action at the time. It's not your fault, Cullen, that it proved it to be inadequate in the long run. It is the preferred response. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  leniency is always the better course of action. Many editors do learn from it and become better editors for it - this just wasn't the case here (yet) Star Mississippi 14:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  There will always be those who make us regret a decision and question our judgement, and lose confidence. I have learned through bitter experience to eventually shake it off and persevere. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think I was the first to say lenient, but did not mean that to be a reflection on the blocking admin, as shown by my endorsement of the block, which was indeed unanimously endorsed. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Replacement of CSD U5

Just a note for any CAT:CSD admins that WP:U5 has been repealed and replaced with two related but somewhat different criteria, WP:U6 and WP:U7. The upshot is that procedural deletion of user subpages is now a thing, merits-based deletion for off-topic content will continue to be a thing but be much rarer, and issues with top-level userpages will now be handled by blanking, subpagification/draftification, or deletion other under criteria as appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Replacement of CSD U5 FAQ for more information. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Gah. My inner Aspie hates change -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks. So just to be clear, WP:G11 still apples in user space? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Yes. There has been no change to how any of the G-series criteria apply to userspace: G1 and G2 still don't; all the others still do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The FAQ says so, but it's not clear as my clear spam under a promotional name, could be someone else's draft article. Secretlondon (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Something being potentially a draft, and thus ineligible for U7, is separate from whether it meets G11. Lots of drafts meet G11. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like WP:TWINKLE needs an update accordingly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a discussion at the Twinkle talk page, for anyone interested. tony 14:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I think @Chaotic Enby was working on something. In the meantime, the Twinkle-addicted among us have the option of checking "custom rationale" and writing in WP:U6 or WP:U7 as applicable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, and doing a custom select for U7 since it's a multiple option thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, I haven't read the information yet, but I'll tell you what I see a lot of and you can't tell me if there is a CSD criteria that fits them. I come across a lot of original content on User pages, content like short stories, diary entries, songs, letters, poems, fan fiction etc., and have used CSD U5 for these pages when they have otherwise fit this criteria. What would happen for these kind of pages? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Under the changed procedures, these pages will usually be deleted procedurally under U6 after six months of no edits, the same as would happen in draftspace. If they avoid deletion on that basis because someone keeps editing the page, the things you describe are all eligible under U7 starting six months after creation (rather than after last edit). This does not preclude deletion under G-series criteria (just earlier I tagged an alternate-history sandbox with G3 as a hoax), or taking pages to MfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

But we can also move them to a user subpage or draftspace, which is a good parking spot for that stuff.

I'm thinking of putting together a proposal as a follow-on to these changes that would require a templated heading for Wikipedia-like user pages that would make it clear they're not official articles (e.g., {{Userspace draft}}). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There's going to be a large amount of inappropriate content added by our youngest and most vunerable editors sitting around that doesn't meet WP:OS criteria but really makes it apparent they are very young. It shouldn't be moved anywhere, and MfD just shines more light on it, which should be avoided. U5 was a good tool for this as it's better to delete the content and have a kind word than to blank it. I understand that U5 was overused, but it did give admins discretion to remove clearly inapprorpiate, PII-adjacent content quickly and quietly. I guess I'll go back to IAR/BLPDELETE for these types of situations.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Ponyo, I meant to include personal information as well. I also see original content like stories about people editors go to school with. Basically, stuff you'd see more of on a personal blog than an encyclopedia. Some of that can be revision deleted as BLP violating content. Speaking on behalf of CSD patrollers, I think there might be some confusion with "6 months since last human edit" and "6 months since page creation". The page history will become more central. But I do agree that page patrollers and a few admins did overuse CSD U5 tagging to get any pages that were newly written in User space deleted, even ones that were obviously article drafts. I hope that U5 has been removed from Twinkle and other editing tools. Thank you for the clarification, Tamzin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There was some discussion of such pages at WT:CSD#Workshopping a more explicit U7 (now collapsed). —Cryptic 23:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, with some followup at User talk:Chaotic Enby § Some stray wording for a rainy day regarding a potential G16 to address this scenario, which is also an issue in draftspace and elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Btw, I've created the shortcuts WP:USERPAGEDRAFT and WP:U7BLANK for the two parts of this RfC consensus that govern top-level userpages. I've also updated the wording at {{draftified userpage}} to reflect WP:USERPAGEDRAFT. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Introducing SuggestedInvestigations

Cross posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Introducing SuggestedInvestigations.

Over the past several months, checkusers have been collaborating with Wikimedia Foundation staff on a new tool called Special:SuggestedInvestigations, or SI (documented in part at mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Anti-abuse signals/Suggested Investigations). The collaboration was sparked by a mutual understanding between CUs and staff that the CheckUser tool was becoming outclassed due to the decline in usefulness of IP and user agent information. SI is a work in progress and is very much in the beta stages, but it has shown great promise in identifying abuse in a very short period of time.

SuggestedInvestigations works much like the existing abuse filter in log-only mode, except the conditions are managed by WMF rather than by volunteers. SI runs against certain non-public information, and is accessible only to CUs and stewards on a few wikis, including the English Wikipedia. Right now, there are only a very small number of signals in the tool, but staff and volunteers are working together to add additional signals over time, based on our experience investigating abuse. The WMF mentioned in their blog post on hCaptcha that that is one of the signals, but otherwise, like private abuse filters, other signals will stay private for BEANS reasons.

Over the past month since the tool rolled out, the CU team has found it valuable for detecting abuse. The captcha signal has allowed us to respond quickly to semi-automated subtle spambots. Another signal has helped us better detect long-term abuse cases returning to the project.

Since we're talking about private signals, we would like to allay some fears the community may have. SuggestedInvestigations only acts as a sign that a volunteer should take a look at an account’s edits. A signal being tripped is neither, by itself, a valid reason to run a check nor a reason to block an account. Behavioral evidence will continue to be needed for both. SuggestedInvestigations is not fishing – it is raising things to look at that we may not have noticed any other way.

On behalf of the checkuser team,

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for Removal of BLP-Violative Content from Wikipedia Article on Vipin Vijay (Vipin Vijay)

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

---

 Urgent:

Dear Wikipedia Editors, My name is Divin Haridas, I am a media professional and a citizen of India. I came across this page regarding the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” on his Wikipedia page (Vipin Vijay), which refers to an allegation involving filmmaker Vipin Vijay. The content in question constitutes a serious violation of Indian law as well as Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The matter cited is currently under inquiry at his workplace – the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), Kolkata, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. As far as I know Mr Vipin Vijay has initiated legal proceedings against Mid-Day, the publication quoted as the source of this section, at the High Court of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, for publishing defamatory material, disclosing his identity, and falsifying facts pertaining to the ongoing inquiry. ‘Bengal info’ which is quoted by the Wikipedia(30) has carried news by the Times of India which themselves they removed by now after filed legal notice. Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), India, disclosure of the names or details of either the complainant or the respondent is strictly prohibited.

. Section 16 mandates absolute confidentiality, forbidding the publication, disclosure, or dissemination of any material related to a sexual harassment complaint or inquiry. It expressly prohibits revealing the identity of the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or any aspect of the proceedings to unauthorized persons or the public. Disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is also explicitly barred.

• Section 17 prescribes penal consequences for any breach of confidentiality, holding all persons involved in the inquiry or its administration, including institutional authorities and media entities, statutorily liable for disciplinary or legal sanctions.

Since the matter referred to in the article is sub judice and currently under official inquiry by a disciplinary committee , the publication of his name and related details amounts to a breach of statutory confidentiality punishable under Indian law. The continued presence of this content on Wikipedia therefore directly contravenes both the POSH Act and Wikipedia’s own editorial and privacy standards.

Wikipedia’s governing policies reinforce this legal position:
• WP:BLP – Biographies of Living Persons
• WP:OUTING – Privacy and Identification
• WP:BLPCRIME – Presumption of Innocence and Naming in Alleged Crimes

These policies clearly state that serious or controversial allegations must not name living persons unless the matter has been conclusively adjudicated and widely reported in reliable sources with due sensitivity.

The cited Mid-Day article (relied upon as a source) is demonstrably unreliable and factually incorrect. It falsely claims:
• That there are “multiple sexual harassment victims,” including a student and two faculty members, which is untrue – the complainant is neither a student nor a faculty member of SRFTI.
• That he has been “sacked” or “removed” from his position as Dean,whereas he continues to serve as Dean (https://srfti.ac.in/leadership/) and remains a Group A Officer, Government of India. No removal is possible under Indian service law unless a disciplinary inquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has been concluded and its recommendations implemented. The investigation in his case is ongoing, and no report or recommendation has yet been made.
• That the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta “refused to be involved” in the matter – a falsehood, as the Court expressly directed the Institute to conclude the inquiry while restraining any coercive action against him pending submission and review of the final report.

Given the above, i respectfully requests that the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” be immediately removed to ensure compliance with both Indian statutory confidentiality provisions and Wikipedia’s BLP, Outing, and BLPCRIME policies.

I appreciate the editors’ prompt attention to this serious violation and their cooperation in restoring legal and policy compliance to this article.

Divin Haridas (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Divin Haridas has an undisclosed conflict of interest. This is not a comment with regard to anything listed above. --Yamla (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Divin Haridas If you are alleging a violation of the law, you should communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. https://wikimediafoundation.org/contact/ 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Note that OP has also posted the above at WP:BLPN, receiving one response so far, and on their own talk page. NebY (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee elections are open

The period of self-nominations for the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open. The deadline to apply is 23:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC). Giraffer (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)