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 {{subst:RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	62	11	73
TfD	0	0	27	6	33
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	8	1	9
RfD	0	0	3	9	12
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 20 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 9 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 40 sockpuppet investigations
• 42 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 8 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 20 elapsed requested moves
• 0 Pages at move review
• 37 requested closures
• 50 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 10 Copyright problems

Unblock from filespace

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

---

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)

Oppose: @Aidillia: do 1-2 months of constructive contributions using WP:FFU or by making edit requests on file talk first at a minimum. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me now, I will start using WP:FFU and file talk page:) I thought WP:FFU is use for unregistered users. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - The past socking, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

• 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: [1]

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)

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.

@SnowFire Thanks for engaging and reviewing the RfC.

What I’m saying is that WP:TITLE which requires that an article’s scope reflect usage in reliable sources —does not appear to have been considered in the close.

Specifically, per Deciding on an article title:

"Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article’s subject."

Since no reliable sources use the term “traditional floppy disks” to define this subject and several reliable sources do support the broader scope I’m requesting a procedural check to confirm whether the closure documented the required policy-based evaluation of sourcing and scope under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

I’m not re-arguing the content dispute — just looking to confirm that the closure followed the required policy framework. Tom94022 (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m not re-arguing the content dispute
That's exactly what you or your chatbot are doing. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And if you do not WP:DROPTHESTICK, either I or some other admin will probably consider that WP:DISRUPTIVE and block you. You've done lots of fine editing over the years, and it would be a pity for this to stand in its way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, as he admits on his userpage to utilizing an LLM, given WP:HATGPT (which is a guideline backed by the results of an RFC) and the warning of WP:LLMCOMM (Repeating such misuse forms a pattern of disruptive editing, and may lead to a block or ban.), an indefinite block until Tom agrees to stop using LLM/AI on the project wouldn't be unreasonable. Also, per this ARBCOM decision, utilizing an LLM to waste editor time should be taken into account as well. Finally, this RFC is awaiting closure at WP:CR, but my reading of the sub-question around making WP:LLMDISCLOSE policy appears to have consensus, we're just waiting on a formal closure. Every comment Tom has posted has been flagged by at least one LLM/Chatbot detector, so it appears he is unwilling to back down from this.

Instead of taking the hatting/closure as an opportunity to write a close review in his own words (one that does not repeat AI hallucinations like those found in the original request), he continues to double down on the LLM request he posted initially. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

All true, but the real disruption is his refusal to recognize that followed the required policy framework is not the rubric that we need to follow here. He could be just as disruptive typing his repetitive arguments by hand. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 3 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.

@Locke Cole, @SarekOfVulcan: As the LLM communication essay clearly states:

LLMs can be used for certain tasks (like copyediting) if the editor has substantial prior experience in the intended task and rigorously scrutinizes the results before publishing.

Because my workflow uses tools like LLMs and search engines to structure drafts before fully rewriting and verifying them it’s likely that automated detectors will flag my posts as “LLM-generated” even when they are fully reviewed and compliant. However, current guidance does not treat detection alone as grounds for collapsing or sanctioning posts; instead, it requires identification of specific unreviewed or policy-violating content.

I meet the LLM communication essay standard, and my workflow complies with the guidance! I verify, fact-check, and rewrite everything in my own words before posting.

Collapsing entire comments, or suggesting a block, without identifying specific problems in the content appears inconsistent with both WP:HATGPT and the principles of WP:LLMCOMM. If there is a particular inaccuracy or violation in anything I’ve posted, I would welcome it being pointed out so I can correct it.

Meanwhile, the procedural point I’ve raised remains unresolved: did the RfC close adequately explain its policy basis, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE? If there is a better venue or approach to address that question, I am open to guidance. Tom94022 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And blocked for a week, per previous warning. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Guess what? They've submitted an AI-generated unblock request at § Unblock request a couple of minutes after being blocked. This is beyond outrageous. FaviFake (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking a week was lenient. Up it to indef, to be lifted if and when they 86 the chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. They'll clearly get back to using AI again as soon as their block expires. They don't even acknowledge they've broken any policies, instead saying they believe this block may have resulted from a misunderstanding... FaviFake (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't block for the chatbot, I blocked for the IDHT. Granted, that may take more than a week to fix as well.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this as well, notwithstanding the WP:IDHT block, an indef block until the chatbot use is stopped would be the best possible outcome for the community. My fear is, even outside of this closure review, Tom will likely persist in using LLM in follow-up discussions as they believe they are doing nothing wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Unban request from TheGracefulSlick

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

---

• 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[2]) 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)
    • It's not intended as an argument that "sockpuppetry is going to happen so it's actually good", although I suppose, depending on what 'good' means here precisely, someone could make that argument based on sock revision bold textsurvival rates (very high), AfD outcomes for articles created or mostly edited by socks (good survival rate), and the benefit to Wikipedia from the 500 revisions required for sock accounts to acquire the extendedconfirmed privilege etc. It's arguing that it can be more effective, that in this system people who employ deception can have fitness advantages over people who do not. Maybe sockpuppetry has a net positive effect on content in some areas. I really don't know. It's possible. What I know is that it's a policy violation, an option available to all blocked/banned people, common, currently unstoppable, and the majority of people seem to prefer to continue socking rather than pursuing the standard offer. So, I'm not sure the 'correct' way for people to return to editing is necessarily the optimal way.

I'm arguing that

• The community's powers are rather limited when it comes to preventing people from editing and this reality should perhaps play more of a role in decision making.
• Sockpuppetry can be more effective than asking for forgiveness or the standard offer when the desired effect is to edit and create content, as illustrated by the difference between TGS' effect on content since their block vs Icewhiz's effect on content since their block. It is under the person's control, not subject to whims of the community.
• When someone has used sockpuppetry expresses a desire to reintegrate into the community and offers to demonstrate that they are reformed and can stay out of trouble, it might be better to give them many chances. Or not. Hard to tell.  

And talking of preposterous, a very nice word, I think it's a little bit preposterous to assume that "six months editing without issue on projects where they are not blocked" tells you anything about future behavior or that it is possible to confirm that a person has gone six months without employing sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not a general discussion about sockpuppetry. This is about TGS, and if the editor should be allowed back on Wikipedia. So let’s end this discussion above.BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Has had several previous last chances and abused the trust the community placed in them. I don't see why they should be given yet another last chance. I cannot forgive the creation of sockpuppets to harass another user as detailed in the 2020 unblock request. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock per WP:ROPE if TGS agrees to a one-account restriction. I can understand why people don't want TGS back, but this time an even greater deal of time has passed, and TGS has reflected on the issues when asked. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection, I don't think this warrants unblock conditions given the unprecedented amount of time passed. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm afraid i rather dislike myself for feeling compelled to oppose this request; i have, however, spent some time reading the one linked abov, and the one previous to that (both of which i remember participating in) and i have to say, each time they are blocked (four times in the block log) TGS makes an excellent block appeal and it is accepted then the community falls victim to disruption again. I want to believe, truly i do ~ i try always to AGF, i believe in mercy and grace and try to practice such qualities ~ but how are we to believe that we aren't being lied to again? I would be far happier if TGS hadn't said 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 but was willing to show us by pointing elsewhere, to a different community, that they are ready to function as a full member of a community such as ours. As it is, we're asked to take it on faith ~ again! ~ that this time they really mean it. I'm sorry, but until there is some useful, non-disruptive activity elsewhere we can use to judge, no ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Has recognized where they were wrong. One more chance seems warranted. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I am somewhat surprised to find myself here. I had watched the 2018/19 unblock and reblock play out. When TGS tried in 2020, I had some rather blunt words at what I saw as a continuation of the behavior that got them reblocked in 2019. We're now 5 years later. I can understand why some editors feel like they're at "never again" with this user. For me, 5-6 years is long enough (for this level of problem causing) to give someone who is obviously a talented writer another chance especially given the hints as to what was TGS age in 2019. Part of that is because it's clear the social dynamics have changed enough that if the lying deceitful behavior was to resume that a reblock would not be the dramafest that TGS has been in 2018/2019. But this unblock is premised on a topic ban from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia which wasn't a term of art when TGS said it in 2018 but is one now. Doors albums and helping great editors in history topics like WWII are good places for this user to devote their time (at least for now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Yeah, support per Barkeep49. I respect the views of colleagues who were more closely involved originally—particularly those on the receiving end of any ill-feeling—but pace, enough time has passed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. ^EF⁵ 19:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. My threshold for supporting unblock requests and giving users another chance when they ask for one, as well as citing WP:ROPE when others don't think unblocking someone following a request is a good idea - is well-documented over many years on this project. TheGracefulSlick's request shows a thorough self-reflection of their past, an understanding of what caused them to be put into this situation, and a promise to do their best to avoid this from happening again moving forward. Putting all that aside, I base my support for this unblock off the principle of WP:ROPE, just like I do for other editors in similar situations. Best case scenario? They rejoin the community, earn back our trust over time, and become a huge net-positive for this project. Worst case scenario? We spend maybe five minutes tops in order to click on a few rollback buttons, undo a little damage, re-block the user, and show them the door. The potential for rewards significantly outweigh any kind of "risks", and with that, I give TheGracefulSlick my full support and welcome them back to Wikipedia. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:10, 6 November 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)

Note GoldenBootWizard276 violated their unblock conditions by creating a new page in Article space. Thankfully, when this was pointed out, they reverted their addition. However, I strongly think that means it's much too soon to consider lifting the restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Request for closure on unblock appeal

Hello, I previously made an unblock appeal at ANI on October 20 (archived here [3]). The discussion received some support but was archived without a formal close. Could anyone review and close the appeal? Thank you. Kolno (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is the archived version (rather than the diff of it being archived): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive375#Appeal_block. Also, as a minor point of pedantry, it was at AN, not ANI. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm restoring the appeal, will attach it below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Appeal block

Hello, I would like to appeal my block.

I have taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and its policies. I have studied WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:GNG and will ensure to follow them. I commit that I will not publish userspace drafts to circumvent the block, and I will not create mainspace articles except through AfC. I will prioritize modern secondary sources, revise my existing drafts and use AfC before any move to mainspace. I am willing to present two drafts I have made for review if that would help. Thank you. Kolno (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain how your prior editing ran afoul of WP:FRINGE? Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Also have you stopped creating or promoting drafts of your work per the July guidance from @Doug Weller? Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding WP:FRINGE, I previously used fringe theories on two now deleted wikis and presented them almost as fact.

As for the second point, yes, I have stopped creating new drafts on the English Wikipedia. Kolno (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Very weak support After thinking about it overnight I am minimally satisfied by this although I do note that Kolno seems to have been seeking somebody to have a look at one of their old drafts not long ago. I could honestly be swayed one way or the other but I tend to lean toward WP:ROPE when someone has been under a block for a while. It's been five months. Let's see if they've learned their lesson. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support, obviously will defer to admins but I think this is a good appeal. Willing to AGF re creating drafts while blocked, seems like an understandable misunderstanding. I do have concern over some of their articles, for instance Zimbabwean–Portuguese conflicts which appears to be total WP:SYNTH, and some of the articles based on old/primary sources actually passed through AFC. I’d ask Kolno to take a look at WP:HISTRS, but happy for them to get a second chance. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Set to not archive for ten days in hope of further input. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures relating to automatic abstentions for non-votes

The Committee resolves by motion:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitrator activity and voting is amended to include the following subsection:

Abstention for non-votes

Where an arbitrator does not vote on a proposal that requires an absolute majority, the process below may be followed.

• For votes at a Proposed Decision page, or on a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
  • At any time after seven days from the proposed decision or motion being posted, any arbitrator (but often one of the drafting arbitrators, or a coordinating arbitrator) may initiate the 'abstention for non-votes' procedure. To initiate this, they will a) post a link to this subsection, along with a ping for each arbitrator potentially affected, to the 'Implementation notes' section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion); and b) an email to the arbcom-en mailing list detailing the same.
  • After 72 hours, any arbitrator votes still outstanding will be automatically considered as an abstention for the purposes of that individual proposal.
  • Should an arbitrator who had abstentions automatically registered for proposal(s) under this clause subsequently vote on a proposal before it is closed, that vote will override and replace the automatic abstention.

A vote will not be closed as successful if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.

The application of this clause is not automatic, and arbitrators should use their best judgement when deciding whether or not to apply it. Factors that should be considered include levels of communication, statements around voting in the immediate future, as well as the nature and count of the votes.

Note that this process cannot be applied to the process that governs the removal of an arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures relating to automatic abstentions for non-votes

RfD

I've just closed a bunch of RfD discussions. This is the second (third?) time I've cleared the backlog recently. It would be useful to have some other admins patrolling there. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Several discussions are listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

500/30 EC gaming?

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

---

@WillowCity has a total of 1,421 edits. Their very first edit was in WP:ARBPIA, and most of their edits since have been in Arpbia. They currently have fewer than 500 edits outside of WP:CT. I wrote to them explaining that this might be considered gaming, and they responded saying that they are being productive and that it is not gaming. So I want to clarify - Do edits made in violation of WP:ECR count towards WP:500/30? And if not, can we request of the user to stay out of CT until they have indeed done 500 edits that are not in violation of policy? Nehushtani (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

WillowCity (talk · contribs) has been editing since May 2021. Even if the rules said ECP required 500 edits outside of the contentious topic, an account with that age and 1,421 edits would be regarded as no problem with regard to ECP since rules are not applied bureaucratically here (WP:NOTBURO). I'm not really sure due to recent changes in procedure, but I don't think that WP:CT/PIA requires 500 edits outside the topic. With the procedures that apply now (not in 2021), edits in CT/PIA would not be permitted so gaming could be argued if a new account were to start today. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind that back when 500/30 EC was introduced, around the time of Gamergate, we saw a lot of accounts created years prior with low edit counts suddenly active and engaging in disruptive activity around GG. We should remain wary of low edit accounts that suddenly become very active in a specific area, and certainly judging 500/30 over the account's entire history should be considered. Masem (t) 13:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Nehushtani, for interest, File:Gaming check - WillowCity.png and File:Gaming check - Nehushtani.png. This is using the strictest possible definition of 'in WP:ARBPIA' i.e. only articles fully covered by ARBECR, so the in-topic counts are probably under counts to some extent. It seems that people who want to report potential EC gaming need to do so close to the EC grant acquisition date. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

What tool was used to make those graphics out of curiosity? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's just a couple of python classes I use to check for gaming in the PIA topic area. It's interesting that you can see what I assume is a replication lag in Nehushtani's chart. The total revisions (that come from the user view) are less than the actual number of live revisions (from the revision view). XTools shows it too. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's because I'm interested in whether it is possible for a machine to recognize gaming. So, I made something to see whether I can reliably recognize and label what the community treats as gaming. And the answer is...no, not really. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I know this was made for the purposes of investigating me but it's very cool and I'm definitely gonna save this haha. WillowCity^(talk) 12:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I did the same when they posted one for me. Very impressive work. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This concern was indeed brought to my talk page, and I will reproduce the key part of my response: I believe your interpretation of WP:GAMING is incorrect. You seem to be accusing me of WP:PGAME, but that is clearly not applicable: I did not make "many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles." Rather, I made constructive edits across a range of topic areas, albeit with a particular area of expertise and interest.

I think the complaint against me (if we can call it that) is based on an unduly restrictive and formalistic interpretation of the ECP. I did not "WP:GAME the system"; at all times, I acted consistently with policy. I have been an editor for roughly 4 and a half years and I am a bit surprised that this issue is being raised now. WillowCity^(talk) 12:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@WillowCity - You say "at all times, I acted consistently with policy". How do you explain this in light of the fact that many - if not most - of your 500 first edits were in topics where editors with fewer than 500 edits are not allowed to engage according to policy? Nehushtani (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Such a policy did not apply at the time I made many of the edits in question. Back then, editors were allowed to engage on talk pages in the topic area. There is no indication that the new policy regarding new users should be applied retroactively to strip away permissions from established users. WillowCity^(talk) 12:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

In October 2023 there was no prohibition on taking part in non-consensus determining discussions. That modification didn't happen until (I'm pretty sure) December 2023. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish - Thanks for that information. That clarifies a lot. If so, there is no issue in @WillowCity's behavior, and I apologise to them for making an issue here. Nehushtani (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No apology needed. I believe there was genuine uncertainty here regarding an evolving policy, and a good-faith effort to get to the bottom of it. WillowCity^(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit redaction needed on John Wesley Ryles

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

---

Can someone please oversight the last two IP edits on John Wesley Ryles? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Toadspike [Talk] 22:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, they've been revision-deleted, but (after discussing the matter with an oversighter) do not reach the higher threshold for oversight. In the future, to avoid requests attracting too much attention, the best thing to do is to privately email Oversight – you will usually get a response within an hour. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Or in the alternative, you can ask an admin on their talk page for a WP:REVDEL. They can be found here - Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, in case you do not want to share your email address or real life identity that may be associated with the email addy. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Davidbena unban request

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

I implemented a community siteban of Davidbena in April. A bit more than six months having passed, Davidbena has asked me to to copy the following unban request here:

Over the past six-months, I have had the opportunity to reflect on my actions and on what caused my recent ban from the site (see [4]), and now, after having been told the incongruities that warranted this ban, I have directed my mind to correct those errors and, hopefully, never to repeat them. I feel that I have come a long way, and by the good graces of some editors here who were willing to counsel me, I have gone over again the guidelines for good journalism, and what is expected of editors here on Wikipedia.

My major mistake was in not recognizing that even when citing a reputable source such as Maimonides, we as editors are to avoid repeating what might be construed by others as another author's bias, or an "opinionated source", since Wikipedia asks of us to detach ourselves from the biases of any one particular source, whether it be in the form of semantics used by that author, or in his or her choice of words (e.g. euphemisms), etc., and to take rather a "neutral-stance," and to present the most plain-meaning of a word in question to our readers, without interdiction. Wikipedia is a "knowledge-based" encyclopedia, which warrants us as editors to be disconnected from certain biases. In my case, I should have simply called a spade a spade, without trying to mitigate the meaning of a distasteful act or word, or taking at face-value the biases of a Medieval author.

The proscription of WP:SYNTH is plain to me, and, I, at all times, seek to avoid its use. We cannot extrapolate that simply because one source speaks about a certain fact, that another unrelated source might somehow be connected to that same fact. If I recall correctly, the reference used to suggest "international law" coming in conflict with a particular law (see diff) was stated by me only in general terms, without specificity. Even so, we later came to reject that edit for a more neutral one, one that does no pit international law up against a biblical law, which would have the immediate tendency of suggesting a bias in favor of the biblical laws. I should not have intimated such a thing, as our job here is NOT to take sides! Davidbena (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm really pleased to see how receptive Davidbena has been to my critique of his original unblock request (see his usertalk) and the efforts he's made to engage with the reasons for the ban. I'm going to stop short for now of !voting on the unban request, but my initial impression is favorable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Support unban per WP:LASTCHANCE. Davidbena needs to be cautious (as do we all) about highly contentious topics such rape and international law, but I see evidence that the editor's understanding has improved since the ban. I commend Tamzin for taking the time to discuss the issues thoroughly with Davidbena, who has a lot to offer Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose or at a minimum, Support with a topic ban. Davidbena can be a productive editor, but has some very strong feelings about what is Right when it comes to specific areas, which also happen to be Contentious Topics. The conduct that led to the block was an escalation, but it didn't come out of nowhere and six months of directed my mind isn't going to magically address the underlying issues and something about the phrasing of this unblock reads as if they're saying what they thing we want to hear, although I do think they're sincere in their apology. I would rather see a productive history in less contentious areas before a full unblock. Star Mississippi 03:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Just to be clear, since the capital-C capital-T Contentious Topic here is WP:CT/A-I, and at least most of the edits at beautiful captive woman fell outside that area, are you suggesting a TBAN just from the Arab–Israeli conflict, or something broader, like including Jewish topics? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I've seen A-I interpreted in differing ways, both conflict only and related to the overall area now. I am not sure which of the two Shira Klein scholars google found is the one cited in beautiful captive woman, but at least one should probably be avoided. I'll think more on this and come back. Star Mississippi 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  My take as someone who does a lot of CT/A-I enforcement is that while the edits at Beautiful captive woman were clearly informed by the ongoing conflict in Gaza, it would at the very least have been pushing the bounds of "broadly construed" to consider them in-scope, except maybe the line about Jews and international law, but even that steered clear of anything explicitly A-I. I don't think I can confidently say that, if Davidbena had made those edits while TBANned, a block for TBAN violation would have stuck at AE. If you want a scope that would cover that but not be overly broad, "The Arab–Israeli conflict and Jewish military topics" might suffice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, as always for your insight and input @Tamzin. I don't think Davidbena was at all trying to find the edges, I think he's absolutely here in good faith. I just think these are troublesome areas for him given the lens in which he sees the world and (I'm assuming here), some of his lived experiences.

  Thinking on yours and @Girth Summit/@Liz's suggestions below and will come back on this. I definitely do not think there's a scenario I'd support without some topic bans. Star Mississippi 03:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support unban while noting Cullen's concerns above. JayCubby 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• I cannot support an unban in this case. It strikes me that DB has still failed to grasp how shockingly offensive some of the arguments he made previously were. In this very request he applies the phrase 'a distasteful act' to rape - the issue of euphemism has not abated. I can't see how he could be unbanned without some very broad tbans in place, like 'religion' and 'sexuality', both broadly construed. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe a topic ban on gender and sexuality might be more appropriate if this approach occurred on other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two days ago, before they were more or less coached on what they would have to say to have a chance of an unblock, they posted their own unblock request, starting with "On April 19, 2025, I was banned from editing this site (see 1). I'm asking for the opportunity to help improve articles on this magnificent platform, just as I have faithfully done in the past, with only minor infractions.". I don't think we should let someone return to editing who considers the long history of problems, and the serious issues which lead to the ban, "only minor infractions". If consensus would be for an unban anyway, I would suggest topic bans on religion, sexuality, and Israel (three separate topics, each broadly construed). Fram (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Certainly, when one has been the subject of two topic bans in the past, and two blocks including one fairly lengthy one for breaching one of those bans, and one's editing has been the subject of multiple discussions at admin noticeboards, passing off previous issues as 'minor infractions' seems rather, well, euphemistic. I'd have been a lot more supportive if they'd said 'I was completely out of line, I've thought about it and I can see why people were so upset, I'll stay away from subjects like that in future'. But to me this reads like someone who doesn't really know what was wrong with what they did, and doesn't really think there was anything that egregious, but who wants to come back on a time served basis. While I commend their enthusiasm for the project, I don't see any evidence of genuine understanding of the issues that led to the multiple tbans, blocks, and eventual cban. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Copied from David's talkpage:

  Is it too late for me to explain to the Administrators what I meant by saying "minor infractions"? What I meant by these words is that, although what I did was definitely wrong, the majority of these infractions were done because of some misunderstanding by me in the application of my topic ban, and, in the final analysis, judges who adjudicated my cases did not see that these infractions warranted a permanent ban. Of course, this is not to say that what I did was right, as it definitely was not right. Moreover, I never repeated those same errors.Davidbena (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban per LASTCHANCE, and the unblock request promising that the issues will not recur. I would not be opposed to making the unban conditional on a topic ban (I'd recommend the scope to be GENSEX and/or Judaism), but I would be equally fine with an unconditional unban. I am willing to give them one final chance to edit productively. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock while making it clear this is their last chance. Minehollow (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocking temporary accounts

Stupid question time. Should temporary accounts be blocked indefinitely for vandalism? Or should they receive a temporary block as per an IP? PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Temporary_accounts#Impact for administrators suggests that you can't block a temp account any longer than 90 days, since they're forcibly logged out at that point. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

They expire after 90 days, so a 90 day block is in effect an indef of the TA. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can still block the underlying IP for longer. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As a social matter, though, we should treat TA blocks as if they were account blocks (that is, block them indefinitely if what the person did with the TA deserves an indef). There's no reason to artificially limit TA block lengths - all that does is create confusion about how long the person has been blocked for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This helps also with blocking a second instance of the same previously blocked user as a sockpuppet, since the first instance would still be blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure that I'm seeing much advantage to this. I'm definitely seeing an added layer of complication in dealing with IP vandals, especially at AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism reporting for temporary accounts

I apologize if there's already a discussion over this, as I'm sure it's a hot topic right now. So I have a question regarding anti-vandalism reporting for temporary accounts. Since we are no longer reporting IP editors (just their temporary accounts) are there no longer {{anonblock}}'s and {{school block}}'s?

And if a temporary account is blocked for 90 days, how long will the autoblock last on their IP? I ask this because I usually report a fair amount of IPs with a long history of abuse to WP:AIV, and they are then blocked from anywhere from a few weeks to a few years based on the IP's editing history and block log. Is this just now a thing of the past, or are admins still blocking the individual IPs underneath the temporary accounts? I don't know how this system is going to fully work, but I would think that if the IPs underneath aren't fully blocked, that's going to significantly increase the amount of vandalism coming from school IPs, which are extremely notorious for vandalism. ConnerTT (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK if a temporary account is blocked then the underlying IP is autoblocked following the same rules as if it were a permanent account, which isn't for very long. On the other hand admins and TAIVs can still see the underlying IP, and block it directly if a longer block is needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We can still do {{anonblock}} and {{schoolblock}} if necessary although community discovery of those ranges will be more difficult now. Also, the utility of some of these user talk page templates may have collapsed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It's early days, but my first impressions are less than enthusiastic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: @Ad Orientem: I'm really not a fan of this at all. I realize that admins and temp account IP viewers can still see the IP associated with the temp account, but we use IPs that vandals have used in order to fight vandalism, via discovering IP usage patterns, IP ranges, school IPs, etc. I think this is going to end very poorly, and will make anti-vandalism so much more difficult. My account isn't six months old yet, so I can't request for TAIV status, but even then, I don't think it will make anti-vandalism any easier, since you can't actually report the IP addresses anymore, only their temporary accounts. I realize that user anonymity and privacy issues are present with public access of IP addresses, but this "solution" is going to make things worse in the long-run, in my opinion. We'll see how this goes, I guess... :-/ ConnerTT (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I largely share your reservations. At AIV I now have to check both the TA being reported, and the underlying IP. If I want to block the IP for longer than 90 days, I generally have to block both the account (typically an indef) and then issue a separate block for the IP or a broader rangeblock because otherwise the bot won't remove the TA from the list at WP:AIV. Same with TB2. My initial impressions are that this is not a net positive in terms of dealing with vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You also have to look at the legacy IP information to see if there's a long term pattern, so that adds an extra page load to a task done 10,000 times a month. It's not great. On top of that, the first temp account I looked into was an example of my largest concern leading into this. The vandal made an edit or two, got warned, deleted their cookies, made another edit or two, got warned, deleted their cookies, and did this until I blocked them for a bigoted attack on another editor. They never got enough warnings for an AIV report or block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As an administrator with both the checkuser-temporary-account and checkuser-temporary-account-auto-reveal rights, I've found this change already quite harmful. I can't imagine doing anti-vandalism work without both of those rights, and I suspect anti-vandalism efforts are going to suffer as some editors scale back their work or stop altogether. I've encountered numerous cases of vandals switching temporary accounts (almost certainly deleting cookies) to continue disruptive editing. I've also missed instances of previous vandalism that was obscured by the new user interface. Whatever limited benefit temporary accounts offer in communicating with good-faith temporary editors is far outweighed by how much they seem to help vandals. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I don’t think this front was that discussed in the discussion leading up to this, and IMO I think TA switching is akin to IP address switching, so basically we just made address switching less ‘switch to an IP that isn’t blocked’ to ‘haha I’ll delete my cookies!’~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

People were definitely aware of this being a likely issue. I just don't think it mattered enough. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I asked the T&S employees implementing this feature to let everyone see all the TAs coming from the same IP addresses or range, but they said Legal may not allow this. The legal team even recommended revealing an aggregate number of TAs in a range instead of the exact amount, while providing no research or even assumptions to show how this helps better protect user privacy. That's why I'm concerned this is all an elaborate act of security theater, satisfying legal requirements (that we don't know anything about) while doing little to protect the privacy of unregistered editors. Even if they make this info public, a much greater problem is that after three months, TA data will start slowly start fading away, and long-term abuse patterns along with it. You could argue permanent accounts suffer from the same problems, but clearing a cookie or opening a new incognito window is far easier than creating new accounts, and one could even swap these cookies around to assume multiple personas and sway consensus, since most content writers and people participating in RfCs probably won't have access to temporary account info. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, there should be a Toolforge tool or something similar to store temporary account data when it's accessed, and let TAIVs query data long after it expires. This is similar to what the CheckUsers are doing with their private wiki, so this is allowed by policy provided there are proper access controls. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. I am afraid that admins are going to get so discouraged by this nonsense that they are going to start avoiding AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This does seem like an attempt to comply with something, an ugly compromise. This is not great at all, I’d rather have anon editing disabled or something since it is very easy to create an account. If this is not possible just have only part of the IP revealed or something like the /32, just anything other than losing trackability. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have been going through edit requests and...

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

---

I have been seeing some that appear to be from similar temporary accounts. Please go through Special:Contributions/NotJamestack for context. NotJamestack (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Activity on a talk page relating to young editors

Administrators may want to respond and make decisions regarding unusual activity concerning purported/theoretical/abstract child protection interest stemming from this talk page section: Talk:Battle for Dream Island#WP:Guidance for younger editors and WP:Advice for parents. The supposed concern about child protection from some users has been causing objectively strange edits to the talk bannerspace, including addition of the template added and reverted in Special:Diff/1320442826. —Alalch E. 18:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oh FFS, I hadn't realised someone had undeleted this. No doubt it's going to carry on like this for a while, just like it did before ... Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Was the template previously deleted by consensus? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Referring to the article, not the templates, but this is exactly the problem we had with it before. I've watchlisted it, anyway. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

For ease of reference for others, here's the DRV discussion which resulted in it being unsalted, and here's the AfD which SNOW closed as keep. Personally I do think that this article is more likely than the average article to attract younger editors, but am quite happy to leave it to a talk page consensus about whether any kind of warning/notice/reaction is an appropriate response to that. If there are young users who self-reveal too much personal information about themselves, feel free to contact the OS team or email me directly for assistance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Noticeboard template

For those interested, there is currently a discussion as to how the admin noticeboads are linked in the noticeboard template at Template talk:Noticeboard links#BRD.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Can't move to main page from sand box

Pl help Borunth (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Borunth! Your sandbox was deleted because it contained promotional material, as well as personal contact details. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise a person or business – however, if you nonetheless still wish to contribute, I invite you to read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Your first article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Questions about changes to blocking

Hi everyone! After reading through Wikipedia:Temporary accounts, this subpage on temporary accounts, this MediaWiki page as well as this one, I still find myself with questions and wanting clarity with what I've been reading in regards to the application of blocks and their effects on other accounts, what has changed regarding blocks applied to IP addresses and named accounts, and other in-depth questions that don't appear to be discussed, detailed, or defined anywhere. Here are my questions, thoughts, and concerns:

• When applying a block to a temporary account or named account, the definition of a "hard block" is when the "autoblock the IP address used" option is enabled, and applying a "hard block" to a temporary or named account will affect ALL accounts who attempt to edit from the IP address and for 24 hours (the standard length that an autoblock affects users for). Is this correct?
  • If so, would it be prudent to consider whether having this option ticked by default on the block form special page and for temporary or named account blocks is still preferable? If an autoblock (a "hard block") now affects ALL accounts and as if I set a 24-hour block on the IP address and with the "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address" option set, this has the potential to start causing significantly more instances of collateral damage compared to before these changes were deployed.
• Are named accounts that have the IP block exempt user right granted still exempt from being affected by autoblocks like they were before these changes were deployed?
• If the "account creation blocked" parameter is set on any blocks, does this affect the creation of temporary accounts as well? Has anything changed with this option and its effects when blocking compared to before temporary accounts were deployed to this project?

I'll likely have more questions as I tread onward and with the temporary account changes deployed. Thanks in advance to those who respond. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

... Is this correct? A temporary account works just like a normal account with respect to the autoblock option. The most recent IP address of the account will be automatically hard-blocked for 24 hours (note: only the one most recent IP address will be autoblocked, along with future IPs, not all of the IPs they have ever used).

... would it be prudent to consider whether having this option ticked by default on the block form special page and for temporary or named account blocks is still preferable? Since all admins can see the underlying IPs for temporary accounts, admins should be able to tell whether setting the autoblock setting would be likely to cause collateral damage. In most cases, I think it should be OK to set the autoblock setting, but if you notice that the underlying IP is a heavily shared one, e.g. from a school or university, then maybe it would be a good idea to leave the autoblock setting off. I expect there might be a learning curve for administrators on this front, and we'll get more data on collateral damage as we get used to the new system.

Are named accounts that have the IP block exempt user right granted still exempt from being affected by autoblocks like they were before these changes were deployed? Yes, this is my understanding.

If the "account creation blocked" parameter is set on any blocks, does this affect the creation of temporary accounts as well? Has anything changed with this option and its effects when blocking compared to before temporary accounts were deployed to this project? This is a good question, and I am not sure about the answer. My understanding is that temporary accounts work just like normal accounts in most respects, so in light of that, my intuition says that if you set "account creation blocked" on an IP block, this would prevent creation of temporary accounts, which is desirable because the intent is usually to prevent logged-out editors from using that IP address while still allowing editors who already have accounts to log in and edit. Curiously, however, this also suggests that if you do not set "account creation blocked" on an IP block, then your block might become a toothless no-op: logged-out editors would still be able to edit with a temporary account despite your IP block. Mz7 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Edit: striking the last part per Tamzin below. Mz7 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Autoblocks. Autoblocks for temporary accounts also affect named accounts, which might be undesirable. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I read that blocking a temporary account will prevent any new temporary accounts from being 'created' from the blocked IP address for the duration of the block, without mentioning anything about the 'block account creation' option. One minor correction too: only the one most recent IP address will be autoblocked - this is correct for IPv4s; for IPv6s, it will autoblock the most recent /64 range. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger @Oshwah: I've just tested this by locally disabling the global block on my VPN range on testwiki and creating a TA that I confirmed was able to edit, then reblocking the range locally, first with account creation blocked, then with it allowed. In both cases, when I tried to edit pages through the block, I got the standard "You do not have permission to edit this page" message. That remained true when I cleared the session for that TA and tried editing logged-out again (which under normal behavior would create a new TA). And then after a small side-quest disabling an errant abuse filter, I was able to register a new account and make this edit. So I do think things are working as they should. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Can you try 1) Create a named account using the VPN, 2) Create a temp account using the same IP, 3) Block the temp account with the default settings, and 4) see if the named account gets autoblocked too? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. The named account is indeed blocked. It just gets served MediaWiki:blockedtext, saying "The account ~2025-31365-79 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Tamzin‬"; is that how it worked previously, or was there an autoblock-specific banner? Because seeing that your account has been blocked, with a different username/identifier mentioned, would be rather confusing to a new user. Ideally there should be some explanation of "You have edited from the same IP as...". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for testing! I guess it's fine, but since most IP blocks used to be previously anon. only, we might start to see some named accounts get inadvertently autoblocked. This might also be a good thing, especially if someone is using temp accounts as WP:BADHAND socks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that a TA getting blocked with autoblock enabled doesn't mean that their IP is hardblocked for the same length as the TA's block. Every IP they try to edit from while logged in will become autoblock-eligible, and then an autoblock gets applied to anyone else (if not IP-block-exempt) who accesses Wikipedia from it in the following 24 hours. So if someone on my building's WiFi got their TA indeffed with autoblock today, and then doesn't try to edit again from that TA, I'd still be able to edit from an unprivileged account on the same IP in 24 hours. At least that's my understanding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I would have thought it would show MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. Can you confirm that you saw [5] and not [6] when you tried to edit from the not-directly-blocked named account? If so, that might be a bug? Mz7 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mz7: 100% sure, even checked with ?uselang=qqx. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin - Interesting! Thank you for taking the time to test this! I was going to try testing these situations myself if I didn't get any sure answers back from anyone here. :-) So, in both cases with "account creation blocked" being on or off, it looks like the creation of temporary accounts (and hence editing from them) is disabled with autoblock set. It also appears that "disable account creation" only applies to whether or not users from within that blocked IP address/range can use Special:CreateAccount to create permanent accounts. Am I correct? I just want to confirm and be sure of my understanding here. If so, it might be prudent to update the block form special page and change the label for this option from "prevent account creation" and to "prevent permanent account creation" or "prevent named account creation" instead. This will help to make it clear that this only affects the creation of permanent accounts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Mostly correct yeah. Autoblock isn't relevant to the blocking of the IP range, since autoblock is a feature of account blocks. The TL;DR here is: Any block on an IP blocks temp-account creation. An account-creation block on an IP also blocks permanent-account creation.

And, checking just now to confirm, after logging out from my autoblocked alt, this holds true when subject to a block via autoblock. I disabled the account creation block on the blocked TA, but left autoblock enabled, which does update the autoblock, but I still can't create a TA from this IP (so the exact same as if the IP were blocked directly). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin - Okay, thanks again for testing all of this. :-) Since "disable account creation" on an IP block still affects whether or not you can create a permanent account using Special:CreateAccount (having it set to disabled allows it and having it set to enabled disallows it), then the option is definitely still relevant when applying IP blocks. I was going to say that, if this wasn't the case and if creating permanent accounts is disabled regardless of what you set for the "disable account creation" option, that it appears that this option is completely moot now for IP blocks. I assume that this is the same for blocks that are applied to temporary and permanent accounts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

List of indefinite IP blocks need review

Hi fellow administrators! This discussion is a reminder that I typically leave here once every year, and I know that it's been much longer than a year since I last did so. :-) So, without further ado: this is your annual reminder to please take a few minutes and navigate to this page, review the list of indefinite IP blocks that are currently active, and verify that there aren't any indefinite IP blocks that shouldn't be there.

If you applied an indefinite IP block accidentally (I know that I've done this before), or if an indefinite IP block on this list no longer applies, is no longer necessary, or should no longer be for an indefinite duration, please either remove the block entirely or modify it to eventually expire after a reasonable time. If the block was applied by another administrator and should be removed or modified to expire, please message them on their user talk page and let them know so they can review it.

Periodically going through and reviewing this list is important for us to do; it allows us to fix any accidental indefinite IP blocks that are set, as well as make sure that any indefinite IP blocks that were intentionally set at the time are still relevant and necessary. Thanks for taking a few moments to do this, and I wish you all happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As the newest administrator here, I see that most of them aren't tagged as open proxies or similar, and only have a "regular" block reason, which is surprising to me. What is the procedure to follow in that case? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The standard procedure would be to reach out to the blocking administrator on their user talk page and ask whether they intended to set an indefinite block on an IP address and whether an expiration date could be set. Honestly, maybe it would be worth writing a bot to automatically poke admins on their talk page whenever they make an indefinite IP block (can make it so admins can opt out of the reminders if they want). Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! A bot is a good idea, although I probably couldn't do it myself! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I also agree that implementing a bot to notify an admin when they apply indefinite IP block would not be a bad idea. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I will clarify that I privately reached out to both @Sohom Datta and @Significa liberdade before adjusting their blocks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of these are accidental. Particularly, this indefinite account creation block on 182.191.128.0/20 looks concerning. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

An indefinite pblock isn't as concerning as an indefinite global block; that said, I have seen at least two cases where a range pblock with account creation blocked was preventing editors on IPs outside the blocked range from creating accounts, so I'll go ahead and remove the account-creation block on that. Honestly 'block account creation' should be unchecked by default on pblocks, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger - Wait, what? There have been instances where a partial block of an IP range with account creation blocked set prevented IP addresses from outside the blocked IP range from being able to create accounts? How did that happen? Was this reported as a bug with a phab ticket? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive373#Not_sure_how_to_create_a_wiki_account_because_this_IP_address_no_matter_where_I_go_seems_to_be_blocked_due_to_other_users. I still assume this has something to do with cookies, but I'm not sure. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the one I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure there was another not long after, but I can't find it in the archives so I might have misremembered there being a second one. But if anyone who kows the Phab system wants to file a ticket... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone through and changed to a tempblock or removed the blocks from former admins until about a huge chunk of proxy blocks from 2008. I left any that mentioned school requests. Probably shouldn't touch the ones from the WMF Office... Sennecaster (Chat) 03:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The WMF office blocks were arguably justified, though I'm not sure if the LTA is active anymore. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Undoing an office action is a really great way to get desysopped, lol. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just commenting on the block. It is unlikely many good-faith editors are blocked because of this. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Some indef blocks needing review:

• 213.121.155.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Pblock from a page that no longer exists
• 203.17.23.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Not a vandalism-only account, since it isn't an account. No reason to suspect they'll be back
• 120.159.53.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Same as above

Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reached out to the blocking administrators regarding the latter two. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby - I just went ahead and removed those blocks and let both administrators know. The first IP block was a partial block that involved an article that no longer exists, and since IP users (now temporary accounts) cannot create new articles, this block is completely moot. The second block involved short-term vandalism that occurred back in March 2025, wasn't part of any long-term disruption or issues from the same IP address, and is clearly no longer necessary. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA removal request

Nksonic1491 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might do with having their TPA removed for abuse. Doesn't seem to be their first rodeo with disruption anyways. Thanks! JavaHurricane 05:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Marriott properties (esp in Asia)

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

---

Hi all

Seems likely, based on recent spamuname blocks at UAA, that there has been some kind of internal corporate directive within Marriott's APAC region to create pages for properties. That suspicion is confirmed by a search of the user creation log for matching Marriott sub brands.

I have personally blocked around 10 accounts recently, I assume there must be accordingly more that others have blocked, and a scrape of the user creation log for some of the most prominent brands returns a solid list over the last few weeks.

Here's a sample of them:

recently blocked at UAA that triggered this

• User:Sheratonjakartaairport
• User:Renaissance Johor Bahru Hotel
• User:Four Points By Sheraton Bali Ungasan
• User:Four Points by Sheraton Bintan, Lagoi Bay
• User:Aloft Jakarta
• User:Jwmedan
• User:Thewestinkualalumpur

logs

• User:The Westin Langkawi Resort & Spa
• User:Sheratonjakartaairport
• User:The St. Regis Langkawi
• User:Courtyard by Marriott Bali Nusa Dua Resort
• User:Fourpointsmedan
• User:Fairfield bintulu
• User:Thewestinkualalumpur
• User:Sheraton Kuching Hotel
• User:Batam Marriott Hotel Harbour Bay
• User:Four Points by Sheraton Puchong
• User:Stregisjakarta
• User:Four Points KLCC
• User:Miri Marriott
• User:Four Points by Sheraton Bandung
• User:Four Points By Sheraton Bali Ungasan
• User:The Westin Desaru Coast Resort
• User:Cicada Resort Bali Ubud, Autograph Collection
• User:Fourpointsmakassar
• User:Renaissance Johor Bahru Hotel
• User:Courtyard by Marriott Kuala Lumpur South
• User:Fairfield by Marriott Belitung
• User:Courtyard by Marriott Melaka
• User:Marriott MDS Malaysia
• User:Fairfieldkualalumpur
• User:Courtyard Bandung Dago
• User:Four Points by Sheraton Bintan, Lagoi Bay
• User:Sheraton Senggigi

Seems like there is no clear way to link these to a single account/SPI so maybe we can be on the watch for them, warn them accordingly while blocking that this is inappropraite, and can link them to this report or something now to provide a common point of reference? Mfield (Oi!) 07:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I've seen quite a few drafts come through on AfC in the past week or two, and mentioned this yesterday at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Marriott_promo_campaign. Reminds me of the recent Indian Army units campaign, where orders had clearly been issued from on high for units to get themselves onto Wikipedia. Difficult to know what to do with campaigns like these, when each draft taken on its own is sort of okay (well, not okay, but not immediate cause for blocking, speedying, etc.) but taken together they add up to a menace and take up a lot of community bandwidth. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Given there's obvious off-wiki coordination (even if the 'coordination' is limited to 'corporate giving marching orders') I'd treat this as meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what was eventually done with the Indian Army one: Sockpuppet investigations/832LT – 120 accounts blocked, until they finally got the message. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Marriott has more than a few sub brands to watch out for, the list at least it is:

• JW Marriott
• St. Regis
• Ritz-Carlton
• Delta Hotels
• Gaylord Hotels
• Le Meridien
• Marriott Hotels
• Renaissance Hotels
• Sheraton
• Westin
• AC Hotels
• Aloft Hotels
• City Express
• Courtyard
• Fairfield Inn & Suites
• Four Points
• Four Points Flex by Sheraton
• Moxy Hotels
• Protea Hotels
• Apartments by Marriott Bonvoy
• Element Hotels
• Homes & Villas by Marriott Bonvoy
• SpringHill Suites
• Marriott Executive Apartments
• Residence Inn
• TownePlace Suites

Mfield (Oi!) 07:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a checkuser, gah, there's a lot to unpack there. Without going into great detail at this stage, I can provide some additional but normal usernames who know something about this: User:Ninosvetlan and User:Rifqijktgs, User:Dcahyani700. That's not a full list. For example, User:DPSEL also turned up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Laksanagst is involved with this per their userpage. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPSEL for a deeper dive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Great thanks Mfield (Oi!) 00:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Sock clean up needed

I just blocked Juice of the Trail as a  Confirmed sock of banned LTA TotalTruthTeller24. In the couple of months that they've been active, they've performed a ton of undiscussed page moves that need to be reviewed (or reverted per WP:BMB) if anyone has the time and inclination.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I've done the ones the tool for mass-pagemove reverts can easily handle, will be a while before I can go through the rest so anyone who has a chance before me can feel free. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-... accounts

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

---

What's with all these recent ~2025-... accounts (~2025-30900-60, ~2025-31031-14, ~2025-31047-06, ~2025-31168-81, ~2025-31214-27, ~2025-31275-58, ~2025-31331-95, ~2025-31431-68, ~2025-31465-44)? Are they all attempts at block evasion by Shwapneel ahnaf 1999?  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are temporary accounts, so no. Ultraodan (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

We even get a cool banner that registered users don't have! "This temporary account was created after an edit was made without an account on this browser and device." ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

So what is or isn't under my topic ban?

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

---

There are a couple things I want to know about my topic ban, but the main page about it is just gathering cobwebs, and many of the involved parties are no longer editing Wikipedia. Where should I take any inquiries? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What is your topic-ban? GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Given thats an Arbcom-placed topic ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment seems the way to go. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Block Review: Egyptiankeng

most recently at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205#User:Egyptiankeng_chronic_good_faith_but_unproductive_edits_at_Grand_Egyptian_Museum

• Egyptiankeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• They seem to have understood the issues with their edits but today began similar conduct on the talk page of the British Museum article and became combative when their edits were challenged. I have blocked for a week this time. Bringing it here for broader eyes as I was the person who blocked them last time and belatedly realized I possibly shouldn't have been the one to take repeat action. Am fine with any consensus that develops here or at their eventual unblock request. Star Mississippi 21:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Good block, clearly edit warring and failing to engage collaboratively at British Museum. Their creative choices in Wikipedia jargon also raise some concerns about machine translation and the extent to which they’re actually understanding what they’re being told. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree. They also appear not to understand verifiability and referencing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's Egyptiankeng's understanding of verifiability and referencing which is in question on the British Museum dispute, frankly. They might not be behaving productively but on the content issue they are correct: the claim that The British Museum houses the world's largest and most comprehensive collection of Egyptian antiquities (with over 100,000 pieces) outside the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is not supported by either source cited in this paragraph. WP:BURDEN is clear that it's up to the people who want to include the text to provide a source which supports it, not up to the challenging editor to provide a source which contradicts it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Caeciliusinhorto, I agree. WP:BURDEN is policy. As is WP:ONUS, which is pretty clear that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Since this content has been disputed, a discussion of the sourcing shpuld have been opened on talk, not mindlessly reverted. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Good block, this editor has not shown much of a willingness to meaningfully collaborate with others, and does not seem to understand they have no more authority over the articles they wish to edit than any other editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The prominent "This user wrote Grand Egyptian Museum" box on their userpage also doesn't shine a great light on the WP:OWNy attitude I mentioned in my original ANI thread, considering that article's been rewritten by others about as much as written by them. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

They not have phrased it well, but that's not a great definition of WP:OWN; they are, statistically, the article's primary author with over 70% of the authorship by added material. The closest single editor to them has contributed less than 4%. Not that quantity is any indication of quality, but I'd question whether the article's been rewritten by others about as much as written by them. In fact, they'd only have to stick two small words in ("most of") to completely negate the premise. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"By added material" isn't a very useful metric here; they pretty much rewrote the existing article from the ground up (making it highly promotional and unencyclopedic in the process, as per my first ANI thread) and the changes that myself and others have made since then has mostly been trimming and rewording the material they added rather than adding anything new, so I still stand by the fact that they by no means singlehandedly 'wrote' the article in the form it stands in now. Athanelar (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This argument is not related in any concrete way to any problematic behavior; people are allowed to have user-boxes saying (correctly, according to you) that they wrote an article, even if other people changed it afterwards. Better to stay focused on actual problems. --JBL (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a formal request from me, Naznin Huraira, to kindly remove my photograph

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

---

This is a formal request from me, Naznin Huraira, to kindly remove my photograph that appears in connection with the article about Umar Khalid. I have already raised this issue on the talk pages, but I wish to state again that the inclusion of my image without my consent has caused me serious personal and legal trouble. Recently, the police came to my house and summoned me for questioning solely because of this photo and its association with Umar Khalid. I am facing harassment, mental distress, and reputational harm due to this. I am requesting that my photo be removed immediately from the article . Please treat this as an urgent and formal notice to protect my safety and privacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umar_Khalid#Pleaze_remove_my_photo Naznin Huraira (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@WMFOffice: Naznin Huraira (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've cropped the image, take a look at Umar Khalid and tell me if that works for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Can the uncropped version still be found in the edit history? And if that's the case, shouldn't that also be deleted? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That would require revdelling everything from the 12th edit to the article to my edit changing the image and I don't know that it qualifies under any of the revdel criteria. The image also still exists on commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It exists only on commons as far as I can see. Uploading the crop as a new file, replacing it and deleting the original on commons would make the image show up only as a red link in the history. Hypnôs (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

So can that be done? Like ASAP perhaps? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have requested deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Umar khalid.jpg. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Request was declined by Commons. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That was an earlier request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see it, looks like it's going to be deleted. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the image, and also blurred out the other person in your crop and deleted your original version. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Requesting advice on Range Block

Hi, I would like to ask for help regarding a potential range block against a contributor on the Icelandic language Wikipedia. The contributor in question was permanently banned by unanimous decision several months ago due to repeated breaches of policies and guidelines and constant uses of sockpuppetry. However, he has persistently continued to make similar edits using either sockpuppet accounts or numerous different IP addresses. His IP addresses typically share a range of numbers. I wanted to ask firstly if a range block is appropriate in this situation and secondly, if anyone could then give instructions on how to perform the range block? TKSnaevarr (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a question better suited to Meta ~2025-32014-02 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@TKSnaevarr: Temp account -02 is probably right, but since we're here, and this is a request for help from a sister-wiki admin: If I'm inferring correctly from is:Kerfissíða:Aðgerðaskrár/block/TKSnaevarr that you're talking about the IP starting with 2a01, then the narrowest single range to match all of the IPs you've blocked is is:Special:Contribs/2A01:6F02::/34. A narrower pair of ranges would be is:Special:Contribs/2A01:6F02:1000::/38 and is:Special:Contribs/2A01:6F02:3000::/38. (These are not officially allocated ranges, but they match the editing patterns from the larger IP range.) Whether a range block is appropriate will depend on your wiki's policies and norms. If you're unsure, you should talk to your fellow admins there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the Icelandic Wikipedia, please go there. We do not have authority over other projects. Minehollow (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a misguided comment. It is quite clear from the above that the OP is asking for advice regarding how to handle a certain vandal and enwiki has admins that might be able to assist. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

IP harassment

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

---

I apologize if this is not quite the right forum for this. I reverted an addition by an IP [7] and now he's been stalking (following me to another article and posting in dead discussions to insult me for no reason [8], [9], [10]) and harassing me on my talk page [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. He also called me a k*ke [17].--Ermenrich (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks. For the record, they're most likely separate to the user you undid yesterday, and the thread is better fitted for WP:AN/I. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 21:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Ponyo blocked that IP account for a lengthy period of time. If they pop up again, please let them know or post it to WP:AIV. No editor should have to put up with harrassment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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