Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Administrators noticeboard)
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Apr May Jun Jul Total
    CfD 0 0 0 28 28
    TfD 0 0 1 25 26
    MfD 0 0 1 7 8
    FfD 0 0 1 8 9
    RfD 0 0 0 23 23
    AfD 0 0 0 3 3


    WP:UAA

    [edit]
    No further action needed here. Helpful advice on their Talk and Floq handled the RfA. If someone feels that page is a problem, MfD will handle it. Star Mississippi 00:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BOOMERANGED
    By consensus of the Wikipedia, community, Starfall2015 is indefinitely pblocked from the Project namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wow, what a backlog. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Any reason I shouldn't block Starfall2015 from WP:UAA? When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should at least warn them to knock it off first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has been borderline disruptive for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a quick look through their edits. I don't think sanctions are appropriate, since as SFR said they haven't really been warned and this seems clearly good faith. However, Starfall2015, your edits recently have been almost entirely to backend parts of the project, including ones that require plenty of experience. Please step back. Avoid commenting on noticeboards unless it's a dispute you were involved in. Avoid nominating things for deletion for a while, read some deletion discussions and policy, and try to help out by commenting in AfDs once you feel like you have a grasp of it. Avoid asking for advanced permissions. I get that you're trying to help, but this isn't the way to do it. I'm happy to take questions about what is or isn't appropriate right now, if you'd like, or the teahouse is a great resource. Rusalkii (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they should still get a warning. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz you already did User_talk:Starfall2015/Archive_1#Suggestion
    I think at minimum they should be p-blocked from project space, but their draft work is also concerning as @Rsjaffe noted. Star Mississippi 17:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been archiving/deleting their warnings and feedback on their userpage. I did give them some more feedback this morning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would request that you not block me, as I'm a valued contributor. I am good-faith, and if you blocked me I wouldn't be able to help UAA or something. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Starfall, please read the above thread more carefully. You should not be trying to help out at UAA right now. You are not ready, and it isn't helpful. Rusalkii (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that response above exhibits an astounding lack of clue, I've pblocked them from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Once they have taken on board the community's concerns and agreed to act on them, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: Concur. @Starfall2015: it is good that you are trying to help. However, you are not helping; you are disrupting. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, DFO; I think UAA can probably do without that kind of help. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the unblock request. They are currently running for adminship, which is the feedback they took on board from IP 2A0E's comment above. Le sigh. Star Mississippi 13:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Related, I've also warned LordDiscord for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked into LordDiscord's recent comments over the past few days, I am unfortunately convinced that they are not trolling and are being honest. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to be trolling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. The reason I was convinced of their honesty was because of the comments at User talk:Olitun and User talk:Human Right Wiki. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheet! The cat's out the bag now. If they hadn't gone through with the RfA, this might have been salvageable, but now we are firmly in the realms of CIR. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And their response to their RFA being tagged for speedy deletion was to remove the tag. Not a good look. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they've removed it again. Surely a CIR block is inevitable at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because it is transcluded! Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Re, "you've been here long enough to know better", to be fair, I don't think they have: although the LordDiscord account is five years old, they've only been active about a month. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While that isn't very long, being here long enough to know about nominating at RFA is long enough to know "don't fucking troll people into getting their teeth kicked out of their face at RFA and probably make them quit editing". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would people be uncivil (“teeth kicked out”) at RFA? If that is really a problem, then that should be fixed. The solution shouldn’t be to discourage qualified editors from being nominated. LordDiscord (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And an IP is attempting to stop my RFA! That is very bad. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LordDiscord I don't think you were trolling, but the naivety about the environment that is RFA isn't helping you or @Starfall2015 who should withdraw. While I don't think they'd be elected, the group election would have been much more kind than an RFA which will be SNOW closed at best and gutwrenching at worst because Snowfall is not qualified to be an administrator. That is a fact, not uncivil. Star Mississippi 14:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The election is what I offered to nominate them for (because I saw that there was an ongoing election). Although I thought that was the same thing as an RFA. I see now there are two different processes. LordDiscord (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. In any case, Starfall2015 is now demonstrating sufficient lack of CLUE/competence that the outcome's inevitable at this point. Going by their RfA "answers", we're probably been trolled... Q: "What are your best contributions?", A: "The thing that got me blocked". —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My RFA is now transcluded. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per consensus here, I have asked them to withdraw and apologized to them. LordDiscord (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think that's really a necessary comment. There are no requirements to nominate someone for adminship, and while yes, RfA is a bleeding shitshow nowadays (for a list of reasons so long that it could be the subject of dissertations), adminship remains no big deal. Everyone's standards for adminship are different, and while Starfall is a bit...lacking in the clue department, I think LordDiscord was genuine in their offer to nominate, and calling a kind but naive offer "trolling" is somewhat condescending, and there were so many better ways you could've phrased that. More to my point, and this is solely my opinion, but I think you should strike your accusations of trolling that you have raised towards them here and on their talk page. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Encouraging an editor to stand at RFA or nominating them at RFA citing the behavior that just saw them blocked is indistinguishable from trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior leading to their block was that they needed to be an admin to clerk UAA. They then were offered a nomination for adminship, which is, at least in theory, the way to remedy that issue. I don't see where this is necessarily trolling, so much as just well-intentioned but misguided. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that any reading of this thread up to the point of the offer of a nomination could be summarized as "they just need to be an admin." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I admittedly did not read the entire thread at the time, but the initial comments were all about that (“When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page”, “The OP has been declining UAA reports, despite not being an admin”). The reason why I thought they were qualified was because of my experience with them at ANI, not this one, which I mentioned in my initial comment. That’s the only place where they had directly interacted with me.
    I was surprised at the response, as I thought I was doing something good at the time. And that is a problem if it is indistinguishable from trolling to several editors, which is why I will be avoiding any RFA/admin election/related topics until I have a better understanding of the community standards. I hope that alleviates any concerns. LordDiscord (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Derail, please open a separate thread if LD or IP173's conduct needs assessing Star Mississippi 22:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    How much longer is LordDiscord’s bullying and disruptive editing, primarily directed at newer editors going to be tolerated? How on earth so many veteran admins have let this pass is beyond me. Look at the mess they deliberately created here. Look at their recent posts at User talk:A.FLOCK. They are attempting to ruin another new editor’s experience here by offering appallingly poor advice. These posts are not in good faith, they’re meant to be disruptive. This person is having a grand old laugh at our expense. Someone please block this troll, or even better, but a check user to identify which LTA this is. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My posts of encouragement (not bullying) for this editor were before the recent Starfall issue. My only post in the thread after was to say that I would no longer be commenting on admin candidacies. I encouraged multiple users because I thought we needed more younger admins for a fresher view on things; I now realize this caused trouble (having the opposite effect as I intended) and (again) I will not be commenting on any adminship proposals or making any of my own or otherwise getting involved in the space. Happy to make a formal commitment on that. LordDiscord (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it seems a bit hypocritical to accuse me of bullying for a good faith mistake when like a third of your editing history involves hostile comments (not sure how many are justified, but can’t you just try being civil first?).[3][4][5][6] LordDiscord (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that they're edit warring over the speedy deletion tag on their RFA [7], coupled with this frivolous warning and this obviously invalid RFPP request, it's abundantly clear that a block is needed at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not block me. I have not violated 3RR. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the request for protection, with some probably futile, but nonetheless kind, words I hope. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but this is beginning to look like WP:CIR. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sealioning, IDHT, obsession with RfA, tying as many editors up in as many knots as possible over a range of namespaces. Kind of remnded me of this guy, who Zzuuzz CU'd as Arch'134. Still, by now I guess the sheer amount of dsruption probably warrants/justifies a general Checkuser needed request. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    S2015 seems  Unlikely to A134 imo. dbeef [talk] 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A134 was for example, Dbeef. I assume there are several others who do not object to wasting the community's time like this. Mind you, I guess there's always room for a new kid on that particular block... —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In case CU does not immediately find other accounts to connect to, I do a comparison.
    I've got no opinions on a block; I was only looking at it from a technical point of view. dbeef [talk] 16:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies Dbeef, didn't mean "block" in our sense, rather City block as in "New Kids on the"  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we were hoping this was a sock rather than a terribly confused new editor. The RfA application is extraordinary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsjaffe@Dbeef as I said on their Talk, I consider myself Involved to block unilaterally and they appear to have paused after the ill-fated ANI thread. But if they resume editing I think it's time for at least a p-block from project space if only to save themselves from walking into an INDEF. I'll open the proposal Star Mississippi 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess, if any, would be ATMN, as they recently were also involved in the Oasis kerfluffle. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: P-Block from Project Space

    [edit]

    While UAA was the immediate issue, discussion here and at their Talk has shown that the issue is a broader one and that Starfall2015 does not have the Competence to edit in Project Space. I believe removing them from this complex area will help them gain the editing experience to be a better editor in the long run. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This behavior is starting to become very similar to another recent ANI "customer." Best in my view to give them a time out and let them build competence through the experience of normal editing.
    Intothatdarkness 17:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The encouragement didn't help the situation but I'm not sure it made a difference in the outcome. The editor was pretty gung-ho already and was being a nuissance on the UAA noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra I was very close to starting "Proposal 2: LordDiscord is topic banned from RFA nominations", but given that they seem to have agreed to step back from these areas of the project above I don't think it would be necessary. Nominating people for adminship while having no idea of what is required for success or even an understanding how the process works (like RFA and admin elections being different) is utterly ridiculous.
    I think in a lot of ways LordDiscord's disruption has the same underlying causes as Starfall's - too much enthusiasm combined with too little knowledge resulting in disastrous attempts at getting involved in administrative areas, as I said it's unfortunately common among certain types of newcomers. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Enthusiastic new editors diving into admin areas happens all of the time, for example, we just dealt with ToadetteEdit who early on sent off a lot of red flags. It frequently occurs with clerking AFD daily log pages. I'd even guess that this phenomena happens about every three months or so. We try to steer the wayward newbies towards content work so the situation doesn't end up with a topic ban, namespace ban or, in worst cases, a site-wide block. I've already posted to LordDiscord's User talk page, they have received plenty of feedback and they agreed to step back from participating on noticeboards. I don't think action is called for in their case. All that is still required in this discussion is whether or not Starfall receive a namespace block of limited or indefinite duration. Liz Read! Talk!
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    And now we have this: User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Had I been active I'd have likely supported a site-wide block, but now that the community has chosen a namespace-block, if we're going to be fair we should probably give them some room to breathe. That page is silly, but is not harming anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Starfall2015 is now blocked indefinitely for being compromised. See User talk:Starfall2015 § Blocked indefinitely. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Latin American politics TBAN appeal

    [edit]

    Kind regards. I'm starting this thread in order to appeal my current TBAN on Latin American politics decided in this ANI discussion. An ArbCom case was opened shortly after the closure to address the remainer of the dispute. My hope is that over a year after the closure and editing about other topics helps to earn the community's trust back.

    There are three main reasons why I would like to appeal the topic ban: it is too broad and has unintended consequences, the measures taken by the Arbitration Committee have been effective in addressing the issue, and new information about the dispute was disclosed after the ANI discussion was closed (specifically WMrapids' sockpuppetry). I feel that a Catch-22 happened because of this: the ANI closing admin commented that the ArbCom could decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban,[8] but at the same time the ArbCom commented that extraordinary circumstances were needed to override a community decision.[2]

    Regardless of the circumstances, the main issue that opened the ANI discussion was my dispute and removal of information. I could have definitely have handled the dispute better, and in turn I can learn how to improve. I pledge to provide detailed explanations in the talk page if I argue that content is not backed by the sources, as well as continue using edit summaries and maintenance tags with this purpose.

    The current TBAN not only covers politics, but loosely related topics as well, including history, society and crime, and likewise not only biographies about politicians are affected, but also journalists, activists, historians, political scientists, and so on. The topic ban also affects maintenance work that I would normally do, including but not limited to categories and navigational infoboxes, or small fixes like spelling or links.

    If the ban is repealed, my main goal would be translating articles from Spanish to English, including for Women in Red events, as well as continuing with maintenance, such as populating categories, improving nav boxes and fixing typos.

    I understand if the topic ban is decided to be kept. The only thing that I ask is for an opportunity to discuss the situation and to make an appeal. Courtesy ping to @Simonm223:, who asked to be notified. Best wishes and many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to provide a bit more context, the topic ban was imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1152#NoonIcarus and "Failed verification" in April 2024 and, ironically, User:WMrapids, the editor who instigated this review of NoonIcarus, was blocked a month later at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies so they do not require notification of this topic ban appeal. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I regularly came across NoonIcarus on South American election articles and they were one of the most persistent POV-pushers I saw on any set of election articles. The topic ban was well overdue and really should have been implemented years earlier. I am not convinced that this behaviour would not return, and I don't see their absence from the topic sphere as a great loss. Number 57 22:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for notifying me. If you encounter sources in the future that meet our normal reliability standards but that you have concerns about from an ideological perspective how would you handle this situation? Simonm223 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Simonm223: Thank you for your question. Sources that meet reliability standards, as established in WP:RS/P or newspapers of record, should not be removed. Besides reliability, the remaining important aspect is due weight, and reliable sources reflect a mainstream point of view, so that usually isn't a problem.
    An ideological perspective can be addressed with attribution and neutral wording, where MOS:WTW is a good guideline. If there's a point of view that is not reflected, I would seek to provide content backed by an equally reliable source, but only provided it is also a mainstream point of view. Last but not least, discussing these differences with the editors always helps. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support - That TBAN should have been partially lifted. Stopping Noon from editing unrelated areas would be cumbersome. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your vote of confidence. If it helps, I should add that there's still an interaction ban between WMrapids and I placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies, meaning that I currently can't edit in articles that they edited or created subject to the dispute even if the TBAN is lifted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge request: Culpeper, Virginia → Culpeper

    [edit]
    NOT DONE
    WP:USPLACE applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi admins,

    I’m requesting assistance to move "Culpeper, Virginia" to "Culpeper." There is currently a redirect at "Culpeper" pointing to "Culpeper (disambiguation)," which blocks the move. I don’t have the permissions to delete the redirect or move the page myself.

    Also, I’m unable to add this request on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page because any edits I try to make there get automatically removed by bots. Because of this, I’m posting here to ask for admin help.

    Thanks for your time! Waypoint47 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

    [edit]
    Wikipedia:Notability (music) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

    User requesting review: voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 16:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: Special:Diff/1300487471

    Reasoning: I do not believe that the closer properly evaluated consensus. First, the close only addressed one side of the debate; it summarized why editors promoting an expansion of the guideline (option 1) opposed the status quo or a more restrictive interpretation of the guideline (options 2/3), but didn't address the arguments in support of option 2/3 or explain why they were outweighed by those in favor of option 1. Second, the close implies that those opposing options 2/3 are correct in their assessment of Option 2 potentially introducing (or in Option 3's case, leaving-put) language potentially superseding the general notability guideline ("GNG") and/or worried Option 2/Option 3 creates a conflict with the notability guideline ("N") as a whole. But that was the whole debate in this RfC, and those supporting options 2/3 made significant arguments about why this guidance makes sense in the context of the guideline and why the normal relationship between SNGs/GNGs (which was itself discussed and argued in this RfC) isn't as clear cut as was described in the close. Finally, I don't believe that the close adequately grappled with the argument that this RfC was prompted by a non-issue; editors supporting option 1 largely rested their arguments on articles being wrongly deleted, but (as far as I can tell) they couldn't point to a single article that failed at AfD that shouldn't have.

    Closer (slakr)

    [edit]

    Just a quick note: I specifically encouraged this person to raise their concerns here if they felt I was in error, so thanks in advance to everyone for helping us both check it out. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 10:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-participants (NSONG)

    [edit]

    I concur with the closure. Buffs (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse. Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. Seeing the discussion at hand in the context of broader, higher-level consensus (especially as documentet in our policies and guidelines) is an important part of the closer's job, and I think the closer of this discussion handled it well. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. That's not my complaint. My complaint is that the closer didn't address an entire side of the debate. Closers are required to accurately summarize the discussion, weigh between the arguments, and evaluate consensus. Merely reiterating what one side said, asserting that there's consensus for that side, and not evaluating counterarguments reads more like a super vote than a neutral close. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll also note that this discussion involves a potentially major change to the notability guidelines. I would expect a closer to very clearly explain why one side has consensus, not just assert that it does. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I get what you mean. I just wasn't being clear enough. What I meant to say is that some aspect not being covered in the closing statement does not mean that the closer did not weigh that aspect appropriately. While we may wish slakr had dedicated some words to describing the other viewpoints in their own terms, we cannot from that conclude that they did not understand and consider them, that is, that the substantive result of the discussion, "rough consensus for Option 1", was wrong. That's not to say an omission cannot be indicative of a problem, but I personally do not see that being the case here, right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I see a pretty strong consensus that an SNG such as NSONG should not override the GNG. As noted in the discussion, this was settled at a 2017 RFC. WP:SIGCOV is also pretty direct in saying a topic (which in this case would be a song) "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for it to count as significant coverage. I realize the closer suggested you come here, but I really don't understand what more you're looking for. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I really don't understand what more you're looking for I think my statement is pretty clear. What part do you not understand? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The 2017 RfC you're citing is about NSPORTS and the opposite issue of too-loose SNGs eliminating the need for SIGCOV. The issue in this RfC was primarily about WP:NOPAGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That RfC also ended in no consensus, which is clearly how this one should have closed given the significant diverging views about whether we should have articles for every song that gets SIGCOV vs. covering those songs in album articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants (NSONG)

    [edit]
    • Endorse. Notability guidelines are too complicated and open to interpretation to form a good basis for subsequent incremental policy making that is rational and takes the whole system into account. Most editors do not know that much about notability and use their natural good sense of what kind of articles to create and avoid creating. Notability is a mechanism of social control against the problematic users who lack this commonsense compass and want to expand the scope of the encyclopedia against the majority's instinct of it's supposed to look like. Reasonable people don't need notability guidelines. With an RfC like this, it's fine to count votes and see if a fire starts somewhere later on. If we start getting tons of ridiculous song articles, we'll deal with that issue then. If it turns out that we can't deal with it, that's okay too, Wikipedia will also be a Songpedia, and that's not that terrible. I like music. —Alalch E. 22:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I will not deny that supporters of Option 2 and other alternatives knew they were gunning for an SNG stricter than the GNG (by excluding certain sources), and the close seems to frame this as a misunderstanding or some kind of policy-violating LOCALCON outcome (it isn't; WP:NCORP, another SNG is explicitly stricter than the GNG, for good reason). In this regard, voorts is correct that the close does not properly reflect the valid arguments made in the discussion. However, the outcome clearly matches the consensus of the participants: Otherwise acceptable sources should not be disqualified solely for being part of an album review. (I'm obviously biased, since the close at times echoes my !vote exactly. It is almost uncanny. But I suppose that's why this section is separate.) Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse, conditional upon rewording the second and third paragraphs of the closing statement. See my discussion with voorts in the discussion section. I am not comfortable endorsing the closing statement in its current state. It is a poor summary of the arguments made and the policy background and almost reads like a supervote. Toadspike [Talk] 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (NSONG)

    [edit]
    • I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will opine that I think having SNGs being more restrictive than GNG is a slope we really don't want to start tobogganing down. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone was arguing for that though. The disputed guidance is about inherited notability and when not to split content. That's yet another reason why this close is flawed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Toadspike: At least from my perspective, if the only sources are album reviews, then the song should be covered in the album article, rather than its own article. That's because notability is not inherited and for almost every album, it best serves our readers to have a single article that goes over the whole album. I think the guideline has reflected that consensus for a while; the opposing side here was not endorsing some kind of policy-violating LOCALCON outcome. But, if you and others want to deal with a dozen different fan-crufty articles that survey two or three reviews that each devote a sentence to a song for every single album article on Wikipedia, have fun with that. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that just because a topic is notable doesn't mean we have to have a separate article on it. However, if a review would otherwise count toward the GNG, there's no reason for an identical review within a longer piece on the whole album suddenly disqualifies it. That is why I personally went for Option 1.
      I think you have also misread the crux of my comment here: Option 2 and Option 3 would have been perfectly valid outcomes of this RfC, if that had been the consensus of participants. The close seems to argue that regardless of the arguments made, Options 2 and 3 were invalid from the start. This implies that the closer believes these Options 2 and 3 would violate LOCALCON. That argument is wrong, as SNGs can be stricter than the GNG; there simply wasn't consensus for that in this RfC. (The close doesn't explicitly say this; instead, the close pushes this line of argumentation onto "Multiple comments" and, as you pointed out, does not address counterarguments.)
      I think we agree that the second and third paragraphs of the closing statement are poorly phrased. I believe that if the closer had worded them more carefully, we would not be here. Toadspike [Talk] 16:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thryduulf said it best: [9]. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did misunderstand your point about LOCALCON. Thank you for clarifying. I'm not willing to do that much work adding reasoning to a close that's not there for a closer whose response to a close challenge is "ask another admin to change my close" and who seemingly doesn't know that close reviews are a thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Voorts: You've made it abundantly clear that you're intensely dissatisfied with either my work on this, the outcome, or both, but I genuinely don't know what more to say to a colleague acting this way in response to my only two—ever—interactions with you on this ([10][11]), both of which I feel were lighthearted, straightforward, and accommodating to give you numerous options for achieving the end you so clearly desire (including just asking other admins to amend the close informally); you picked this format.
      Yet, after all of that, if you're now not willing to put in any work to propose specific alterations yourself, and no other uninvolved admin has taken my offer to amend the close (a week later), what more is there to do here? How much additional volunteer time are you requesting from others on this?
      --slakr\ talk / 18:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the method the community has adopted for reviewing a close that somebody has challenged, not admins informally modifying other editors' closes. Generally speaking, if someone had come to me and said "I disagree with your close and think you missed some arguments," I'd either amend the close to reflect my reasoning and address those arguments. Or, if I thought I already had addressed those arguments, I would say so. I would not not address what the other editor had said and tell them to try something else before trying to resolve the issue on my own. I've also already said what I think should be the outcome here: no consensus. It's not my job to draft a new close. That's not how close challenges work. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also not sure what I've said to offend you, but I'm sorry that I have. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Voorts: Not offended; legitimately trying to exhaust all options for you. Let's see if I can help strictly via your desired approach. You want to go by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. It says

      You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument"

      ... and recommends you consider using this format:

      The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X never intended to apply to issues such as this

      . In contrast, your initial complaint in this close was that I wasn't exhaustive enough in describing all points of view. So let's try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE's approach instead:
      • What was the issue I was to decide? (Yes, obviously people can read the diffs, but let's try it this way).
      • Which policy/guideline(s) did I apply?
      • Which policy/guideline(s) should have been taken more into account?
      • Which policy/guideline(s) was never intended to apply to issues such as this?
      --slakr\ talk / 21:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That format would make sense if the dispute here was over, e.g., whether a given source should be used in an article, with some editors calling it due and others undue for inclusion. This RfC was about changing a guideline, and I think the error in this close is more fundamental than failing to properly weigh between arguments about application of a policy: as noted, I believe that your close did not adequately account for an entire side of the dispute, and thus did not adequately weigh the strength of the arguments between the two sides. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, one of the grounds for a close review is "if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      That format would make sense if the dispute here was over, e.g., whether a given source should be used in an article, with some editors calling it due and others undue for inclusion. This RfC was about changing a guideline....

      I see. So you're not going to try following the recommended format. Not even the first one? (i.e., "What was the issue I was to decide?"). Are you unwilling to even summarize that from your perspective?

      I believe that your close did not adequately account for an entire side of the dispute, and thus did not adequately weigh the strength of the arguments between the two sides.

      I understand the concern. Feel free to suggest an adequate account of the entire side of the dispute that was missed and weigh the strength of the arguments. Post it here. If consensus agrees, then we'll update it.

      Also, one of the grounds for a close review is "if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion".

      Then what was a reasonable summation of the discussion? Again, post it here, and if people agree, then we'll update it. Just because you were involved in the discussion doesn't mean it's impossible for you to formulate a neutral close, after all.
      If you're going to criticize someone's work, then you should be willing to suggest the alternative to replace it.
      --slakr\ talk / 00:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think my position has been stated quite clearly. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FlightTime

    [edit]

    Inappropriate notices on an IP for a public library. See User talk:153.111.229.202

    It's pretty clear from the activity on the page of this user that it is used by multiple users accessing a public library IP. It has been mentioned in various places. The public library users edit a wide variety of topics including local history. User FlightTime thinks this is a conflict of interest, and has reverted articles based on this misunderstanding.

    The notices should be removed. It would be good if users from other countries did a little research before reverting changes, and understood different localities have different internet access not to mention different types of history. Not to mention that this type of action seems to contravene the wikipedian notion that anyone can edit wikipedia. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No issue with them warning you that if you have a COI, address it at Talk:Christchurch City Council, and you would receive none of these warnings if you decided to create an account to edit, which is encouraged in a public environment to provide edit clarity. You also previously posted copyrighted content we had to remove, so be thankful you can still post at all from this IP. There's discussion going on there, so I would advise you to return there, and this should be closed as there are no administrative issues to be dealt with. Nathannah • 📮 23:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was addressed at Talk: Christchurch City Council, and ignored. Wikipedia terms of use say you don't have to create an account, and that edits are accepted from all. Not everyone can create accounts safely. The issue here is a misunderstanding that an IP for a public library is not an IP for a council so there is no conflict. The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here. The message said if you have an external relationship. If you in fact do not then there's nothing to be concerned about as only the potentiality was mentioned. On the other hand, if your editing evinces a CoI other editors may start a WP:COIN thread despite your denials. All of that is irrespective of whether or not you have an account, or where you choose to edit from.
    All reverts and their edit summaries are visible at Special:PageHistory/Christchurch City Council. None of those reverts cited CoI as a reason which in any case is not normally ipso facto a reason to revert though the details and nuance of that are off-topic for now. Your edits were reverted for introducing copyvios and due to apparent disagreements over the scope of the article. The former is non-negotiable. The latter is a content dispute which does not belong on AN.
    The WP:Dispute resolution guideline covers how to deal with disagreements over content; I suggest you read it. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties, yes. Third parties that appear to hold a COI. That is why you were notified. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I suggested that the IP come here to air a concern of the welcome template on their talk page is incorrect, as stated on my talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Whois info says what the Shared IP template says and I'd say a public library is a government facility. So from my POV it's perfectly fine. The history of responses to problematic editing on that IP's talk page all read as though they're the same person, so the complaints ring hollow to me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that the same IP complained in the morning on my talk page that I reverted copyright violation they introduced to the article (not sure what they expected, but anyway). Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How does an article get connected by interwiki

    [edit]
    POINTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
    Nothing left to do here. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I have created Against All Currents on ENWP. NL:Tegen alle stromen in exists. How do articles get connected by interwiki?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Via wikidata. There is a languages option in the sidebar, with an "add links" button. Click that and put in the information about the article on the other project and they will link up. — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've taken care of it. Deor (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Deor, Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment and personal attacks by User:LVLewitinn

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Indef'd by SarekOfVulcan. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I’m requesting administrator intervention regarding User:LVLewitinn, who is leaving harassing and deeply inappropriate messages on my user talk page and his user talk page in response to my placement of a COI template.

    Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LVLewitinn#c-LVLewitinn-20250715215600-LegalTech-20250715202000

    In the message, he states (among other things):

    > "Hey, LegalTech: You clearly have some sort of mental issue. You spent an entire month editing, line by line, the entries for a married couple. Please name yourself and explain your motivation behind it. Jilted lover? Bigot? What's your real motivation? Interesting that you're based in Oregon. Gee, I wonder who else is there...."

    This is a clear violation of WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks), WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL. It includes personal insults, insinuations about mental health and personal relationships, doxing-adjacent behavior (reference to location), and a hostile tone intended to intimidate.

    I am requesting that this user be **blocked or otherwise formally warned**. This behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and I am not engaging with him further.

    Thank you. LegalTech (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have access to all 25 edits, but of the 17 edits by LVLewitinn that I can see, there is quite a bit to go over from today. From the page history at Sarah Lewitinn, LegalTech has been editing that article since 2023. More notably, there was a series of edits starting from June 8th onward with 24 edits from June 8-24 and then 3 more edits on July 11-12. One of LVLewitinn's edits that seems interesting is this reverted one (Special:Diff/1297198902) with the edit summary proposed deletion. despite substantial efforts to improve the article, notability fails and sources are marginal at best. the page has a history of being heavily edited by individuals with a relationship with the subject, and one of the primary sources the article relies on even states the article is maintained by the subject's brother. (Emphasis mine.) (Quick note: Reverted per WP:PROD as LegalTech already had proposed this back in 2023 and it was reverted as contested by Jfire both times.)
    LVLewitinn starts editing the page today (as far as I can tell) and all six edits are reverts in under a ten minute span. Revert three accidently restored the PROD notice that I covered above, leading to revert four (Special:Diff/1300680154) where LVLewitinn claims in the edit summary they are who LegalTech is referring to, before attacking LegalTech. (Again, today appears to be User:LVLewitinn's first edits to the article and all are reverts.) Eventually, LVLewitinn reverts everything back to January 2024 (Special:Diff/1300680815) while saying that LegalTech had attempted to (...) harass subject by vandalizing page. LegalTech starts a discussion at WP:COIN with claims, alerts LVLewitinn, and LVLewitinn responds by blanking LegalTech's talk page (Special:Diff/1300681095) and then starting a discussion called "Knock it off" (Special:Diff/1300681169) on the blanked talk page. LVLewitinn then goes to Daniel Patterson (chef) where LegalTech had been editing since last month and proceeds to revert all of LegalTech's edits again (Special:Diff/1300681897) with claims again in the edit summary that LegalTech is harassing the subject and says that LegalTech should be banned. Finally, LVLewitinn makes the edit above as mentioned by LegalTech. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for attempted doxxing. I know other admins were trying to avoid a block, but this attack was just too far, in my opinion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andrew West (linguist) (User:BabelStone) is deceased

    [edit]
    REST IN PEACE, ANDREW
    User page protected, account locked, condolences offered. Thank you for your service. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    As stated in the title. 阿南之人 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    阿南之人, thanks for letting us know. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just requested full protection for this page at WP:RFPP/I. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure full protection is needed, but deceased editors' accounts are usually globally locked; I've requested that at meta. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DWGU says deceased user pages must be protected from vandalism. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY. Soni (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry at Wiki

    [edit]

    Somebody uses an army of socks to vandalize Wiki, which is annoying, since socks make many edits before they get blocked. The article is now extended confirmed protected. What they do is they own a large number of socks created more than a month ago, they go to the sandbox of these socks and make 500 useless edits. Then the socks are extended confirmed and ready to vandalize the article. Do we have any tools to stop the inflation of sandbox edits? I understand that the alternative is to full protect the article, but may be we can do better than that? Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted a couple of sandboxes, but for admins this is the most recent one: [12]. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That user's MD najmul Mia1, and yesterday I blocked the surprisingly similarly named MD najmul Mia just before they got to 500 edits. I also just now found and pre-emptively blocked MD najmul Mia2. Completing the set, MD najmul Mia3 was blocked as soon as they were registered in May, by Zzuuzz. I guess they won't be spawning more of these particular usernames now, but I'll keep an eye out anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid they are more creative than that. The sock I blocked yesterday was User:João Eduardo1, and User:João Eduardo2 is not registered. (That one was easy, because the page was only semi-protected; now they really need to do this sandbox editing). Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess they figured that just changing the digits makes it a bit too easy to connect the dots. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salebot1. Not sure if we have an edit filter to log the behaviour or not. -- asilvering (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, judging by the behaviour and the locks, it's definitely SB1. A checkuser could probably set up an edit filter or something. Of note, they only started vandalising enwiki a few months ago, before that they were mostly on Commons. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't really need a CU in specific to write the edit filter. -- asilvering (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Izno since he seems to be familiar with this case. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can provide no further assistance that I can see. Izno (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes. This helps me out greatly, as I've come across this user a while ago, and it seemed like a sock of somebody, but just couldn't figure out who. Thanks! Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 00:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems United States Senate is also targeted by the same gang; same MO and again with accounts created on May 30. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That one is actually a contentious topic. Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    JJMC89 bot is even removing files that do NOT violate WP:NFCC#9c

    [edit]
    NO BOT ERROR
    WP:User pages are not WP:Special pages. The bot is working properly. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This bot even deletes images that are in userspace with edit note "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles.", buuuut: Wikipedia:NFCC#9 states "subject to exemptions", where the exemptions include "Special Pages" and a "user page" IS a "special page" (BOTH "Help:Special page#Personal" AND "Help:Special page#M" list it - "Special:MyPage")... So userpages are exemptions as they are "special pages". (am linking to this section on @JJMC89 's talk page now so he can follow this topic.) D4n2016 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you are misunderstanding. Although Special:MyTalk takes you to your talk page via redirect, it doesn't mean that your user talk page itself is part of Special Pages, and it does not mean non-free images are permitted there, nor are they permitted on your user page. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Yamla said, this isn't correct. Your talk page is in userspace and subject to NFCC#9. That a special page redirects to it does not change that. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "special pages" in the policy is not the same as pages within the Special: namespace. We could be more clear with the wording in NFCC because of that possible confusion, but its clear from context it applies to only called-out exemptions given in NFCC. Masem (t) 12:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Non-free content is also not allowed to be used in userboxes per WP:UBX#Caution about image use in addition to userpages per WP:UP#Non-free files, drafts per WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts, talk pages per WP:TPG#Non-free images, and any other page outside of the WP:MAINSPACE per WP:NFCC#9. If you want to use some type of Microsoft-related image in a userbox, you'll need to use one from Commons or one uploaded locally to Wikipedia that's not licensed as non-free content. You could, for example, use File:Microsoft logo (2012).svg or anything else it in c:Category:Microsoft company logos if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    FIFA Club World Cup

    [edit]
    HIJACKED
    This discussion has been hijacked into direct content disussion. The first response should answer the original question. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure where to put this. Anyway, the above article was previously disrupted massively by the now-banned User:Fa30sp and their large array of socks, and now the talk page has suddenly been invaded by a number of new editors (at least four) who, remarkably, all agree with Fa30sp's original changes to this article (which includes a number of major changes). This is too suspicious to ignore, but I believe that throwing all of those editors at a Fa30sp SPI would effectively be fishing, and this could equally be an off-wiki co-ordination issue. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it make any difference whether this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing up this topic here! Users who use dirty tactics have no place in the civilized space of discussions, and this phenomenon must be punished. But know that on that article are also honest users who want to discuss the issues raised there in the talk page. Patagonia41 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to make false accusations, but these three new users are the most suspect, apart from other ip-users. It's not about their opposing viewpoint to mine, but rather the way they express their arguments, which bears a resemblance. And like User:Fa30sp has been active in the portuguese wiki, so is User:Lkt777 (GlobalContributions). Furthermore, Lkt777's insults are problematic in themselves, see diffs:
    • 20:07, 14 July 2025 - Just two neurons above an Australopithecus level would be enough to see how illogical...
    • 15:07, 15 July 2025 - let’s be honest, would only make sense if we were working with, say, the cognitive range of Australopithecus.
    • 15:33, 16 July 2025 - But sure, when someone’s cognitive performance is somewhere between an Australopithecus and a traffic cone, even mildly complex topics can get tricky.
    Miria~01 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am a brand new user, and this is my first ever engagement on a Wikipedia debate, and I signed up specifically to engage in this conversation. My motivation was because this argument has been played out repeatedly on social media all week, and it’s clear that one of the main sources of misunderstanding on this issue is Wikipedia - a site i’ve always appreciated for these kind of records as a sports writer myself. If there’s any reasonable evidence I can present to demonstrate I am not a ‘sockpuppet’ (a word i only learned today), I’m more than happy to do so, as regardless of my position, I understand how that can be problematic. Yaqitano91 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are indeed an honest user, then you deserve respect and I thank you for wanting to express your opinion. But if it turns out that you were not honest and used multiple accounts, then you should know that you acted incorrectly. The talk page of that article should be a civilized space where users can express their opinions with decency. Patagonia41 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That's exactly what I tried to do. Yaqitano91 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, he's not the only person who argues that they're different cups. I started editing when I saw on Spanish Wikipedia that the 2025 World Cup was being held as a continuation, and my eyes bled, so I spoke out there, but since no one paid attention, I went to English Wikipedia to present my position. However, those who oppose the modifications have been quite disrespectful. They talk about solving problems with arguments, when their argument is that your opinion is garbage. We rely on secondary sources, and it won't be done, without any solid arguments. And now they're telling me I have multiple accounts; it's disrespectful, really. This page is increasingly failing, which is why they treat Fidel Castro as a hero and any president who isn't a radical leftist as a tyrant. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is proven that you are an honest user, then you deserve respect and I thank you for expressing your opinion freely, without being influenced by anyone. But if it is proven that you were dishonest, then know that you have shown disrespect towards us. The talk page of that article should be a civilized space where users can express their opinions with decency. Until we find out what the deal is with your account, you voted in the polling section for RfC? Patagonia41 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said it, I only created an account for this. I'm not that kid's puppet, nor do I know him. xD I'm just a Uruguayan in Colombia. They can't say we're puppets just because they don't share our opinion. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I never voted there, nor did I know it existed. Txs. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/179.1.65.194 This IP is mine, but it wasn't even malicious; I'd forgotten my login and realized it when I posted the comment. It's not a puppet or anything, I just forgot to log in that time. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that exact same thing by accident from my mobile, in a comment that I clearly continue with my account directly after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.38.78.100
    I'm an Irishman based in Italy - as the above user I just signed up for this debate to help fix a glaring error on Wikipedia.
    It's of note, I am yet to hear a coherent counter-argument against the core argument, however have received baseless insinuations of being a 'sockpuppet', which is unwelcoming. Yaqitano91 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has absolutely spiraled out of control and completely needlessly. There was no reason to re-open this discussion that we just had over the past month and a half at Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#RfC: Referring to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup as the "1st Edition". I literally just added that discussion to Wikipedia:Closure requests as well! Jay eyem (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay eyem: This is such a mess, if you go through the RfC and subsequent sections on the 2025 CWC talk page, clearly there is a combination of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and WP:BLUDGEONING going on, all aided by extremely long-winded AI-written responses. The person responsible for all this clearly has an extreme fixation on the Club World Cup, as evidenced by the 15 or so discussion sections they've opened that (apart from the RfC) have wasted everyone's time. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, I consider that users who use dirty tactics have no place in the civilized space of discussions, and this phenomenon must be punished. But know that on that article are also honest users who want to discuss the issues raised there in the talk page. You cannot start from the premise that the discussion was deviated by dishonest users. For example, I have been honest and I believe that there needs to be a change. Thank you! Patagonia41 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just changed my vote in the polling section, so that discussion is not really inactive. Since the end of the 2025 edition, many secondary sources began to emerge confirming the information mentioned by primary source FIFA. You can find them in my post in the polling section. For the moment, the score is 10-6 in favor of the change. I do not believe that discussion should be closed, as it is still relevant. Thank you! Patagonia41 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, another user voted for the change. The score became 11-6 in favor of the change. Patagonia41 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop responding to every single person that voted against the change. That is VERY bad behavior in a RfC discussion. And why on Earth did you write the same thing at Wikipedia:Closure requests as well? There is not a "score", RfC discussions are not a vote. The whole point of starting a RfC discussion and following the RfC process was to keep the conversation from degenerating to its current state. Jay eyem (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I kindly ask you to calm down, my intention was not negative, to pressure any user to change their vote, but I simply mentioned some things that have happened recently, namely that many secondary sources have emerged with the completion of the 2025 edition and it is necessary for all users to be aware of this. We must also not forget that you proposed to close the discussion and this was not necessary, as it was still active and relevant. That is why I intervened, but I apologize if I disturbed you in any way. Patagonia41 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that you took the discussion to the WikiProject Football talk page as well and you said there that „I think has run its course at this point” about the RfC, but you didn't take into account that the 2025 edition has just recently concluded, a week ago, and with its completion, many secondary sources have started to emerge that confirm what the primary source, FIFA, is saying, that the old FIFA Club World Cup (2000, 2005-2023) has been renamed to FIFA Intercontinental Cup, and new FIFA Club World Cup started this year. Just the other day, Chelsea FC updated its trophy cabinet. It is also natural for many comments to arise following the emergence of these secondary sources; therefore, the discussion is still active and relevant. I want to remind you that on Wikipedia, every opinion is important and you shouldn't be bothered if there are many users who have different opinions from yours. Thank you! Patagonia41 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request to publish article: الشيخ عماد الهاشم

    [edit]
    Suggestions given. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I tried to move my article about "الشيخ عماد الهاشم" from my sandbox (User:Youssef Imad Al Hachem/sandbox) to the mainspace, but I received a validation message asking me to request help here.

    The article is written in Arabic and is based on historical sources and family records. Kindly review the draft and advise on how to proceed with publishing it.

    Thank you. Youssef Imad Al Hachem (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Youssef Imad Al Hachem This is the English Wikipedia. We only host articles written in English. If you want to publish on the Arabic Wikipedia, please go to ويكيبيديا، الموسوعة الحرة qcne (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is the article not written in English, it is entirely unsourced and is very promotional. But if you want a formal review, please submit it to WP:AFC and an AFC reviewer will give you their opinion (which will be similar to what we just said). Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Consarn keeps removing my edit for no reason

    [edit]
    You thought this was an ANI thread, but actually it was me, Dio! Page semi-protected from obvious sockpuppetry. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Consarn Sybau772 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sybau772, are you the same person behind Whattfirrad and other accounts? --Yamla (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, their first edit was (seemingly unintentionally) admitting to it on my talk page consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep removing important information from Dio's character sheet for no reason. And refuse to say why Sybau772 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sybau772, you have not answered the question I asked. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the first reversion was over block evasion, the others were over edit warring. if you want to be a pedant, you can say those reversions were more procedural than anything, but if it helps, i do still disagree with you on top of that consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    omg hai :3
    this editor is a duck whose idea of arguing towards keeping their edits to dio brando is spam. is it legal to just ask for a block and a close? consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

    [edit]
    Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

    The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

    • July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
    • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
    • July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

    We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

    On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

    Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

    Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

    [edit]

    This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

    • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as

      All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.

      • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
      • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
      • All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
      • Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
      • Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
    • The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
    • WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
    • Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
    • A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
    • Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
      1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
      2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
      3. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
      4. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
      5. The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
    • Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
    • AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
    • Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
      1. Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
      2. Human activity in India
      3. Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
      4. Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
      5. Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
      6. India–Pakistan relations
      7. Indian WP:BLPs or biographies

    Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.

    For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed
    [edit]
     Done The Bushranger One ping only 07:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It is requested if any admin can remove the image links (two images deleted due to copyright violation from commons) at Shubhanshu_Shukla#Gallery. Thanks in advance. 14.139.127.131 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thanks for letting us know! DMacks (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    (Non-administrator comment) I thought that CommonsDelinker (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) was tasked with this kind of work. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is fully protected, so the bot can't edit the page. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Report vandalism

    [edit]
    BOOMERANG?
    Both Mehrad SH and Charles Miller 2007 are non-XC editors and thus not allowed to edit in the PIA topic area (which is, technically, the A-I area, but semantics). Both have been notified of this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user Mehrad SH is a destructive user who has entered this scientific, specialized, and public environment to cause destruction. He is removing sources and texts from articles and has made destructive edits. I request that this be investigated and that Mehrad SH's access be permanently suspended. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You've made no attempt to seriously discuss your content disagreement with them, and instead you've done this [13]. AN is not a place to resolve content disputes, and you should realize that your own conduct will come under scrutiny. Unsupported accusations are not viewed with favor here. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AN isn't a forum for content disputes
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    My goal in entering Wikipedia is to help my older brothers. User Omid Hosseini3 has made a precise edit, and I mean by user comments that he has made a precise edit. According to my research, units such as the Iranian Cyber Police were not involved in the battle, and the main units are the Intelligence Police, the Preventive Police, and the Special unit of Nopo, which are responsible for suppressing the people in Iran and are subject to US sanctions.[1][2][3] Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source was found in a Persian-language article. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Charles Miller 2007 Your reference seems to have a dead url. They don't work, at least not on this page pbp 02:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple search of internet sources reveals that the Nopo Special Unit was responsible for combating Mossad agents in Iran, the Intelligence Police was responsible for investigations in this field, and the Preventive Police was responsible for management in police stations. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "تحریم مقامات ایرانی که در نقض جدی حقوق بشر نقش داشته‌اند". وزارت خزانه‌داری ایالات متحده آمریکا. ۷ مهر ۱۳۸۹. Archived from the original on ۱۵ نوامبر ۲۰۱۹. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |archive-date= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |تاریخ بازبینی= ignored (help)
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :022 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    3. ^ Cite error: The named reference :12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Please discuss your concerns on the relevant talkpage, without using accusations like "vandalism" or "saboteur." Both you and Mehrad SH are new editors, please take the time to learn about Wikipedia's expectations for discussion, sourcing, and conduct. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per ARBPIA neither editor should be participating in this topic space anyway. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations.

    [edit]
    NOT AN AN ISSUE
    AN and ANI do not adjuciate article content. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations.

    کدخبری:1077832

    کدخبری:85891517 Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I added two news codes affiliated with official news agencies in Iran to the talk page. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    کد خبر: 85891517
    کد ۱۰۷۷۸۳۲ Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have not edited a page related to Palestinians or Israelis.

    [edit]

    I have not edited a page related to Palestinians or Israelis. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Miller 2007, why did you come to the administrator community at WP:AN and open this complaint? Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, Charles previously opened a thread here which he improperly deleted following its closure which concerned WP:CT/A-I, and the fact that he should not be editing in it. Weirdguyz (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) In that case, restored as a WP:TPO violation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I was considering doing it myself but worried about messing something up somewhere. Weirdguyz (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have. The PIA topic area is broadly construed, hence your notification. And Iran–Israel war order of battle, which you edited after your notification, is explictly under ECR restrictions. Accordingly, blocked for 31 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, The Bushranger, I was wondering what the heck was going on with this editor, he was editing very fast, then reverting edits and seemingly not taking a second to read all of the messages that have been left for him. I don't think 31 hours will be sufficient but it will give him some time to slow down and think before he acts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say hope springs eternal, but then there came obivous WP:LOUTSOCKing to evade the block [14]. Sigh. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dharmasthala mass burials

    [edit]

    Hello. There is a significant controversy in India right now that has gained widespread coverage. I have created an article. On the other article, I am seeing editors replacing (admittedly bad) sources with stuff like Google Docs – see this edit, for example. I have used only WP:RS Indian sources in my draft (e.g., Gulf News; The Hindu).

    This article could benefit from a few administrators paying attention, as ultimately I am just one person. Thanks — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Black Kite: Just to check – you think we should move the article to Dharsmasthala Temple mass burials? I named it without temple because of these:
    This article calls it the Dharmasthala mass burial case
    The articles generally say things like the person, who claims to have buried many persons who were murdered and raped in Dharmastala,
    Not opposed to it being changed (the complainant worked for the temple) but sources seem to describe it as relating to the town, and the bodies were buried along a river in the town (which I don't think is in the temple). If you want to move it though I don't have any strong feelings – I just went with what made sense. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Black Kite is talking about the article's name. I think he's pointing out that you've linked to two different articles, which I gather was your intention, but I think you may have forgotten a sentence before "On the other article", as it took me several reads to understand that what you're saying is: You've created Dharmasthala mass burials, which you think is up to snuff, but other editors are making problematic edits at Dharmasthala Temple, which could use some admin attention. Is that correct? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh I see. My bad, Tamzin – you're got the right of it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any Google Docs links in that linked diff; share.google is a new URL shortener by Google (see this reddit post for more information), and they should be replaced with the true URL, or blacklisted if abuse occurs. OutsideNormality (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure am collecting idiot points by the handful today. Thanks for letting me know — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some days it do be that way - and to be fair, it looks like a "Google source". URL shorteners are a plague, both for that reason and for the fact that if you obsfucate the link you're actually going to, you have no way of knowing if the 'shortened' link is actually pointing to a bad actor until it's too late. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've definitely just clicked it! Something for me to bear in mind in future rather than assuming the worst! But yes share.google is a very sus abbreviation. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better at least than the pure-random-alphanumeric-string URLs that Google uses for Google Ads(?) on some pages! Don't be evil is long gone, alas. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dharmasthala temple Dharmadhikari’s brother gets gag order to delete over 8,800 links – looks like a lot of sources on this are about to disappear. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Time to Internet Archive, perhaps. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would Wikipedia be caught in this considering the fact that we would have info from deleted sources? 2A04:7F80:67:1C1D:C8E6:1AE:1DB5:E341 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Earlier this year, a group of newly created, single purpose accounts began editing the Aristides de Sousa Mendes article in a strikingly coordinated manner. These accounts — Benji1207,Cocoa57, Joséángel006, Cornedebouc, Lynngol — focused almost exclusively on this single article, displaying highly similar editing behaviors and arguments. I flagged these activities and triggered an investigation; four of these 5 accounts were subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry. This was not the first time sockpuppets tried to reshape this article toward a hagiographic portrayal of Sousa Mendes. In 2014, a user initially named "Sousa Mendes Foundation" renamed himself Redmoon660 and orchestrated at least two additional sockpuppets — Coimbralove, Beebop211. This pattern was documented in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmoon660/Archive. The vocabulary and argumentative strategies used in 2014 and again in 2025 are remarkably similar. That resemblance allowed me to detect and report the pattern.

    Now in April 2025, in the middle of civil discussions I was having with these sockpuppet accounts, another editor — 100.36.106.199 — made four rapid repetitive deletions of sourced content from the article Sousa Mendes, without using the Talk page. [15], [16], [17], [18]. While such behavior is considered disruptive edit warring under Wikipedia guidelines, no warning or sanction was issued in this case. Thinking this was an IP engaging in disruptive editing, I requested article's page protection. But the editor 100.36.106.199, in turn, filed a complaint against me, which resulted in my topic ban.

    The administrator who ultimately "enforced" my topic ban, Cullen328, is someone I respect and with an impeccable track record. We had previously interacted in 2014 regarding this same article. At the time, he reviewed my edits and explicitly told me: "After your explanation and careful consideration, I decided to let your edit stand." This was the last time I heard from Cullen328. I received no further warning or criticism from him for over a decade. However, 10 year later, out of the blue, he returned and imposed a topic ban on me, stating that I had devoted twelve years to damaging Sousa Mendes’s reputation and improving Salazar’s. He also admitted in the past that he had no expertise in Portuguese history and lacked time to analyze the article in full (sic). I believe that, despite his good faith, Cullen328 made an unfair and prejudiced decision. In addition since the ban, he has shown no interest in the article’s quality, even as over 20,000 characters of reliably sourced content were removed, and the bibliography was completely canceled.

    I have waited two months before submitting this appeal, intentionally choosing to avoid emotional disputes or rushed reactions. I believed that a period of reflection would allow for a more balanced assessment of the situation. I also wanted to observe how the editors who supported my topic ban would continue to interact with the article on Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Their subsequent actions — including mass deletions of well-sourced academic material and the near-total reversion to a hagiographic narrative — confirmed my concerns and reinforced the importance of this appeal.

    Consequences of my ban

    [edit]

    The effects of my topic ban are visible. The Aristides de Sousa Mendes article has reverted to a hagiographic version that resembles its state before 2013, heavily influenced by previously confirmed blocked sockpuppet accounts. The current version top contributors by character count are:

    • 1) Beebop211 (30.9%) – blocked in 2013
    • 2) Lynngol (13.9%) – likely a sock puppet.
    • 4) Coimbralove (7.6%) – blocked in 2013
    • 6) Redmoon660 (3.5%) – blocked in 2013
    • 7) Cocoa57 (2.1%) – blocked in 2025

    Following my removal, these editors' contributions dominate the current version of the article. Numerous academic and primary sources were deleted from the bibliography and footnotes. Examples of what was removed include:

    • 1) Sousa Mendes’s salary and official diplomatic status: Primary records from the Portuguese Ministry of Finance and secondary academic sources confirm that Sousa Mendes remained on the diplomatic payroll until his death, that contradict the hagiographic version that Sousa Mendes was punished by Salazar and died in poverty.
    • 2) Otto von Habsburg’s visa and many other Visas: The article now implies, again, that Sousa Mendes acted alone in saving Otto von Habsburg, when in fact telegrams from Salazar to Sousa Mendes ordered the visa to be issued. This action was not defiance, but compliance.

    3) etc... I could include a long list, but I think this two points serve the purpose of illustrating the point.

    Academic consensus and historiographical nuance

    [edit]

    My intention has always been to improve Wikipedia in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, adding scholarly nuance to the article. The topic of Aristides de Sousa Mendes is far more complex than the heroic legend promoted by advocacy groups. This is not my personal opinion; it is the position of multiple academic authorities that has been removed from the article:

    Historian Thomas Gerard Gallagher says:

    According to the legend that has built up around him [Sousa Mendes], he defied an authoritarian regime and tirelessly issued visas enabling thousands of people, including many Jews, to escape the Nazi clutches... In reality, this coda to Portugal’s wartime story is rather more complicated… Sousa Mendes was never actually expelled from the foreign service. However, a foundation instrumental in keeping alive his memory claims he was 'stripped of his diplomatic position and forbidden from earning a living.' It seems that ill health prevented him from returning to diplomatic work, and he figured on the roll of diplomatic staff up to his death. This makes sense since he was paid a full salary by the state until the end of his life. One of his most sympathetic biographers, Rui Afonso, has reckoned that he continued to receive a salary at least three times that of a teacher

    — Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die

    Costa Leite emphasizes that:

    It is a temptation to reduce complex phenomena to stereotypes... The stereotype of dictatorship suggests that in the context of World War II, a dictator is on the side of the Axis pursuing an anti-Semitic policy. In practice, however, such a stereotype ignores national cultures, geopolitical alignments, and the origin and evolution of political regimes. Portuguese neutrality, however, was also important because it opened the way for many people to escape annihilation... The Portuguese Jewish community was very small but it counted very influential members, among them a personal friend of Salazar, Moses Bensabat Amzalak.

    — Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II

    Historian Lina Maria Madeira, whose doctoral dissertation focuses on Sousa Mendes and the Portuguese foreign service, notes:

    [On Sousa Mendes] We often read truly emotionally charged pages... The characters are presented as incarnations of good on one side and evil on the other. This approach has always seemed not only untruthful but also impoverishing. Because in historiography, as in life, truth — if it exists — is not the exclusive attribute of one side. It lies somewhere in between, in a space that is not always clearly defined and full of nuances.

    — O mecanismo de (des)promoções do MNE : o caso paradigmático de Aristides de Sousa Mendes

    Historian Diogo Ramada Curto, Director of the Portuguese National Library, writes:

    Regarding the myth-making operations surrounding Aristides de Sousa Mendes as an opponent of Salazar, the opinions of ambassadors Carlos Fernandes and João Hall Themido cannot be ignored. The latter emphasized that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was well aware of the abnormal flow of refugees at the border, caused by the issuance of visas — a number that the most unrealistic estimates raised to as high as 30,000....The myth of Aristides as an opponent of Salazar, capable of acting individually and in isolation, is a later invention that rigorous historical analysis does not confirm.

    — Diogo Ramada Curto, O desconhecido Veiga Simões, Expresso, 5 November 2017 [[19]]

    Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram states:

    There is little in common between [Sousa Mendes and Raoul Wallenberg]... Public tributes and biographies sometimes amplify Sousa Mendes’s legacy well beyond what is supported by the historical documentation.

    Historian Neill Lochery similarly concludes that:

    "It would be more prudent, if a little cynical, to regard Sousa Mendes as a 'Wallenberg Lite.'"

    Final remarks

    [edit]
    • 1) Cullen328, my main accuser claimed that I never wrote anything negative about Salazar. That is inaccurate. When discussing whether Salazar should be called a dictator or statesman, I supported calling him a dictator. (see:[20]) When others tried to label him as fascist, I also did not oppose but instead listed reliable sources on both sides of the scholarly debate. I always respected WP:NPOV and never deleted properly sourced content.
    • 2) Cullen328, also claimed that I never wrote anything positve on Sousa Mendes, also not accurate. Here is an example. [21]
    • 3) Cullen328 seems to have forgotten that it was I that took the initiative, back in 2013, to reach out to him and asked him to review my editing, showing the will to follow Wikipedia policies (see here: [22].)
    • 4) I was wrongly accused of being a Civil PoV Pusher. I recognize the importance of identifying and addressing editors who engage in civil POV-pushing — that is, those who maintain a tone of civility while persistently biasing content to reflect a personal or ideological agenda. However, I respectfully submit that this label does not apply to my editing history. Over more than a decade, I have created over 20 articles from scratch and contributed to dozens of others, including Battle of Aljubarrota, Sain Francis Xavier, Spanish dictator Francisco Franco article, where I was one of the main contributors. I do not shy away from controversial subjects — on the contrary, I actively seek to improve them — but I do so by consistently adding reliable academic sources, engaging on Talk pages, and avoiding the deletion of properly sourced content, even when I might disagree with it. In the case of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, the article I was banned from editing, the starting version was shaped by advocacy groups and reflected a hagiographic tone, lacking scholarly balance. The academic literature on Sousa Mendes presents a more nuanced, and at times critical, view — not an attack, but a contextualization of his actions, legacy, and relationship with the regime. My edits aimed to reflect that academic consensus, not to discredit or promote any figure. I worked to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s core principles: verifiability, neutrality, and the use of reliable sources. Moreover, I was the editor who detected and reported the coordinated activity of multiple accounts now confirmed as sockpuppets — accounts that truly did engage in ideologically driven and unsourced editing. I believe my contributions reflect an effort to raise the standard of Wikipedia’s coverage, not push a personal agenda.
    • 5) Since my ban, the Aristides de Sousa Mendes article has been rewritten primarily by confirmed sockpuppet accounts, with a notable decline in academic rigor and neutrality and with the whole bibliography deleted. While multiple editors participated in the discussion that led to the topic ban — including comments from accounts now confirmed as sockpuppets — the decision ultimately rested with Cullen328. I do not question his good intentions, but I believe his judgment in this case was unfair. He acknowledged not having expertise in Portuguese history, and that he lacked time to fully analyze the article. He had not actively engaged with the topic or its Talk page in over a decade. Since the ban, he has also shown no interest in the article’s trajectory — even after over 20,000 characters of reliably sourced content were removed. I say this not as a personal criticism, but as a structural concern: topic bans must be based on careful content evaluation and awareness of prior editing context. In this case, unfortunately, a well-meaning administrator made a quick call on a complex issue, based on a perception that I was "attacking a hero" rather than engaging with well-documented academic nuance.
    • 6) While the popular narrative surrounding Aristides de Sousa Mendes often casts him as a lone hero defying a tyrannical regime, this portrayal has been significantly challenged by a wide range of academic and diplomatic voices. Historians such as Tom Gallagher, Avraham Milgram, Joaquim da Costa Leite, Diogo Ramada Curto, Lina Maria Madeira, and Neill Lochery have all called for a more nuanced and evidence-based account. Their work demonstrates that many of the central claims promoted by advocacy groups — including the notion that Sousa Mendes acted in direct defiance of government policy, or that he died in poverty and disgrace — are not supported by archival documentation. These scholars are joined by prominent diplomats such as João Hall Themido, Carlos Fernandes, and Calvet de Magalhães, as well as by the late José Hermano Saraiva, who publicly questioned the narrative of Sousa Mendes as a singular opposition figure. This diversity of perspectives reflects not marginal dissent but a significant scholarly consensus that the story, as often told, is overly simplified and at times factually incorrect. Wikipedia, committed to neutrality and verifiability, should reflect this complexity.

    I respectfully request that my topic ban be lifted. My objective has always been to improve Wikipedia by adhering to its core principles: verifiability, neutrality, and reliance on reliable sources. J Pratas (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if you're correct about the historiography of Sousa Mendes or not. What I do know is that massive walls of text and perseverating on the underlying content dispute are liable to get you indef'd rather than result in your topic ban being lifted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm opposed. This does nothing succinctly, and it especially does not succinctly explain what led to the ban or what will be different moving forward. One major omission: a link to the community TBAN discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact it's a community topic ban, first proposed by Cullen328 but still a community CBAN and J Pratas is treating this like something imposed by Cullen328 suggests that at a minimum J Pratas still has very poor understanding of basic Wikipedia processes. Disappointing for someone with such a long tenure but even more so for someone sanctioned under those processes and now appealing such. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be considered good that an editor isn't experienced in being sanctioned, not bad... 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said an editor should be experienced in being sanctioned. However like it or not, understanding how or community processes work is something that generally matters. Perhaps it could be argued for a pure content editor who somehow never gets involved in content disputes, it doesn't matter, but this is not the case for JPratas who was in several disputes with editors. E.g. [23] [24] [25]. And according to their very own opening comment they were editing in an area heavily affected by sockpuppets and they had an active role in reporting these sockpuppets. But anyway, even if we say it doesn't matter that JPratas had no idea how community processes work on Wikipedia before they were sanctioned, the onus was on them to learn how they work before making an appeal. (Frankly I'd argue the onus was on them during the community discussion which lead to them being sanctioned.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely and 100% opposed, and I'm seriously considering a WP:BOOMERANG may be needed here, as this WP:WALLOFTEXT demonstrates that absolutely nothing has been learned from the topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I stand by my assessment in the discussion that led to the topic ban that JPratas is a sophisticated, well-educated civil POV pusher willing to spend 12 years doing your (their) very best to portray Sousa Mendes in the poorest possible light. The editor is also either incapable or unwilling to write concisely, and seeems to think that more wordiness is better when it comes to an appeal. I disagree with that notion. If I was incorrect when I supposedly said that 100% of their edits about Sousa Mendes were negative when the figure was more accurately 99% plus, and they once added that an Airbus was named after Sousa Mendes 60 years after his death, then I apologize for the mild exaggeration. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      When JPratas acknowledged that Salazar was a dictator, that was in the context of spouting a series of cherrypicked pro-Salazar quotations, such as a 1940 Life magazine article calling him a benevolent ruler and by far the world's best dictator. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to create restricted talk page related to WP:BFDI

    [edit]

    I would like to request Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island to be created, either as a full-fledged talk page or as a redirect to WT:BFDI, for to be able to specifically discuss about the source assessements (if as a full-fledged talk page), or to clearly indicate that BFDI-related source assessements belong in WT:BFDI, where they likely have always been on (example) if created as a redirect. SquaredHexahedron (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created it blank. Redirect it or flesh it out as you will. —Cryptic 03:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Something is going on in Undefined

    [edit]
    BLOCKED & TIDIED UP
    LTA account blocked by Tamzin; page history tidied by Pppery --tony 21:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure)

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

    User:BIMA FF1 is somehow reverting all our reverts at Undefined the moment after we revert a page blanking. Can someone just... Do something about it? Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 11:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed. A CheckUser might want to see if this matches any of the LTAs known to do scripted attacks, as this could be a harbinger of something more disruptive if so. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, that page history is now wrecked for the last 500 revisions, and it would have been essentially harmless to just let the blanking stand for a few minutes while awaiting an admin. Those who reverted should check out Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you perform a selective revision move? JayCubby 11:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done that - burying all of the vandal/spam/misplaced edits (many of which weren't caused by this bot attack but other unrelated vandals or software bugs) and leaving the history there just showing the constructive development of the disambiguation. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a bunch. JayCubby 18:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No bueno. This is a regular vandalbot LTA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems part of the same campaign as discussed further up the page at #Sockpuppetry at Wiki. Accounts come in sets (this one was -FF to -FF4), all registered on May 30. I blocked the others as socks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Report: Gogo Pasha

    [edit]
    Gogo Pasha indef'd for good hand/bad hand WP:LOUTSOCKing - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gogo Pasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hi, I’d like to report concerns regarding Gogo Pasha due to repeated violations of community guidelines:

    Inappropriate language: The user used vulgar and regionally offensive language in an edit summary — specifically, “See discussion on talk page My p**da mavne” (full version visible in logs). This is a clear breach of civility standards.

    Disruptive editing: On pages like Retro and Good Bad Ugly, they have repeatedly added unreliable or non-verifiable sources. These edits were reverted, but the user continued to reinsert them without consensus or explanation.

    I have previously addressed this concern on the user's talk page and attempted to engage with the user to explain the issue, but the same problematic sources continue to be added. At this point, I believe further guidance from an administrator may be helpful in resolving the situation constructively. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also blocked Tonyy Starkk and Gogo Pasha from Retro (film), where they were also edit warring. There is active discussion on that article's talk page, but neither of these two have participated in it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector based on the discussion at [26], there was some consensus on using reliable sources as outlined in WP:ICTFSOURCES, and I made edits accordingly. That said, I acknowledge that I should have discussed further before making those changes. I’ll be sure to engage in discussion first going forward. Thanks. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gogo Pasha (talk · contribs) also has been editing logged out in a way which violates the sockpuppetry policy, and has made far worse personal attacks while logged out. They are now blocked sitewide indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And unrelated to anyone else here but  Confirmed to each other:
    They also have been editing logged out. Blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin Recall Petition for Night Gyr Passed

    [edit]

    The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Night_Gyr for User:Night Gyr to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfa or participation in an administrator election is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator_recall. Useight (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Best range to block ip adding Asad Ullah to pages

    [edit]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=31.215.98.105/17&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 catches at least one innocent person. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doug Weller: 31.215.98.105 belongs to ASN5384, and its BGP prefix is actually 31.215.64.0/18 (not /17, which is more broad). If the vandalism is specifically that same format, you could also/alternatively consider an editfilter. --slakr\ talk / 19:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1301888382"