Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	51	30	81
TfD	0	1	18	8	27
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	15	2	17
RfD	0	0	21	12	33
AfD	0	0	0	10	10

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 27 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 73 sockpuppet investigations
• 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 17 requests for RD1 redaction
• 36 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 31 requested closures
• 59 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 37 Copyright problems

Latin American politics TBAN appeal

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,[1] 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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.

So you would not include the minority views as required by due weight?

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.

I disagree that reliable sources agree on mainstream views. If they do not share the majority opinion, you would exclude and delete any minority opinion? I find the response above concerning. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (not an admin.)

I have never said or implied that minority views should be excluded. WP:DUE, which I cited, clearly states that If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Neither do reliable sources have to "agree on mainstream views"; that's what the neutrality principle relies on: the inclusion of all the mainstream POV, even when they can be opposite to each other, because the end purpose is contrast.

Views that should be excluded are WP:FRINGE points of view because, like the policy states: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support with a 1RR restriction I find NoonIcarus' response satisfactory but the proof is in the pudding. Lifting the topic ban with a revert restriction would allow them to do their planned work with some security against a return to old patterns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging this to reset the archive clock in hopes of further discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Since the Topic Ban (of April 4, 2024) and iBan with WMrapids, NoonIcarus has had similar problems on other projects leading to a block on Commons and further iBan with WMRapids on December 16, 2024. It is worth reading the comments of the closing admin. that begin:

After reviewing the situation, I have decided to indefinitely block NoonIcarus and impose a two-way interaction ban between WMrapids and NoonIcarus. Despite prior sanctions (blocks, bans) on other projects, NoonIcarus has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including targeting WMrapids in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as cross-wiki hounding. This aligns with concerns raised during the ArbCom case and subsequent sanctions on other projects. Similar patterns of antagonistic behavior from NoonIcarus across Wikimedia projects have been pointed out, too. Their interactions here suggest an inability or unwillingness to adapt to collaborative norms.

Even after this, the behavior continued, leading to a voluntary iBan between the two instituted Jan 15, 2025.

There were also a few cases where he skirted his topic ban, resulting in warnings from other users. June 7, 2024,June 21, 2024 Despite these warnings, on July 22, 2024, he made 4 edits regarding Venezuelan refugees. He also welcomed three users whose only edits were Venezuela political:

(1) August 6, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2605:B100:121:A764:3966:79F9:A262:F0D (talk), whose only contribution is about Venezuelan politics--specifically an edit to the talk page of Nicolás Maduro.

(2) August 6, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2605:B100:13D:5CF9:3C62:246E:4611:77AF (talk), whose only two contributions are about Venezuelan politics--specifically edits to Nicolás Maduro’s talk page disputing the election results.

(3) August 7, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2600:8804:1397:8100:A5AB:2650:3673:36C1, whose only two contributions are about Venezuelan politics: 2024 Venezuelan protests, 2024 Venezuelan presidential election.

Even this edit from today appears to violate the topic ban.

I think NoonIcarus needs more time without drama before he should be allowed to come back and edit on Latin American politics, and because of the continued drama against WMRapids, the iBan should stay intact.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (Not an admin.)

See also two more recent diffs on es.Wiki --David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have had virtually no other disputes as big as this one with any other editor than for over a year, either here or any other projects, and the only exception has been WMrapids, who incidentally was indefinitely blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia after these interactions ([2]). What I can do in the meantime is learn from my mistake and improve my interactions in the future with other editors: after these interactions afterwards, I requested a voluntary interaction ban in Wikidata weeks before it was implemented: [3] If this is still a concern, this appeal is unrelated to the interaction ban, which has to be appealed to the ArbCom, and only deals with the topic ban.

I have gone out of my way and beyond to respect the current topic ban in every one of my edits. This means avoiding changes remotely related to the politics or as small as fixing typos, adding diacritical accents, or categorizing. I have self reverted the changes the few times that I've realized could be a violation thereof shortly after ([4]), regardless of how small. I have asked to the closing admin when I have been in doubt about the scope: the last time, I asked if expanding an article about a 19th century boat could be considered a violation of the ban:[5], and they agreed that it could:[6]; you can't be too careful. After creating Category:Members of the Venezuelan Academy of Medicine, I didn't populate it because I realized that all of its entries in the English Wikipedia were either Ministries of Health or related to politics at some point, and as such I wasn't able to save it from deletion. Twice have I have been asked in my talk page for help in related topics (1, 2), and twice have I declined.

I have stricken my comment in the Ryan Vasquez's deletion discussion ([7]) once I realized about this relation that you mention, hoping to comply with the topic ban as best as possible, but this should be a perfect example of how broad and how reaching it is: Ryan Vasquez is a musician with no relations with politics whatsoever other than being "the first Venezuelan on the Municipal Council for Cultural Policies in Humaitá, Amazonas". While the ban is in place, this is exactly the kind of edits that I regularly avoid and will continue to seek avoiding. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Tornheim's comments. Additionally, I find NoonIcarus trying to diminish what is a community sanction on their behaviour on the basis of another editor being blocked for sockpuppetry to be troubling. Also, NoonIcarus has made approximately 3727 edits in the 15 months since they were TBAN'd, when prior to the ban they were making over 1,000 edits a month. I'd want to see a larger sample, to give me confidence that the disruption wouldn't resume if the TBAN was lifted. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record: I'm not citing WMrapids sockpuppetry as a reason for the appeal due to its sake alone, but rather its consequences. They were an editor with whom I had previously had editorial differences before the use of the account, the community did not know about this fact or the previous background, and the ANI discussion afterwards was largely lopsided. This was discussed more thoroughly at User talk:WMrapids#Appeal request. In no way I mean to downplay my own shortcomings with all of this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Why mention them at all? Yes they started the discussion which lead to your TBAN, but it was community consensus which imposed it. Their sockpuppetry has zero bearing on what the community decided. TarnishedPath^talk 13:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor with previous warnings and sanctions is not the same as a seemingly new editor unknown to the community, without knowing the context. It influences the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

In that discussion it was community consensus that you be sanctioned for your conduct. Unless you are suggesting that the ANI discussion was affected by their socking, then the conduct of the other editor has no bearing on the sanction placed on you by community consensus as consequence of your conduct. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Given that most of the opposition to this appeal is either based on diffs that are almost a year old (surely you can do better than bringing up ancient grudges), based on interactions with WNrapids (the interaction ban preventing such will remain in force) or both, I must support this appeal because I find neither argument convincing. And I consider TarnishedPath's suggestion that 3000 edits isn't enough to evaluate absurd; of course if you topic ban someone from one of their areas of interest they will edit less. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: I do see the validity of your concern with the age of most of the diffs. The main issues I was focusing on were the repetition of the same behavior despite sanctions in multiple projects and the continued skirting of the topic ban (even a few days ago)--despite repeated warnings on this project. I have been looking at his es.Wiki edits--where he is far more active. I plan to share (either here or as an addendum to my original post) more recent diffs exhibiting similar behavior to that which led to the topic ban.

I agree with Number 57's comment. And although I thought Simonm223's question was a good one, unlike Simonm223, I have concerns about the response. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As I review NoonIcarus's recent behavior on es.Wiki after the dispute was resolved with WMrapids in Jan 15, 2025, I came across these two very recent diffs that show just the kind of problematic edits that got him topic banned here:

• July 21, 2025 #1 claims that the U.S. State Department is a reliable source needing no attribution, and removes two other attributions from L.A. Times reporter writing about Venezuelan politics in an opinion section, and removes the attribution to an opinion by a Washington Post reporter.
• July 21, 2025 #2 In this edit, NoonIcarus not only removes the attribution to an opinion by a Washington Post reporter, he has misrepresented what was written in the second source: NoonIcarus makes it sound like the charges the Attorney General filed against Lopez for attacking the airport agents were in retaliation for Lopez's filing a complaint against the agents first. There is nothing in either article cited to suggest the Lopez filed a complaint first.

Compare his approach to these opinion pieces to his past comments about the reliability of an opinion/analysis.

I have some others that I might show, but I felt these two are good examples.

I also observe that NoonIcarus is editing at a rate of >1,500 edits per month in July 2025 (about 3x the rate of en.wiki for July 2025), and I believe a substantial portion on es.Wiki are Venezuelan politics. In 2023 on es.Wiki he was only making 500 edits/month and 1,000 edits/month on en.Wiki. So if he comes back, I believe we can expect to see a lot of these kinds of biased edits compromising our Venezuelan political articles moving from es.Wiki to en.Wiki.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC) [corrected 08:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)]

Is this a complaint about content or about behavior? This message gives the impression that your main concern is only that I edit about Venezuela, and not about disruption per se. If you look at the edits, the content is already covered by other non-opinion sources (Globovisión) or still leaves attribution (saying simply "Chávez's critics say (...)" instead of "According to the Los Angeles Times, Chávez's critics say (...)" and keeping LA's attribution for the opinion "the murder of his bodyguard was intended to send a message"). The Washington Post opinion piece doesn't mention anything about the airport incident, and the information about the complaint is clearly stated in the second source, unlike what Tornheim claims and was not mentioned in the article before:

Original version: López acudió a la Fiscalía a denunciar la agresión que dijo sufrir en el aeropuerto por funcionarios de la Disip, precisó que llevaba toda la documentación para sustentar su denuncia y admitió que 'efectivamente le había tomado fotos al funcionario que lo retuvo'.
Translation López went to the Public Prosecutor's Office to report the assault he said he suffered at the airport by DISIP officials. He stated that he had all the documentation to support his complaint and admitted that he had "indeed taken photos of the official who detained him."

While we're talking about it, like Tornheim mentions, two edits are a very poor representation of my activity in es.wiki. I have started 507 articles there since 2 April 2024 (and counting). There are a lot of them that are translations for the LGBT Wikiproject monthly events, one of which talks about human rights abuses during the bipartisanship period in Venezuela, the Law of Vagrants and Crooks. It cannot be translated into English due to the topic ban. The articles also include pages about the Venezuelan War of Independence: the Cariaco Congress, Francisco de Miranda's expedition, the Kingston attack, the San Mateo Capitulation and the Trial of Manuel Piar. Again, all related to politics one way or another.

Last but not least, I should also point out to the translations of the J.G.G. v. Trump and W.M.M. v. Trump articles and that I started National TPS Alliance v. Noem et al. even before the en.wiki, all related to the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador, where I have edited in Spanish but is also inside the scope of the TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

NoonIcarus's response here is a good example of why allowing the topic ban to be lifted will be an issue. When confronted by problems of his edits, rather than admit to the problems, correct them, and not repeat them, he doubles-down and misrepresents what he has done and misrepresents the valid complaint by the editor. Obfuscation to avoid accountability:

(1) He accuses me of saying Lopez never filed any complaint. But I did not say that. I was well aware that the second source mentioned the complaint by Lopez. The problem that I clearly stated is that NoonIcarus changed the order of events of the second article. That article focuses first and mostly on the Attorney General's investigation of Lopez for allegedly attacking an airport guard (title + 4 paragraphs) and then mentions more briefly that Lopez claimed that the guards attacked him first (1 paragraph).

That article makes it sound like Lopez responded to the allegations with his own allegations. A "he said; she said." Nowhere does the second article say that Lopez first filed the complaint against the guards and then the Attorney General "responded" by charging Lopez--implying retaliation. NoonIcarus changed the wiki-text to say something that was not in the cited sources, and that's a problem.

(2) Adds confusion here by saying “The Washington Post opinion piece doesn't mention anything about the airport incident”, when it is used as the first reference for that incident. It says: “Last week, when he returned to Caracas from Washington, López was detained and assaulted by a squad from the state intelligence service.”

(3) As for the attributions for opinions, there is no question he removed them. Just look closely at the diff. If you don't speak Spanish, run the diffs through Google translate. NoonIcarus must by now know that opinions should be attributed per WP:NEWSOPED. He deleted the attributions that were there, but makes it sound like he did not. Also disruptive.

This combination of denying the valid complaints, distracting and confusing readers, and boring them with TL;DR, he is disruptive and wastes editors' time.--David Tornheim (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest David that part of my preference for support (with a 1RR restriction) is because indefinite isn't supposed to mean forever. I will admit that I share some of your concerns, if I didn't I wouldn't have suggested the 1RR restriction as a condition, but I do think NoonIcarus has sat the topic out long enough to give them a trial return. Should they proceed to go back to non-neutral editing practices the 1RR restriction should ameliorate any immediate effect and it would be easy to revisit the topic ban and say "maybe we were premature." I have not considered es.wp because Spanish is my fourth language, I can read it reasonably but not with considerable nuance and I rarely speak it, and don't participate in the es.wp project and, as such, I don't feel my knowledge of es.wp is sufficient to determine if their edits there are appropriate there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that (a) their POV pushing went on for years before the topic ban and (b) a previous sanction prior to the topic ban did not address it. I do not see any potential positives from letting them back into the politics topic sphere and lots of potential issues as it will likely be hard to remove them again when the POV inevitably returns. Number 57 20:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh I know. I was strongly supportive of the topic ban at the time it was applied. But this is a case where I'm willing to extend some (limited) WP:ROPE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a 1RR restriction: Diffs/conduct from over a year ago seem like a poor argument for keeping a TBAN in place, especially if its cost is losing lots of possible work on Venezuelan political history. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support with a 1RR restriction per Allan Nonymous. I'm all for second chances, with a long leash. BD2412 T 00:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note, this discussion appears to have stalled at what I would gauge as an absence of consensus to lift the existing TBAN. Absent further participation, I would suggest this be closed as failed and the applicant be advised to try again in six months. BD2412 T 18:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Query on CTOP

Is there a master list somewhere of specific subject areas covered by CTOP where extended confirmed editing restrictions are mandatory as opposed to subject to admin discretion? This has become a periodic source of confusion at RfPP, and I have to confess that sometimes the language in the relevant pages is not always exactly clear. My understanding based on "The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:..." is that unless explicitly stated elsewhere, that editing restrictions for pages covered by CTOP are at the discretion of the reviewing admin. However, I do note that there are topics such as Indian military history, where specific language seems to indicate that ECP is obligatory. Some editors requesting page protection have been taking highly expansive views of what is covered by CTOP while insisting that all covered pages must be extended confirmed protected. Thanks in advance for any clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

All editing restrictions that apply to all editors – that is, general sanctions – should be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Active sanctions. However, the individual general sanction pages for each area designated by the arbitration committee as a contentious topic, or as authorized by the community for discretionary sanctions has lists of editing restrictions imposed under those frameworks by individual admins. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure about CTOPs in toto, but looking at WP:GS, it looks like WP:APL, WP:CT/A-I, WP:GS/RUSUKR, and WP:GS/KURD are under mandatory extended confirmed restrictions overall, while the WP:GS/A-A subset of 'Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts', and the new WP:CT/SA subset of 'Indian military history' are also explicitly ECR mandated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl, The Bushranger Thank you for the clarification. I think that should resolve one ongoing disagreement and help prevent future ones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Plus the WP:CT/SA subset of WP:GSCASTE. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Speaking of which, do you have any objection to Ben Shimoni being moved to draftspace and once again ECP'd at Draft:Ben Shimoni (which you lowered from ECP to semi)? Even if it's unprotected, the creator is not allowed to create or edit pages (including drafts) under WP:ARBECR (including under the WP:PIA topic), and they had already been informed of this on their talk page. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd just delete it outright per WP:G5. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given a plausible case for notability, I've moved it back to draft space, restored the EC and left a note on the user's talk page. I've also updated the log entry at WP:AEL (from July). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Uğur_Şahin#RfC_about_Turkish_ethnicity_in_first_sentence

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

---

Uğur Şahin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Bogazicili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [8]

Reasoning: The current first sentence in the lead is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Sources describe Uğur Şahin as Turkish or Turkish German or in a variety of ways (see the sources in the RfC and in Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Long-term_edit_war_in_the_article). Ignoring these sources, and just saying Uğur Şahin is a German oncologist ... is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. Personal interpretations of MOS:CONTEXTBIO cannot be used to circumvent or supersede WP:NPOV.

I actually do not necessarily contest the no consensus closure. But the last paragraph in RfC closure should be struck down or modified. There was never an RfC about using "German" in the first sentence. The relevant policy here is WP:ONUS, not WP:BRD. In short, we should be able to remove German in the first sentence until there is an RfC about it.

I discussed above with Fieari back in March. However, the editor has not edited since then. That's why the RfC challenge is delayed. Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Fieari)

Non-participants (Uğur Şahin)

Endorse I fail to see the merit/purpose of this challenge given the user does not challenge the close but rather some wording that just suggests what editors should do for content that was not part of the RFC. Removing the wording wouldn't change anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Uğur Şahin)

Discussion (Uğur Şahin)

• I'm confused why this is here. First, there's little point in challenging a four-month-old discussion; just start a new one if issues haven't been resolved. Second, your apparent grievance is with the fact that "German" remains in the first sentence, but the paragraph you complain about specifically says that editors can do whatever they want about that, so AFAICT nothing is stopping you from changing that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't want to make a new RfC unnecessarily.

  I am asking opinions for the last paragraph in RfC closure, about WP:BRD, specifically this part:

  One compromise option was briefly brought up-- "German" could be removed from the lead as well, leaving the ethnicity question until later when it can be discussed in more nuance. This RfC does not establish consensus either for or against this option, meaning usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply.

  I think this is incorrect. WP:ONUS should apply here, and we should be able to remove "German" in the first sentence, until consensus is established for adding "German" (and only "German"). I'm interpreting "usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply" as "German" should not be removed.

  I also think my "apparent grievance" is very valid. If you look at BioNTech's website, Uğur Şahin's nationality is listed as "Turkish" [9] (web archive pdf link for Uğur Şahin's resume). This in addition to multiple reliable sources about Uğur Şahin's Turkish nationality.

  Therefore, saying Uğur Şahin is a German oncologist, immunologist, entrepreneur, and billionaire businessman. in wikivoice is a giant violation of NPOV.

  Based on your response, can you confirm that WP:ONUS should apply here and "German" in the first sentence can be removed? Bogazicili (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I hate to assume a definitive stance on WP:ONUS because it contradicts WP:NOCON, also a policy. In any case, it doesn't look like anyone ever attempted to remove "German" from the first sentence. Why don't we start there? If nobody reverts it, none of this discussion will be necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've started there since I think if there's a dispute, just leaving nationality out is always at least worth considering. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  As I suspected, "German" was quickly added back in [10].

  If you look at article history, there seems to be something like an edit war going on, involving multiple editors and IPs, where "German" is kept in and "Turkish" is kept out. This has been literally going on for years.

  I think contradiction of WP:ONUS with WP:NOCON needs to be discussed in WP:VP. Current wording of WP:NOCON also seems susceptible to WP:GAME, in cases where potentially an "engineered stable version" is maintained. Bogazicili (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another consideration here is Tserton's RfC title and statement violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RfC title was RfC about Turkish ethnicity in first sentence. The RfC statement was Should the first sentence of this article be changed to include Uğur Şahin's Turkish ethnicity/background, rather than simply calling him "German"?

As previously discussed in the talk page, Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Citizenship_in_the_lead, the issue was not only about ethnic background, but also about Uğur Şahin's current nationality/citizenship Bogazicili (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bogazicili, I see your point about the RfC wording, but I think it's a minor detail that would have made little to no difference to the outcome. What to call multinational famous people is a perennial debate on Wikipedia that most people already have opinions on, and those opinions don't depend on whether it's the subject's citizenship or ethnicity that's being discussed. Tserton (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

RfC closure review request at :Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa#RfC about using 'Interim President' or just 'President'

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

---

Ahmed al-Sharaa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Hauskasic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toadspike&oldid=1303069613

Reasoning: There was general agreement on adding "interim" to his political post. Most neutral sources support this, though some do not. While the RfC may have been submitted unclearly, the arguments presented are still valid. The opposing arguments were primarily supported by official sources from the current Syrian government. Consensus is not a simple vote or unanimity—it is the general agreement reached after considering all viewpoints, especially those grounded in Wikipedia’s core policies and guidelines. Hauskasic (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Toadspike)

No evidence was presented that most sources call Ahmed al-Sharaa the "interim President of Syria", instead of just "President of Syria". Arguments in favor of interim were largely based on personal preference and editor's interpretations of the political situation in Syria, which is original research. Some editors asserted that "multiple" or "many" sources support use of "interim", but that was not in dispute: The RfC statement was clear that there are many sources on both sides. On the other hand, editors opposing the use of interim presented evidence that the government and al-Sharaa himself do not use the term "interim"; this went largely unrefuted. Since the slim majority in favor of "interim" did not presented any evidence in favor of their argument, especially not, as the appellant asserts, "viewpoints grounded in Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines", I could not close the RfC with consensus for a change to the article. It is curious that the appellant indirectly cites Polling is not a substitute for discussion; the only basis upon which I could have closed this discussion their way is by counting votes.

I also have several procedural qualms with the RfC: I noted in my close that it is possible some editors did not know what they were !voting for; It is certain that at least one editor misunderstood the argument of another editor, likely due to the inconsistent terms editors used to express themselves. Redrose64 also noted that the RfC listing was broken from 1 July onwards, which is two days after the RfC was opened. All but one comment came before the listing broke; I am unsure if these two facts are connected. Finally, in hindsight, the RfC statement ("Most sources refer to him as 'Interim', while others use 'President'") violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL by making an assertion (that most sources prefer one version) without evidence. I initially counted Gommeh on the side of those supporting the use of "interim", but looking at this again, I should not have done so, as Gommeh's comment was conditioned upon the RfC statement being accurate. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

• Endorse. While I hadn't gotten around to carefully combing the discussion, I had been glancing at it with an eye to closing it, and my first impression was "no consensus" too. I will note that, as far as I can tell, no relevant policy arguments were made at any point in the discussion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

Discussion (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

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

Willbb234 unblock request

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I am copying over an unblock request from Willbb234 for the community's consideration. Please see their last request.

I return to AN to ask that the community places its trust in me and allows me to edit again. I have learnt in my time away through a reflection on how I edit here and particularly on how I communicate with others. Please allow me to summarise my thoughts.

It has been 18 months since I was blocked, and while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block (although I have now read through and reminded myself), I can recall the distress it caused others. Personal attacks are completely inappropriate and disrupt the process of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. They can also hurt or degrade others and personal attacks, especially of the sexual kind and even if intended as a joke, can make others very uncomfortable and deter them from continuing to edit Wikipedia. For these reasons, I intend to completely change how I interact with others, ensuring not to be at all personal when disagreement arises during discussions on content or policy.

I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack (such as abusive language or attacks on someone's nature or affiliations), why they are disruptive (as mentioned above), and the consequences of my actions (this indefinite block has demonstrated thus). I hope that I can be trusted to return to collaborative editing and would greatly appreciate this opportunity. I also understand that another personal attack would result in an indefinite ban that would certainly not be overturned. In other words, I ask you for a final chance. Willbb234 21:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not going to vote yet, but I do have thoughts. I am generally supportive of second chances, especially when the block is for what I might call egregious yet banal incivility. This is the kind of thing I think most people can learn to not do. However, I am concerned by the fact that he needed to post three unblock requests just now to realize he needed to address it; that's in addition to his previous attempts at an unban. It makes me wonder if he truly does understand, or is just trying to say what it takes to get unbanned. I'd like to hear others' thoughts before I commit to a side. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still weighing my position. @Willbb234: I would like to hear an answer to Kingsif's question before I decide. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm a big believer in ROPE but I'm concerned at an unblock request where the requester can't recall why they were blocked. If it was such a forgettable incident, then it would be easy for circumstances to repeat themselves. I think this "amnesia" is a way of not taking responsibility for whatever actions were taken or words said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I did in 2024, and more generally I'm against indeffing established users wor one-off incidents so don't think an indef was justified in the first place (which is a fringe minority position, and I know nearly no other admin will agree with me here). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. They got a history of edit warring (such as 1 2) in contentious topic areas. Also, Liz's point of forgetting when or why they were blocked doesn't help is spot on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  That was edit warring in spite of a 1RR restriction as a previous unblock condition, so some ROPE has already been afforded. Looking at their history of raising the temperature in GENSEX and AMPOL I can't support an unblock, that is the last thing those areas need right now. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Question for Willbb234 during the initial block you stated as a defense that the rev-delled personal attack which multiple admins characterized as sexual harassment was "just joking." Could you please address that line of argument and how you might act differently in the future? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies for not getting to your question, I wanted to take a moment to think about my response. I branded my comment as a joke, but later realised that this was incorrect and inappropriate and so not a valid line of argument. This was also rightly pointed out by other users. In the future and if I am unblocked, I understand that I am on a last chance situation, and so I would be very careful about how communicate with others, and ensure that comments are appropriate. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock for the sole reason they managed to forget that they sexually harassed someone to the point it was pretty much an instant block and had to be revdeled. Forgetting that makes me have concerns about WP:CIR considering that's a major thing.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I can totally believe someone forgetting one thing they did several years ago, possibly in a moment of anger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

when you have made more then one appeal. that's where things get murky for me. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Willbb234 asked me to copy over the following comment:

For the record I do remember why I was blocked despite what other users are suggesting. The reason I say I don't recall the exact circumstances is in response to the second unblock request decline where Arcticocean says "I would expect to see, at minimum, explanation of the reasons you previously made personal attacks." I simply find it difficult to do this when I can't accurately recall all of the details of the situation. I apologise for the confusion. I hope you won't blame me - I have a life that I have continued to live in the meantime and these details left my mind over time. Willbb234 23:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Support a final chance unblock. This seems like an honest request. I agree with @Pppery that it's not odd for someone to forget the exact circumstances of an event that occurred years ago, particularly when that event has been revdel'd. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree. If I did an action that caused me to be indefinitely blocked, I think it would be seered into my memory and I'd be thinking about it for a long time afterwards (What did I do? What should I have said? What could have been done differently? etc. etc.) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not everyone centers their life on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: - speaking from experience, being indefinitely blocked was so unpleasant that it is still painful to revisit the memories or circumstances. I was quickly unblocked, and for me after that it’s the opposite of what you described. starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support lets give them some rope--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support granting Will an unblock, with the understanding that this is a final chance. Their apology seems sincere and they have solved the issues from their previous appeals with this one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for the momentVery weak support I don't find Willbb234's response to be satisfactory. We cannot see whatever it was that Willbb234 said that led to their initial block because it was apparently bad enough to get revision-deleted but we can see they tried to defend it as "just a joke." This is a defense that I find especially inappropriate to the point of being contrary to the intent of the statement as a defense as it's grounded in a bad-faith renunciation of one's own words without actually walking anything back. As Willbb234's only response after I raised this question was to plead they don't remember specifics I can't say with confidence that they wouldn't respond the same next time. I'm also concerned about the edit warring that REAL_MOUSE_IRL brought up in their oppose !vote. If the editor responds in a satisfactory way to the "just joking" part of their initial defense I might possibly consider WP:ROPE but, in that case, I'd propose topic bans from AMPOLI, GENSEX and BLP should be applied as part of a trial return. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  ETA: I saw the "enlightening followup" that @REAL MOUSE IRL identified below and this strengthens my opposition. If they cannot remember saying that to another editor and if they have nothing to say about it being "just joking" then I think we don't have confidence we won't see another heated tirade. Wikipedia is not Reddit or Twitter. People should not be saying such things to other editors, full stop, and to avoid any contrition under the veil of forgetting strikes me as insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  So I have changed my !vote to very weak support on the basis of the reply to my "just joking" question. I will admit that this line of defense really bothers me so seeing a renunciation of it was very critical to my decision. I find myself quite divided between the points raised by REAL MOUSE IRL and by Ivanvector - both of whom have made very good points in this discussion. I think, on the balance, I am applying a similar standard here to what I have in other appeal discussions currently active on this page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. With that being said, just as in the case above where I supported with a 1RR restriction as a form of assurance against a return to old patterns, I think assurance against a return to this sort of inflammatory behavior should also be supplied. Having thought about this for some time I think the best form for that would be to allow a return to editing but with a topic ban on BLPs. The last dispute happened because they lost their cool in a BLP discussion and so having them work on areas which might not be so heated to start would be a good way for the editor to show that they won't blow their stack and say... regrettable and deeply inappropriate things... again. I will say that, while their own comportment has no bearing on this discussion, learning that "fruitloop" was a direct reference to another editor's username rather than an epithet was significant on my reasoning here. But REAL MOUSE IRL is also correct that Wikipedia should not tolerate sexualized comments, especially when used as a personal attack in the course of an edit dispute. I would suggest that a return to such behaviour should be met with an immediate return to an indefinite block should they be unblocked as a result of this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - if you don't remember what you actually said that got you blocked, you need to go look it up before you start writing a unblock request. I wouldn't support any unblock request that didn't address what was actually said, why it was a problem (including the response to being called out for it), and how we know it won't happen again. This request is worse than last year's request IMO. You say you've learned from reflection, but that's obviously not true if you don't remember what you said that got you blocked and you didn't bother to go find out before asking to be unblocked. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Except they can't find out because the edits in question were revdelled. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This enlightening followup was brought up in the last AN thread. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They could have asked somebody to remind them what they said, before they made an unblock request. That would have helped with the alleged reflection. Or do what I did and spend five minutes clicking and reading to at least figure out the gist (the follow-up comment linked above is a big hint). Levivich (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

In my original statement I say that I had read through the incident and reminded myself. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• To add some context to the remark that REAL_MOUSE_IRL dug up: Willbb234 was in a dispute with an editor Fruitloop11 at the time; the "fruitloop" comment was not the part of their comments they were blocked for. At least I assume not, but the blocking admin was run off the project by a mob a few weeks ago and I'm not going to try to bother them about it. Here is the interaction that preceded the revdeleted comment - Fruitloop11 was trying to add an unsourced derogatory description to the first sentence of a BLP and Willbb234 was (correctly) reverting them. Since that incident Fruitloop11 has earned a contentious topics alert (from me) for downplaying the significance of Elon Musk's Nazi salute and comparing the Gulf of Mexico naming dispute to Elliot Page's gender transition in a way that several people found upsetting, and more recently they've been removing descriptions of the Palestinian genocide as "anti-semitism". This seems to be a case where the wrong editor was blocked because of having made the first escalation, although trying to defend it as "just a joke" really dug the hole for them (I left them some reading material about that).

I support unblocking, as I did with the previous request. I agree with the sentiment that we don't gain anything from driving productive editors off the project forever in response to one schoolyard-bullying-level snide remark, sexual in nature though it was. The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption, and I believe this block has served that purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't think sexualized insults should ever be used on Wikipedia, regardless of how bad the insulted user's edits are. Nobody is opposing to keep them off the project forever for one remark, there is a pattern of behaviour that IMO hasn't been properly addressed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support I don't know what the comment was but Ivanvector suggests it is not of the 'inexcusable forever' type, and I do think they have probably learned the perils of personalization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  In my opinion it was quite mild, on the spectrum of sexual harassment we see here. I probably would have redacted it but not revdeleted, but I also don't think it was a misuse of revdel. They were originally blocked 2 weeks for the comment, which was likely longer than a first-time block for that offense owing to their block log. It was when they defended the comment as a joke and repeated it in a retort to a different administrator that they were indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, at the moment I'm just confused by I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack. What has that got to do with anything when the reason they were blocked was way, way past the basic definition of NPA and they know that? I'm just a bit nonplussed. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't interpret [...] while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block [...] as "I don't know why I was blocked," but rather that it was so long ago that they don't even remember the context of (circumstances surrounding) why they were angry. This unblock request appears candid and sincere, and I do not think an ongoing block is necessary to prevent them from doing this again. --tony 18:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Seems to be an isolated incident (I see some claims of a "pattern of behavior" but I don't see the evidence for it, if significant additional evidence is presented I'd likely change my opinion), the editor understands the problem and has apologized. If anything like this reoccurs they can be blocked again. Rusalkii (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Question for Willbb234 A question I had during last year's community unblock request has not had a response, so I'll ask the same thing. Willbb234's various blocks have been for different 'final straw' moments, but (and as REAL_MOUSE_IRL points out), those moments follow a pattern of behaviour that is very anti-community. When Willbb234 is asked to be accountable to the community, is when the moments that get them blocked or given 1RR restriction that they break etc. occur. So, Willbb234, how do you plan to better engage with discussion and collaborative editing - or to at least be less hostile in response if you still won't - in order to snuff out the root cause, in effect? Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support The rev-del’d edit is inexcusable but I think an opportunity to redeem himself is reasonably low-risk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Having looked at the only revdel'd edit I can see in their history...I have to agree with Ivanvector that I'm surprised this was even revdel'd. A personal attack, absolutely, but I'm honestly struggling to see it as "sexual harassment" as opposed to "crude insult". It's entirely unacceptable either way, but I'm inclined to extend some WP:ROPE here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per ROPE. I'm a fairly big believer in 2nd chances whenever reasonably possible. That said, there is a history here. So if I were Willbb234, and this request is approved, I'd make a point of treading v e r y carefully going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, per Ad Orientem and others above. BD2412 T 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Rename of Arjun G. Menon to ArtistProgrammer

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

---

ArtistProgrammer (talk · contribs · count) was recently sitebanned by the community under the username Arjun G. Menon. Before they were banned (but while the thread was heading in that direction), they requested a rename, which was declined by FlightTime (talk · contribs · count) per the pending ANI thread. A few days later, they filed a request on the global rename queue (link is renamer/steward only). They did not mention they had previously had a request declined, but they later explained they understood FlightTime's denial "pending the ANI thread" meant to re-request once the thread was closed, regardless of whether it ended in sanctions or not. That makes sense both as an interpretation of FlightTime's comment and how the rules might work: renaming a user in the middle of an ANI thread would be very confusing indeed.

On one hand, global rename policy (and common sense) forbids seeking [a] rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. On the other hand, there is a great deal of difference between a full, legal name and a pseudonym when you have a ban on a project, and there is a human on the other side of the username. I felt that a rename away from a real name in these circumstances was appropriate, so I performed it. I checked for previous requests in the rename queue (m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue), but did not check the on-wiki Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. I should have; that was a mistake on my part.

Meters (talk · contribs · count) raised an objection on my talk page, so I am bringing this for community consensus. I personally think ArtistProgrammer's own suggestion to keep the rename in place but place a banner on the (WP:NOINDEXed) userpage makes a neat balance between privacy and transparency. The fact that they made this suggestion and were open to this very public AN post indicates they are not seeking to conceal bad conduct, and I think the balance of privacy weighs in favor of honoring this good-faith request. Therefore, I support keeping ArtistProgrammer renamed, while adding a banner to their userpage disclosing the past rename (let's call this keep renamed+banner for subsequent commenters). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's fine to keep renamed with the banner, so long as ArtistProgrammer doesn't engage in any post-ban abusive conduct like socking or off-wiki harassment. I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if the old username weren't a real-life full-name, but given that it is, this feels like an equitable solution. We've allowed renames in the past for blocked or banned users under similar circumstances, IIRC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Originally, I left a simple message that I agreed with Tamzin. But that was before I read HouseBlaster's User talk page and the objections voices there. Given what I read there, it sounds like HB was on the verge of reversing the name change so I don't want to step in the way of your doing that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't want to reverse the rename. I think that they made a reasonable request, and as long as they don't start socking or doing anything else abusive, we should leave the rename in place. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 11:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• My post to HouseBlaster's page was more of a request for an explanation for how a rename in this situation was allowed, rather than a formal objection to the rename. I can understand the privacy issue for someone who was using their real name, but AGF only goes so far. The user has had significant personally identifying information (at various times: name; birthplace; birthdate; education; residence; citizenship; photo; social media page; personal web page; a refunded article he wrote about a company he worked for; etc) continuously on their user pages since very shortly after their account was created almost 17 years ago, and only as they were at ANI about to be blocked for coordinated harassment did privacy suddenly become an issue. As I wrote on HouseBlaster's page If this is allowed, so be it, but I'm surprised. We might as well add the aside "But don't worry too much, you can always request a rename if you get CBANned" to the various warnings about why using your real name and providing personal information isn't a good idea. Meters (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that's exactly unreasonable. I like having my full name on my userpage because it ties my identity to some stuff I'm pretty proud of: good and featured content, some widely-cited essays, some technical contributions. If my userpage started with "This user has been banned indefinitely", I'd probably be much less inclined to have that degree of association. In my case that wouldn't require a rename to obscure, but it's the same idea. Now we do say that sitebanned users are "completely ejected from the project", i.e. not members of our community anymore, but I do believe a limited degree of courtesy can be extended to someone who has not caused any post-ban disruption, if they have a good reason to want a rename. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think we're good with the rename away from a IRL name, and the clear connection to the past account, as long as there's no further disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, I still stand by my two denials. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, not saying you're wrong here, but given the current state of affairs.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would have made the rename, but now that we're here, I don't like the idea of reimposing his real name on him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner – I commented that there was an open ANI discussion at the first rename request [11], my concern at the time was that a rename during the discussion could cause confusion. Now that a cban has been implemented I no longer have that concern and do not believe that a rename will obfuscate their conduct in any meaningful way. I'm unsure what the purpose of a banner would be, any unban requests will have to be proposed to and reviewed by the community, and I do not think that a rename will conceal conduct in that case. The idea of requiring a user keep their real name on their userpage is one that I'm uncomfortable with, even in the case of a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• The rename must be reversed or else we set a precedent in favor of bad-faith antics which can't be allowed to stand. And there was never going to be any "privacy" anyway as former usernames are inherently public. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, Thank you Pppery - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Revert rename - Per @Pppery: - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner. Even though I voted for the siteban, unlike pppery, I don't see any bad faith antics here surrounding the rename. HB's arguments about real names resonates with me, and to pppery's point, I have no problem setting a precedent that even sitebanned users can get a rename away from their real name. I don't even think the banner is necessary for the reasons 15224 lays out above. As others point out, there is no obfuscation here since we know the renamed user is sitebanned, and they'll have to go to AN to get that lifted anyway. The rename isn't going to obfuscate or impede the siteban in any away. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  They requested rename twice in one venue, and were declined there. Then they WP:FORUMSHOPed to a different venue and were approved by a naive reviewer. That's by definition bad-faith antics. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, that's not the definition, that's your interpretation, which is not supported by the facts. FlightTime specifically told him to resubmit after the ANI was over. When someone tells you to resubmit later and you resubmit later, that's not forum shopping, and it's not bad faith. As pointed out in the OP. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 95.5.189.119 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed+banner. As mentioned, the user followed FlightTime's direction to the letter. I, personally, would not have approved this, had I been in HouseBlaster's position, but I absolutely understand their reasoning, and what's done is done. Note that this may point out a flaw in the "one account/username across all projects" standard: is it fair to a user who is in good standing on all other Wikimedia projects to deny a global rename because they are blocked or banned on one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have no problem with reverting this rename or not, now it seems we need to be careful about what president we set with this discussion. I stand by my denials for that basic reason, I'll not action a request to a user if on a block or an open ANI thread, if that means my flag being removed, so be it.. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Your denials were entirely appropriate, no complaints there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Had I seen your denials, I would've messaged you first and declined the request if you raised an objection. But I made this bed, and now we have to lie in it. My apologies, FlightTime. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  We don't have to lie in it. We're merely choosing to do so and endorsing WP:FAIT when all it would take to wake up from your bed would be the mere push of a button. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed. Renaming to avoid scrutiny is bad. The original request was a bad request in that regard. However, once the AN/I discussion was over, avoiding scrutiny was not a factor: the user was banned. Therefore, we know that the rename will not hide continuing disruption by the same user, as this user is unable to disrupt Wikipedia due to the ban. Adding in the real name issue, I believe the rename was properly timed. Now, if the user had not been banned, but rather had been warned, I would be concerned about a rename, as ongoing bad behavior may not be linked in some people's minds to the prior account name, which could allow the user to fly under the radar for a while. In short: the fact that the user was banned and the fact that it was a rename from a real name both contributed to making this an acceptable rename. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• I have added a note to ArtistProgrammer's userpage about the rename. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner per WP:REALNAME and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. HouseBlaster's post above about ArtistProgrammer's suggestion is disingenuous: ArtistProgrammer asked that a banner with their real name be put up if necessary, and it's not necessary at all. We shouldn't be unnecessarily throwing up barriers to editors wishing to protect their own anonymity, and there is no benefit whatsoever to the community of forcing this user (banned or not) to publish their real name on a page they cannot edit. We already have a banner noting that they are banned, we don't need a second banner with their real name to convey the same information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  True. Per emerging consensus here, I've removed the banner I added. If there is consensus to re-add the banner, I am not going to stand in the way, but I now support no banner. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed, no banner exactly per Ivanvector. This user has been banned, meaning that we are seeking to separate him from Wikipedia, and has left the project. There is no benefit to either the project or the former user to reversing a rename away from his real name, thereby perpetuating the very association between him (under this real name) and Wikipedia that the ban seeks to sever. We have ample records relating to the account in the event of any future issues with this user, which we presently have no reason to anticipate, or in case he seeks to appeal the ban and return someday in the future. Finally, I am entirely untroubled that treating this departing user decently could set a precedent for treating other departing users decently as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Removal of 3X ban on User:ByzantineIsNotRoman

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

---

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

So I messed up a little- I saw the unblock request of this user, blocked for edit warring/disruption by Bbb23(now departed). Given that some time had passed and their request seemed sincere, I decided to remove it. I did not look at their user page(just the block log) where it said that the ban was a 3X community ban. I noticed this morning when the user asked me if they could remove the sockpuppetry notice. I restored the block, so I'm now here asking if the community wants to remove the ban. A checkuser should probably look at it(the main reason I restored the block). 331dot (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support unban as per WP:ROPE. I see no technical evidence of recent ban evasion. --Yamla (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I'm generally amenable to appeals whose principal argument is: "I was immature, I'm less so now"; it's a good posture for an editor to have. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support – seems genuinely reflective and contrite, either they know what we want to hear or really mean it having gained two years of further maturity; either way, ROPE will show soon enough. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I like what I read in the block appeal. Seems honest. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Clean start (Morning277)

Thanks to Giraffer for directing me here. Thirteen years ago, I was community banned for using multiple accounts and for paid editing. The ban was for the account MooshiePorkFace but my main account was Morning277, which was also banned. I did use multiple accounts and those accounts were rightfully blocked. The ban came later, under the belief that I was the ring leader of Orange Moody which was part of the Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal. I was never actually part of Wiki-PR, but at that time Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.

I continue to advise clients, strictly off-Wiki, on how to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Since the implementation of guidelines under Paid Editing, I have instructed clients on how to make proper disclosure of their connections, using the articles for creation process, and how to request edits on article talk pages. Some clients, despite this advice, would still rather hire someone to request edits or submit drafts on their behalf. Since I have turned down these requests, I have seen clients go off and hire freelancers from Upwork to upload their project without disclosure, causing problems. I have nothing to do with those freelancers, and have had nothing to do with Wiki-PR and entities like that for a decade.

According to my block, I was supposed to use the “Ban Appeals Subcommittee” of Arbcom to have my ban lifted, but that page is inactive. As such, per Girrafer’s instruction, I am appealing here. I am happy to answer any questions about my time as Morning277 or the related accounts and provide more information about my identity if it helps facilitate this request. I will abide by any restrictions placed on editing if the ban is lifted. As I no longer have access to the Morning277 account or the email I created for it, if the ban is lifted, I would request a new account under “Clean Start.” M277FreshStart (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that I have intentionally left M277FreshStart unblocked solely for the purposes of appealing. Indeffing them to then copy over appeal comments would be a waste of time. Giraffer (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've changed the section heading to make it meaningful and unique in watchlists, etc. I'm not offering an opinion on the merits at this time, but for those not familiar, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 exists although it is explicitly marked as conflating WikiPR and LegalMorning despite them being two separate entities. It's not immediately clear to me what (if any) connection M277 has or had with the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• As a start, M277FreshStart, would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked? Why do you want to be unblocked? What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@M277FreshStart You explained why unblocking you is in your advantage. We don't care about that obviously, because that is irrelevant to the reason for the block which is protection of the encyclopedia. Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia's advantage? You already have been falsifying sources, misrepresenting sources, sockpuppeting and undisclosed paid editing. It sounds like someone would have to doublecheck your every edit. Can you make a list of your accounts? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Their request gives an answer to your first question (and Liz's questions): Some clients, despite this advice, would still rather hire someone to request edits or submit drafts on their behalf. Since I have turned down these requests, I have seen clients go off and hire freelancers from Upwork to upload their project without disclosure, causing problems. Provided that any unbanning is conditional upon disclosing all accounts or using only one account, disclosed edit requests and submissions are better for Wikipedia than the alternative of undisclosed paid editing by other providers.

And note that there have been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 submissions since 2014, long past the standard offer. When someone seeks to do things the right way after a long break, they should generally be given an opportunity to do so.

I am inclined to support this with appropriate unban conditions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's great you're supportive, SilverLocus, but I'd like them to answer my questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@SilverLocust No it doesn't. When we have a new paid editor they might follow the rules or not. With M277FreshStart we already know they don't. So they have not provided a reason why unblocking them is in Wikipedia's advantage, and the request for a WP:CLEANSTART, when they are planning on returning to the exact same behaviour that got them banned last time (which is explicitly not allowed with a CLEANSTART), sounds like an attempt to evade scrutiny (Else they could just use the same account). disclosed edit requests and submissions are better for Wikipedia than the alternative of undisclosed paid editing by other providers They have not provided any evidence for their claim. We know they have broken many rules in the past. Maybe if those clients hire someone else they will hire someone who does follow the rules.

And note that there have been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 submissions since 2014 That is completely meaningless, unless you have a list of their clients and check every edit made to those (and related) articles and checkuser every day to compare them to a list of IP addresses and devices they have access to.

When someone seeks to do things the right way after a long break Not after "a long break". After they got caught breaking all the rules. For money. Not the kind of person we want back. Polygnotus (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

These are all fair questions. In all honesty, if I did not intend to follow the rules, then there would be no reason to ask for the band to be lifted. Somebody who didn’t want to follow the rules would just start editing despite the ban. I will the time to formulate more thorough tomorrow. M277FreshStart (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Support per M277's response to Polygnotus. I agree with SilverLocust. We should encourage UPEs to stop socking or editing disruptively and instead follow the rules. If M277 truly understands the rules around paid editing as well as WP:V, WP:RS, etc., I'll expect to see well formatted and referenced edit requests. If we see history repeating itself, we can reblock. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Voorts and SilverLocust have volunteered to keep an eye on it which is kind of them. Not sure if they've read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277. I find the story "I broke all rules, got caught and then I suddenly had a completely new approach to Wikipedia and decided to care about the rules, even if it cost me money and business" a bit difficult to follow. Polygnotus (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think taking over a decade to come to realize you've made a mistake is sudden[]. I have not volunteered to keep an eye on anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts They appear to claim that they suddenly stopped all rulebreaking and rejected all clients who wanted to give them money for paid editing after getting banned. So yes that is rather sudden, especially since they had quite a few clients and active projects. Polygnotus (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how I read their statement. Perhaps they can clarify. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Struck !vote pending answer to my question below. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) If Morning277 wants to follow the rules now, he is required to list every client on Wikipedia that he has had since the change in the terms of use (June 2014). He should also declare every account he has used, and the accounts of all of his employees used in his business since then. If he is not prepared to do that, he will not be following the rules. End of story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support With proper disclosures as described elsewhere in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• As far as I know, Morning277 still runs their paid editing business and has been actively promoting it as recently as April. They still describe themselves as having been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade - not as having last edited a decade ago. And their website still offers page creation services along with editing, monitoring and translation services, while openly stating that they never disclose their clients. As long as they continue to offer those services, and apparantly continue to edit in spite of the ban, I do not see this being in the project's interests. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Has this request been authenticated? How do we know we are talking to the same person who operated the Morning277 and other accounts? Given the facts in the bullet immediately above, I find it difficult to believe the same person would even ask this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

    If the last verified socks of Morning277 were in 2014 (as noted above) then there is going to be no technical data for a CU to compare the current account to. The most they would be able to do is check whether they have been socking in the last 90 days. We either have to trust them or not trust them, but it would be very odd for someone unrelated to pretend to be someone who was community banned over a decade ago for something that is held in even lower regard now than it was then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

    • Oh, they might be messing with us for many possible reasons, there's no need for us to guess. If they want to verify that the are who they say they are, all the need to do is put a set text on the main page of their business webpage, let me suggest "Hi, Thry". But they can come here and tell us what Wiki-specific message that they've left on their main page. Let me suggest, while they are at it, they explain the page on that site removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/ dated August 2024. What does it mean when you say

"Helpful Tip – This article will help you navigate your current Wikipedia article. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, check out my Wikipedia biography template. You can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf."

• Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Nonrandom break

These are all definitely fair questions to ask. I regret that my conduct, as long ago as it was, was unprofessional. That led to the ban, which I now see was inevitable and deserved, but I also want to clear my name from the stain of association with Wiki-PR. After my ban in 2012, I did continue editing with other accounts until 2013, but these were always caught out. This made me realize that undisclosed and sockpuppet editing was ultimately detrimental to clients, who might just be seeking to have incorrect claims about them corrected, but end up getting tarnished by association with unscrupulous behavior. I have not used an account since my last block which I believe was MooshiePokerFace. I could likely identify the accounts that are mine (and those that are not) that are listed in the Category "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277" and "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277," although it has been over a decade so I do not 100% accurately remember.

When I moved to only giving off-site advice, I also turned a lot of my energies to other non-wiki endeavors such as podcasting and SEO, and advising clients in their dealings with companies like Google and social media providers. I still intend to be involved with exclusively above-board and properly disclosed paid editing, within the rules, as I now advise clients to work within the rules. It would be beneficial to Wikipedia to allow me to disclose and request edits that my clients often have a difficult time doing on their own, despite my advising them how to do so. This would help alleviate complicated COI requests, and prevent my clients from turning to shady companies that will make those edits without proper disclosure, and without regard for other policies such as accurate use of proper sources. I also read Wikipedia articles, as people do, just to look up things I'm interested in, and right now, when I see a typo or an error or just plain vandalism, I have to walk away.

My website does say the large number of edits that I have made and articles that I have made, but that includes the tens of thousands of edits I made before the ban, all the way from when I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, which included a lot of small edits on a lot of sock accounts to get autocomfirmed each time. I also count drafts written for clients which the clients then did with as they wished. Some made their own edits, and some hired freelancers or other companies to do the edits. I try to discourage them from using other companies because I know that sooner or later those companies will get caught and the clients will get tied up in that. The article that Smallbones quotes (https://www.legalmorning.com/removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/) is actually on point with this. That article has an entire section on conflict of interest editing and helps guide people “to” the process, just not “through” the process. This is what I mean by “do the work on your behalf.” I explain what needs to go into the edit requests in certain circumstances, and then instruct clients on how to make those requests directly on their own talk page with full disclosure. That is why the article referred to on Legalmorning directly links to this Wikipedia policy on how to request edits with a COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request). I am trying to instruct clients on how to do things the right way. I am requesting this unban so I can do things the right way on their behalf.

As far as double checking ALL of my edits, I think you will find them all in compliance and that I am willing to abide by any restrictions as far as disclosure and review. I am aware that if I were submitting rubbish and wasting the community's time, I would always subject to being blocked again, probably very quickly and definitely. I am not looking to waste your time or my own by doing that. M277FreshStart (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I also count drafts written for clients which the clients then did with as they wished. Some made their own edits, and some hired freelancers or other companies to do the edits. When is the last time you wrote a draft for your clients? Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their "affiliation" with you as a contributor of the text per WP:PAID? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) You still haven't authenticated your claimed identity. You need to do this before expecting busy editors to take the time this needs. I propose that if you don't do this within 24 hours, or we just close this as unsuccessful. I'm glad you don't mind posting you business site here, but I'd prefer you didn't - it might start looking like an advert.

You definitely need to stop giving us long texts that don't give us any information. If you can list your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it! Since June 2014, this is currently required information that you haven't declared. Presumably, that should include some some socks which were not caught. You don't think that 100% of your socks were caught, do you? Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies. You did mislead the community on this previously, didn't you. Giving us all this detail will help us stop further undisclosed paid editing. Just do it, or don't expect anybody here to do you any favors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

They claim they will never disclose their clients, but that means they cannot abide by our rules.

It is also interesting that they have told different stories about their link to Wiki-PR, here they say they were doing freelance work for them, on ibtimes.com they claimed that clients came from Wiki-PR to them.

What they offer clients falls under our WP:SCAM warning, $1,500 per page per year for "monitoring" of an article.

told IBTimes earlier this month that he made his living editing the site, earning more than any previous job he has held.

They are lying when they write: After my ban in 2012, I did continue editing with other accounts until 2013 because that would require us to believe that they wrote the book Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool when they hadn't edited Wikipedia for years.

A reviewer of the book says far too much time spent on personal rants against policies, Wikipedia administrators and - in some depth - Jimbo Wales. Indeed, most of the second chapter seems to be about attacking Wales, rather than offering any useful advice.

If you use the site: operator on google with their website domain and archive.org you'll see that they have been offering the service of editing Wikipedia even after they were already blocked for years. They still have not explained why it is in Wikipedia's benefit that they are unblocked. Sure, other people also might not follow our rules. But keeping them blocked protects the encyclopedia from them.

They are actively breaking the ToU as we speak: You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. and In addition, if you make a public posting off the Projects advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation of any kind, you must disclose all Wikipedia accounts you have used or will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked: I have indefblocked M277FreshStart; with due respect to Giraffer's good intentions, it is absolutely not permissible for any iteration of LegalMorning to be posting edits anywhere in Wikipedia, in violation of a standing Arbcom ban. We have dealt with circumstances like this before, and we have established protocols. M277FreshStart, assuming that you are reading this and that you have your email activated, I will send you an email via wikimail, and you can communicate to me what, if anything, you want to say in response to the questions asked here. I am generally favorable to giving long-dormant blocked accounts a second chance, if only to give them enough rope to hang themselves should they return to their previous misconduct, but restoration of rights cannot begin with a violation of an existing ban. BD2412 T 20:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have sent the referenced email. I would frankly not be surprised if there is no response, but I have cautioned M277FreshStart against including anything in future responses that appears to promote their website or paid services. BD2412 T 20:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 are they ArbCom banned? I understand they were instructed to appeal to BASC, but the block was noted as a CBAN, hence my bringing it here.

FWIW if they were appealing from their indeffed account, I would not unblock them. I kept them unblocked for the sake of practicality; if you think blocking and copying comments is preferable then that is fine by me. Giraffer (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong. We just need to be careful about the precedents that we set. I think it would also have been a different matter if their initial ban was purely for something like edit warring or paid editing, but it did also include abuse of multiple accounts. BD2412 T 21:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Thanks for letting me know. Giraffer (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the ArbCom ban you're referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't take enough time to dig into Arbcom archives, but I found something about a CBAN in the AN archives. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Is there not an ArbCom ban in place here? The editor said that he was supposed to appeal to ArbCom to get the ban lifted, I understood that to mean that the ban was ArbCom-imposed. Either way, an editor banned in part for abusing multiple accounts should not be editing from a new account to appeal the ban, except perhaps by posting on their own talk page. BD2412 T 00:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think he was referring to WP:BASC, as Giraffer noted. I don't see the harm in allowing him to prosecute his appeal on AN rather than via email, particularly since he was already told by one admin that he had permission to do so for the purposes of this appeal and he hasn't violated that condition. Perhaps Giraffer should have partially unblocked and only allowed edits to project-space since we can't yet unblock for access to a single page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would have imposed the block either way, given the community ban. I would suggest that it sets a terrible precedent, which opens the door to any banned editor (including those banned for sockpuppetry) to create and make edits from a new account, despite being barred from this. Ideally, this editor should have been blocked immediately and directed to make their appeal strictly by email. BD2412 T 00:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence, part of the problem seems to me that procedure has changed over the years, but this editor wasn't aware of it. (Hence their failed attempt at WT:AC/N.) Anyways, hopefully they at the least respond to the email to get this discussion somewhat sorted out. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) When they were banned, they were told that they needed to appeal to the Ban appeals sub-committee. That was disbanded in 2015. Initially all bans that would have been heard by the BASC were heard by the full committee, but at some point after that (I forget when) ArbCom stopped hearing most of them and now only hears appeals of Checkuser blocks, Oversight blocks and blocks unsuitable for public discussion. The community and/or UTRS now hears all other ban appeals, however this is not clearly stated anywhere on the WP:BASC page, so understandably and entirely appealed to ArbCom - explicitly saying why there were appealing there and to let them know if they got the venue wrong. There were told that AN was where they should be appealing, so they moved their appeal to AN. Telling them now that they are not allowed to appeal at AN is really poor form. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not blocked access to their talk page. They can appeal the block there if they would like. I won't interfere if another editor unblocks them. I also note that Smallbones gave them 24 hours to confirm their identity two days ago, and they have not responded to that or otherwise edited since, nor have they responded to my email (although I concede that I only sent it four hours ago). I would give them another 24 hours to respond, and then close the matter.

I would also agree, by the way, that the instructions should be fixed to make it very clear how such bans are to be appealed in the future, and specifically to foreclose the sort of circumstance that we had here. BD2412 T 00:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

GZWDer has added some instructions to BASC to redirect users to APPEAL and UNBAN, so that should work for older bans. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) Let us not take the community out of deciding whether a community ban should be undone. Deciding on WP:AN is the best way forward. I'll just note that M277 said they'd answer questions here. Several editors, including myself, asked and haven't received straight answers. M277 hasn't authenticated his identity. If they are appealing to WP:Clean start, they don't meet the criteria stated there. If it is supposed to be about the WP:Standard offer, I believe that essay is for use in standard blocks and bans, nothing about M277's ban is standard. It is one of the 2 or 3 most egregious cases in Wikipedia history, with a huge outcry from the press. They have been creditably accused in the press of extortion. They had hundreds of socks. They are advertising now on their website a book titled something like "Using Wikipedia in Marketing" despite the prohibition of on-Wiki marketing in WP:PROMO.

In the first paragraph of the first section above M277 admits that he did work for Wiki-PR. That should be enough to effectively make this a permanent ban, unless they tell us everything we want to know. Wiki-PR was banned (with unbanning conditions) on Oct. 22, 2013 on this page (WP:AN) as completely as any organization has ever been banned.

"Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards."

The unbanning condition requires full disclosure of what they've done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool. They can answer questions on their talk. Getting unbanned starts with being honest, and I believe they haven't been so far. Compare: I am not Wiki-PR nor do I have a relation with them[12] with Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.[13] Polygnotus (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The editor has responded to my email as follows:

I am so sorry. It is very confusing and I am not trying to waste

anyone's time or cause issues. I swear. There are a lot of questions I read last night and I want to prepare a thorough response for each. It will take me a few days to do so as I am traveling from the east coast to the midwest and then to the west coast. In the meantime, I can verify my identity by placing something on my website. You can also see my email domain is from my website. I will not post anything in Wikipedia

again unless my rights are restored.

I can confirm that the domain name for the email address from which the email was sent appears to be the domain name for the company website. BD2412 T 14:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

...@BD2412: Has Morning277 (etc.) previously disclosed their real name on Wikipedia? If not that needs to be redacted as it's technically WP:OUTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Point taken. Although it's all over the Internet, I don't know that it has specifically been on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 19:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They have posted the website name twice in the discussion above. I don't know if anybody has posted their name on Wikipedia, but if it is just the website name, well it's here and it is also associated with the old user names used here in several very reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The name's directly linked to Morning277 here, so I've unrevdel'd the edits - thanks for finding that BD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's time to close this. Morning277 has asked that his community ban be removed. He was properly banned for sockpuppeting and paid editing. He has confirmed that he worked for Wiki-PR which requires another ban. He writes I am happy to answer any questions about my time as Morning277 or the related accounts and provide more information about my identity if it helps facilitate this request. I will abide by any restrictions placed on editing if the ban is lifted.

So there are about 6 questions repeated below. I suggest closing this as unsuccessful and I'll then post these questions on their talkpage. If they then answer those questions in full and in good faith, they can then reopen this. Otherwise, wait six months and try again (with a list of answers attached!)

• @Liz: asked Would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked? Why do you want to be unblocked? What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion?

• @Polygnotus: asked Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia's advantage? ...Can you make a list of your accounts?
• Polygnotus also quotes the WP:Paid contributions policy In addition, if you make a public posting off the Projects advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation of any kind, you must disclose all Wikipedia accounts you have used or will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service. asserting that you are currently breaking this rule. Are you?

• I asked him to explain the passage on his business page

"Helpful Tip – This article will help you navigate your current Wikipedia article. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, check out my Wikipedia biography template. You can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf."

I found his answer confusing and evasive, saying effectively that he didn’t do the work on the customer’s behalf. It looks like he is trying to fool somebody, either the customer or us (or both)

I later asked (somewhat repetitively) list your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it! … (You) should include some some socks which were not caught. You don't think that 100% of your socks were caught, do you? Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies.

• @Voorts: asked When is the last time you wrote a draft for your clients? Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their "affiliation" with you as a contributor of the text per WP:PAID?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones: In the last (and only) communication I received in response to my email, the editor asserted that they were travelling and that it would take a few days to respond. This is still sitting far enough down the noticeboard to allow perhaps a week from that communication. We have no deadline, and I would prefer not to allow any impression that we cut the discussion off prematurely. BD2412 T 18:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Izno's partnership with BangJan1999

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

---

Nominally the partnership between BangJan1999 and Izno is about reporting one single sock master (AttackTheMoonNow) disrupting one single area of Wikipedia (ITN/C).

As deeply suspicious as that relationship is, looking at BangJan1999's edit history and the rapid service Izno gives them at AIV and SPI, I suppose if it gets results, people will look the other way.

But with one apparently unwarranted block and a deeply time wasting dispute over whether or not an article should be deleted on principle, I think maybe it's time someone asked these two if they're doing more harm than good. And indeed if there's anything about this relationship that they might need to declare. A conflict of interest, perhaps. Janeshrack (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

—Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: Sounds like your buddy Gronk's Fortune is back. Polygnotus (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I would rather not be the one to issue the block (or check the account) since I've been named at ANI. Unless someone else wants to tell me this falls under the "what any reasonable admin would do" exception of INVOLVED. Izno (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's many Admins who would unflinchingly act on reports filed by users with the kind of suspicious edit history BangJan1999 has. Your almost symbiotic relationship to them at the very least suggests you lack the required detachment when dealing with this particular case. It has already seen one user wrongly blocked, and I think this relationship is the reason why you didn't consider any of the mandated alternatives to blocking. Luckily they knew how to navigate the UTRS system and were motivated to do so. Many aren't. Janeshrack (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Since this is now being discussed at AN, would any administrators be able to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II? That article was created by the above sock and deleted as a G5 by Izno. Sam11333 then put in an undeletion request and received the old article by email, and then copied the emailed text into Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II. I'm concerned there may be attribution issues since the history of the original article is still deleted, and this seems like a roundabout way of circumventing the G5 deletion. Also pinging Black Kite as an involved admin. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Sam's copy paste here was inappropriate from an attribution perspective. I do not know if that's what BK had in mind. Izno (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

For the record, that block was perfectly fine, and I'm saying that as the admin who ultimately reversed it. {{cu needed}} to sort this sock into the appropriate drawer, please. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you expand on that then? Specifically, are you trying to suggest Izno had absolutely no other alternatives available to them but to block? And in a manner that totally precludes any kind of transparent or even easy method of appeal? Janeshrack (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Janeshrack, you do realize that it is nearly impossible for a brand new editor, with their very first edit, to open a complaint on WP:AN against an administrator and NOT be a block evading returning editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Who said I was brand new? Would it not be wise, for example, in the circumstances, where it appears a suspicious account (BangJan1999) is being used to target people in a less than transparent way, in an apparent partnership with one specific Admin/CU who has already placed one incorrect block in his apparent zeal to "what any reasonable admin would do", to be cautious about what you reveal when reporting said issue? Janeshrack (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you're a WP:PROJSOCK. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

And this gravedancing [14] confirms that this isn't a good-faith editor. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Attribution issues at Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II

• Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears my comment got lost in the above thread, but I would still like a second opinion about the concerns I raised at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II. My primary concern is that the current text of Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II was sent to an editor by email and is not accessible in the page history, which raises attribution concerns. The bulk of the content was also written by a sock, which effectively circumvents the G5 deletion. I'm curious to get some advice about the best approach to resolve these issues. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

With G5, I believe that if another good-faith editor is willing to "adopt" the text, then it's acceptable. I'm not sure I entirely agree (per WP:DENY), but I've restored the old article history for now to resolve the attribution origins while this can be discussed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, restoring the history at least addresses the attribution concerns. I'm inclined to agree with you about WP:DENY, but considering that an editor in good standing went out of their way to request the article be restored, I think it's probably fine to keep it in mainspace. I went ahead and marked it as reviewed, but I'm happy to discuss further if other editors have any concerns. Zeibgeist (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Partly my fault that, I probably should have told Sam11333 to attribute the text when he inserted it, but I assumed as a long-time editor they would have known that. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Spanish speaking administrator or user

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

---

Does anyone know of a Spanish speaking administrator or user who might be able to help User:Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu? The account is a little over a month old and this person seems to be working on a draft for a new article on their user page, which is OK per se but probably should be moved either to a WP:USD or WP:DRAFT to avoid getting tagged for speedy deletion. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this while checking on some recently uploaded files and finding File:Alejandro Miguel Zamora Gonzalez - Interstellar Master.png uploaded yesterday by the same user. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly, we have all sorts of categories for editors with different language abilities. I'd look there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. I thought of moving it myself, but I figured it might be better for someone who could explain what was done in Spanish if necessary to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked him. He was aware that this is the English Wikipedia, but was using his userspace to host an autobiography (not as a draft but as something he linked from another website linked in the userpage) because the Spanish Wikipedia wouldn't let him do so at es:User:Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks anyway for taking a look at this SilverLocust. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Poundthiswriter

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

---

I'm WP:INVOLVED so I'm bringing this here- Poundthiswriter has an attitude and lacks basic human civility to the point where they need some action taken against them- either a WP:NOTHERE block or a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, as most of their hostility seems related to Israel.

This user came to my attention after attempting to move Zhug(an article about a Yemini food) to a different title(diff) based on the Yemini name. They termed its move to Zhug(which cited COMMONNAME) as "vandalism". I warned them against page moves without consensus(a final warning as they had prior warnings). They then made a page move request and cited "as per usual on English language Wikipedia Israelis' word is taken at face value while anything opposing their view requires a mountain of proof or else it faces the edit war to end all etdit wars by bot accounts or obsessive nationalists."- a clear reference to Arab-Israeli disputes (along with their edits summaries on Zhug) so I gave them a final warning about edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict(they had previously had the formal notification of the sanctions). Their response was to tell me to fuck off along with other insults, including sayingsuggesting that anyone who edits about Israel is an Israeli government agent personally sent here by Benjamin Netanyahu, but could not offer any evidence that specific editors are Israeli agents. Other posts on their talk page are similar. They think it's more civil to curse at us and insult us than not.

Their beef seems related to what they term "Israeli cultural imperialism" and disagree with how WP:COMMONNAME is interpreted(even when a fellow Yemini editor pointed out policy to them). What a subject is called is certainly a legitimate point of discussion, but this user cannot divorce their views on the Arab-Israeli conflict from this topic. Even as I write this Poundthiswriter rejects the counsel of that editor who advised them that they could be blocked, saying they aren't afraid of it. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to this recent claim, I don't want them "kicked off the site". I want them to comply with policy- especially on civility- as they pursue any legitimate edits they wish to make. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 1 month as a WP:CTOP sanction for the ECR violations and incivility. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 09:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

RevDel request

[15] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000: in the future, please request revision deletion of this sort of content via IRC. This is a highly visible page. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't use IRC, Special:EmailUser/Oversight works. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Or also, one of these administrators. Salvio ^giuliano 21:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't want it oversighted as I wanted admins to see it as I think this user is going to be an ongoing problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço

Over at WMF Village pump a member of the trust and safety team has alerted the community about an office action on Caesar DePaço. This feels like an issue people who watch this page and not that one may wish to know and talk about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

How is any editor supposed to do anything with this article now, without legal risk, since we can't know what the illegal in Portugal content is?

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#How is this article to be maintained going forward?

How exactly does this work for editors? Should the page be sent to WP:AfD to protect future editors? Permanent full lockdown and all edits have to go through the talk page and WMF scrutiny? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

BLAR it, then fully-protect the redirect would be my guess. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It was BLAR'd and reverted. Now at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Now this is an outcome I'm sure that the article subject didn't expect when they filed their lawsuit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out in that discussion, we have other pages that seem to mention the issues that the court ordered removed from pages other than DePacos, like on Alina Habba. We need to figure out how to handle those too. Masem (t) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WMFOffice left a paragraph about that lawsuit in the DePaço article, what is there to handle? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be best to let WMF Legal figure out if and how other articles are affected by the court order before we start removing content. Donald Albury 13:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I fear that whatever we do here will end up setting a bad precedent. If we replace the page with a template, as some have proposed, that incentivizes anyone who feels that they are negatively portrayed in Wikipedia to seek such a court action. BD2412 T 20:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the court action was successful. That's the precedent. I think the goal of the template would be to generate sufficient publicity about the court action to make it an undesirable choice (and perhaps to get the action reversed). Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that (i) adding a template and (ii) replacing the article with the template are two different proposals. I personally support (i) and strongly oppose (ii). Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the counterpoint to that is that if we keep an article that has been manipulated at the direction of the subject, we are no longer abiding by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And I know some have said something along the lines of "well we can have an article just not with those statements", but then are we not projecting an artificially improved article that benefits the subject?

FWIW, I'd rather have cut all ties with Portugal than accept the verdict, but apparently that wasn't an option. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I still think the deletion of the article would be an interesting result to happen in a situation where a person decides to sue Wikipedia because they don't like content in an article where they are featured. No problem, no article on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The subject doesn't seem to want an article though... Its a nice roundabout way to getting your article deleted even when you're genuinely notable and a lot of it is for less than savory stuff. As long as there is any mention of Chega in that article DePaço is not going to be happy and there remains a lot more than a mention even after the office action (for context I've handled much of the enwiki interactions with his lawyer and lawyers socks). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Portuguese article has a lot of content on Chega though. It's an interesting comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Can we get administration at Template:Halloween

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

---

• Template:Halloween (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Although the long-term colors of orange and black used on the {{Halloween}} navbox have been under informal discussion with no consensus, although three editors "don't like it" and one, myself, has defended the traditional colors, the colors were changed and reverted back to the change when challenged. I would ask admin assistance in bringing back the orange and black coloring and a full RfC be opened to notify more editors of this attempt. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't need an admin to open an RFC, just stop edit warring and do it. This isn't a BLP issue or something that must be a certain way while it's discussed. There's also a rough consensus on the talk page to change the colors so there's no reason to revert back without an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

A very limited decision at the navbox talk page, I just noticed that the Halloween talk page wasn't alerted to the discussion (which it should have been, and my fault as much as the editors advocating the change). I'd ask for the long-term colors to be returned before an RfC is opened, or at least keep just the orange which I've just added. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for administrative intervention here. If a RFC should be opened, then you can do it yourself, ensuring that any notifications of it are appropriate and neutral. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Renamed user 9b6d6c85af30a90451242f89f76d6503

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

---

• Renamed user 9b6d6c85af30a90451242f89f76d6503 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove rollback and PCR. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Big Brother 26 voting table dispute

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

---

There is an on going dispute about changing the voting table on the Big Brother 26 page particularly regarding the HoH during week four. Angela Murray won Head of Household that week and Quinn Martin a DeepFake Head of Household power. This topic has been voted and debated before in the past. I'm not sure why we are bringing this up again. It was clearly voted on back in August 2024. We are going to bring another full discussion until the matter is resolved. I suggest we protect the Big Brother 26 page from further vandalism. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be in an edit war with another user. You both need to stop reverting on that page and discuss the changes on the talk page before making them. CoconutOctopus talk 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Both Welcometothenewmillenium and JoyfullySmile have been blocked 24 hours for WP:3RR violations on this article. Also please read WP:NOTVAND. 'Edits I don't like', or even 'edits that are wrong', are not vandalism, and calling them such can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, edits are still continuing at that article, but now by IPs. Gee, I wonder who that might be… 🤔 Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 there for 24 hours as a hardblock and semi-protected the article for 72 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

PTAC proposals for feedback

The Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) is a one-year pilot of a group of Wikimedia Foundation staff and community members that advise the Wikimedia Foundation on its technical direction and provide input on the long-term product and technical priorities for the Wikimedia movement.

Following recent community reactions surrounding two initiatives, the trial of AI-generated article summaries, which subsequently led to the RFC surrounding AI features by the WMF and the concerns surrounding Tone Check, members of the Product and Technology Advisory Council came together to form two working groups to brainstorm ways to improve how the Foundation conducts and communicates experiments and product development and how it engages with the community surrounding updates regarding its product development.

As a result of the brainstorming, we came up with a set of proposals of experiments the Wikimedia Foundation can conduct to increase transparency, trust, and lead to more constructive engagement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia communities. We would like to community provide feedback on the proposals at the talk page. This feedback phase will last until August 22, following which (provided there are no objections) we will forward the proposals to the Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology Department who will subsequently look into ways of implementing and incorporating these recommended experiments. Sohom (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta thanks for your work (and also thanks to several others who I am familiar with and respect). I'm wondering if the PTAC could model some Better prepared feedback sections in this request because I'm not sure what kind of feedback you want or would find helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 The question we are asking are:

- "Do folks agree with this direction/proposal put forth?"

- "Do you think there is something else we should have considered/added?"

- "Based on our work, do you think we should have gone a different direction or focused on something in particular?"

I'll add explicit call-outs to the questions at the top of the feedback section :) The end goal of the consultation/feedback phase is to ensure that the council's opinions are not in a vacuum and that we are not suggesting something that is at odds with what the community wants/expects (or is adversarial to the community). Sohom (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025

At their request, the Checkuser permissions of SQL (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks SQL for their service as a member of the Checkuser team.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025

Not sure how to create a wiki account because this IP address no matter where I go seems to be blocked due to other users

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

---

There seems to be some heavy glitches . First time loger 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:CreateAccount. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I just don't get it. Never ever tried logged in until this week- tried signing up in two different cities now and its quite distributing 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It says This does not affect your ability to read this page and perform other actions on other pages.

Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range ‪2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/33‬ has been partially blocked by ‪The Bushranger‬ for the following reason(s):

Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: continued disruption after initial pblock.

This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd.

Note that this block does not affect your ability to do other things on the site. A full detail of the partial block can be found on the block list and at your contributions page.

This partial block may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, on your talk page, or by UTRS.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Information on partial blocks · Help:I have been blocked 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Try now; your IP address has changed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd.

Same stuff 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Your IP is not blocked or rangeblocked, and you do not have a block message on your IP's current talkpage (or have a talkpage at all). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh...in dumb dumb terms 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything at all keeping you from editing or creating an account, and the message of This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd makes no sense because there is no block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Could the block have survived through the MW session? According to a code comment at DatabaseBlock.php, A DatabaseBlock (unlike a SystemBlock) is stored in the database, may give rise to autoblocks and may be tracked with cookies. The function BlockManager::getBlockFromCookieValue applies a block if the cookie "BlockId" is set. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and explanation 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you tried clearing your cookies? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Will do. 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Did not work. 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Close all browser tabs and open them again, maybe that will help if "BlockId" is a session cookie. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Tried even Firefox, a new browser app etc. It's been now two attempts in two different cities as well. I truly couldn't be more innocent of a block 😪 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Can you temporarily remove the account creation blocked setting from the block on 2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/33? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, let's see if that helps @2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD, try now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Worked. You are superstars 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

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

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • 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.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles

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

---

Hello Wikipedia admins, can you move this page to "Wikipedia:Deleted articles with 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒚 titles" and leave a redirect behind, please? I think it'd be humourous, and it's a humourous page. (notice the fancy font on the word "freaky"). I am asking here, because when I tried to move it, it told me to tell this noticeboard. AAHW (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@AAHW: no. In more ways than one, no. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds daft. No. —Kusma (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm obviously not an admin, but I can pretty much guarantee that this request will be denied. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OP now blocked per WP:NOTHERE. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely a strange section, but they've also been attempting to make content edits: [16] [17] [18]. They'll need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia if they're going to stick, but NOTHERE is a stretch. Pinging the blocking admin Mfield in case they have an extended rationale. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I may have placed a little to much weight on the recent edits vs the older stuff, although i wonder looking at it again now and with the dates maybe this is not the same person making these edits to the prior ones, i am going to change the block to short one with some policy suggestions, and we'll see what happens after that. Mfield (Oi!) 17:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Draft:Domm (film)

• Draft:Domm (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm sure that this needs sysop attention but I'm not sure how complicated it is.

The history is that a user who's new and likely in perfectly good faith started an article called Domm (Bangladeshi film) on 24th July, bypassing draft space and working directly in mainspace. None of the references would load, and I (wrongly) suspected it was one of those AI-generated articles where the references are fake, so I prodded it. It got deprodded so I draftified it.

It then got re-created in mainspace by the same user, and I just wonder whether that was a copy/paste re-creation that would necessitate a WP:HISTMERGE for compliance with the Terms of Use?

The re-creation got AfD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domm (Bangladeshi film), where I raised the HISTMERGE thing, but that AfD was closed as "draftify" by a user who says he missed the HISTMERGE problem. The draft is now at Draft:Domm (film).

Please will a sysop with the inclination to worry about HISTMERGE review this, and if appropriate, please will a sysop with the right amount of patience and kindness for interacting with new users who work directly in mainspace have a chat with the article starter about copy/paste?—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, I haven't notified anyone because there's no accusation of wrongdoing here.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  If there's only one author to the draft then a history merge is not legally necessary because nobody's attribution is lost. That seems to be the case here. And there are also WP:Parallel histories that would make histmerging awkward (but technically doable). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  If that's so, then all's fine. I thought that one of the versions from before the copy/paste merge had more than one author, but if I'm wrong then I'm pleased to be able to avoid the paperwork.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at the history of Draft:Domm (Bangladeshi film), there are edits by other editors in there. However, aside from one bot edit, there aren't any overlapping edits that aren't speedy-deletion tags and redirections (and thus I believe could be 'left deleted' after a histmerge). So I'll history-merge them at Draft: Domm (film).  In progress - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

   Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  As I suspected. Thank you!—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Still need that person with the patience and kindness please?—S Marshall T/C 04:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, what needs doing here? Are they still making weird copy-paste moves and I'm just not seeing them? -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not as far as I know. But cut-and-paste moves are something a good faith user can easily do when new because they aren't obviously wrong, and they can create a lot of needless work for sysops, so I think this needs raising with the user in a way that educates without being mean or accusing. Ten years ago I'd have done it myself and screwed it up, because self-knowledge came late in life for me. Nowadays I know I'm not a patient man, and neither am I good with new users, so this isn't a task that I'm well suited to. It's best if I volunteer in other ways.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you could template them. {{uw-c&pmove}} is the one you'd be looking for. —Cryptic 22:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly my thinking is that it's typically not worth explaining something like this on the first instance, for WP:BITE reasons. They can see that other editors have jumped in to fix their edits. If they have seen that, they'll likely feel condescended to or bitten if someone gets on their case about it. I'd rather give them a chance to learn from example before showing up to say "dude you screwed up". I can say it kindly but that only takes so much bite out of it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Ronaldinho

Friskowwww This user continuasly reverts what I write according to sources. Even writing in personal ha no result.Γεώργιος Τερζής 1 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Γεώργιος Τερζής 1, I'm not sure I understand your question but remember, you need to notify Friskowwww that you started this discussion. Please do so now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Not fully sure what they wrote myself, but I have made a request at RPPI after looking at the edit history for Ronaldinho. At least ten edits made at Ronaldinho have been reverted in the last 24 hours and it appears that one of the three users involved in this edit war has breached WP:3RR. I believe this likely should be moved to ANI for warnings at a minimum. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I had already informed both users that involved their edits but none answered anything.Γεώργιος Τερζής 1 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Γεώργιος Τερζής 1, you need to notify all involved users that this discussion exists. There's a template at the top of the page that will help. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Technically, they only need to inform Friskowwww now as the other user was blocked as a SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Review my revdel

I recently deleted some offensive material from WP:VPW, which several editors have questioned the necessity of. So bringing it here for review. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As an admittedly very new admin, and therefore not an expert on the exact intricacies of revision deletions, I don't see a reason here for such a large-scale use of the tool? The comment itself was, imo, inappropriate, but not quite of the level requiring such a revdel? I'll defer to admins with more experience, but I do want to give my 2 cents. CoconutOctopus talk 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't a needed use of revdel. The comment was inappropriate and the redaction was correct, but the revdel was unnecessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations referred to in WP:RD2. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If only a couple of revisions would be rev-del'd, I could kind of see doing that, but the number of revisions needing rev-del'd to take it out of the history was disruptive and should be reserved for really bad stuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Was [19] the only comment that needed redaction? If so, I would be inclined to undo the revision deletion here. As far as the line between "ordinary incivility" and "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive content" goes, it is a matter of judgment sometimes, so I don't fault RoySmith for erring on the side of revdel. For me, the line is crossed when the content either (1) includes any extremely offensive slurs (e.g. those targeted at particular groups or classes of people), and/or (2) is harassment targeted towards a specific, identifiable individual, and/or (3) is unsourced WP:BLP content that implies a specific living individual committed a serious crime or otherwise did something highly unethical. Here, none of these factors are true, so I would consider this the kind of "ordinary" incivility that is explicitly excluded by WP:RD2. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This is such a nothingburger I at first assumed I was looking at the wrong part of the diff. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Revdeleting attacks aimed at people who can still read them afterwards doesn't accomplish a whole lot. —Cryptic 20:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate Roy's action to remove the offensive comment from public view, I agree that this is run-of-the-mill online misbehavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It is sad that people find this sort of thing in any way acceptable, but is clear that consensus is to restore these edits. I can't see my way to being the agent of restoring this to public visibility, so somebody should go ahead and do it. RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone finds it acceptable. It's a common slur that doesn't rise to the level of deleting 150+130+ revisions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That is my point earlier. The number of revisions weighs into the decision when the edit in question isn't absolutely dreadful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith, this might be "too little, too late" but I agree with your action. It is completely inappropriate content. I don't know whether or not I, as an admin, would revision delete it though which is why I didn't weigh in earlier. If that seems contradictory, well, that's me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is arguing that it was an appropriate or acceptable thing to say. Rather, people are arguing that it is run-of-the-mill offensiveness that does not require over 130 diffs to be literally expunged from the page history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've undone the revdel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

A current RFC with potentially unlimited scope

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

---

I would like some admin(s) to have a look whether this RFC [20] is compliant with policy. The intent is to standardize climate change coverage within every article about any specific weather event (which would include a potentially unlimited number of articles, since weather keeps happening). But can one ordinary RFC actually do that? Shouldn't that require drafting and approval a new MEDRS-style guideline with massive community-wide input? I thought normal RFCs were for specific aspects of a small number of articles and understood not to have potentially infinite scope and duration. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Deleting valid information rather than editing it

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

---

Ok, so this is a very tricky one. I inputted my work into a Wikipedia page Theanine, which was lacking in some pertinent information. I still do not understand why an editor Zefr that employs these excuses "Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance," should outright delete my work. I am very new to Wikipedia so if this is the wrong page to address this issue, please feel free to redirect me to the correct place. Note --> This page has been suffering from content removal for a while, and I would appreciate a valid explanation. Also, feel free to verify my information, and correctly cite it for me!

Extra Information can be useful [the sources are in a previous version of the article itself]

Since this information no longer exists in the current Theanine page, people no longer can find this information on an encyclopedia page of Theanine. This information can be beneficial for people who need to understand how it works... why it does what it does. Theanine is a chemical that impacts the human physiology, and there is no area within the current forum that tells people how or why. Yes, this is not basic information, but if people want to understand what theanine does, maybe it has pertinence?

I delivered this feedback to the user/editor who disagreed with this information [below]: This is simply being addressed to point out how I replied per its removal

"As I have shown, you may look for the info yourself and study those connections. As such, this information is non-bias and I would of appreciated if you were to make it neutral tense without deletion. Since the information is correct, you may verify it yourself before submitting an deletion based on "verifiable source errors." Deleting information rather than correcting or assisting in its correct publicity per your own rules and regulations is morally and intellectually wrong in my opinion"

"Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance?" Because science is about discovery, and confirming clinical significance takes time and replication. Additionally, having an opinionated statement like this may indicate a conflict of interest regarding this page. This is my opinion, and I would like to be proven wrong. But removing "verifiable information" does not help this page or its readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel 020125 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

collapsing large block of disputed article content Left guide (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

In vivo Rodent studies have shown that theanine crosses the blood-brain barrier modulates neurotransmitter levels in the brain. L-theanine increases dopamine (DA) release in the striatum which impacts mood regulation via dopaminergic pathways. Several effects on serotonin (5-HT) vary by brain region and dosage. Some studies found that ingesting L-theanine increases levels of 5-HT in the hippocampus and decreased levels in the cortex. Additionally, L-theanine may reduce stress without sedation which is mostly likely caused by its modulation of GABAergic activity. Neurophysiology In a 2012 mouse study, Di and colleagues demonstrated that L-theanine inhibited the rewarding effects of nicotine. L-theanine lowered nicotine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) to similar levels as the nicotinic receptor inhibitor DHβE which suppressed nicotine-elicited increase in tyrosine hydroxylase (protein enzyme) expression and dopamine production in the midbrain. Also, L-theanine reduced the upregulation of α7, α4, and β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subunits within the mesocorticolimbic system, specifically the ventral tegmental area (VTA), prefrontal cortex, and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Additionally, L-theanine inhibited nicotine-induced c-Fos expression in the mesocorticolimbic system. In November 2014, research suggested that theanine may attenuate nicotine dependence along with nicotinic symptomatic behaviors. Electroencephalographic (EEG) studies have shown that ingestion of theanine increases activity in the alpha frequency band (8–14 Hz). Since alpha waves (Berger's waves) are sensitive to overall attentional states, higher activity may result in enhanced cognition and greater attentional control. In 2009, an intersensory attention experiment found that ingesting 250 mg of L-theanine may amplify intersensory perception as parieto-occipital alpha power (8–13 Hz) increases during cue processing. However, a subsequent study conducted in 2021 found that 250 mg of L-theanine did not significantly enhance the differential effects of attention. L-theanine instead produced a pronounced reduction in overall tonic alpha activity (tonic inhibtion). Previous EEG studies have demonstrated that lower alpha power (alpha desynchronization) reduces the overall neuronal activity in the default mode network (DMN). As such, an ingestion of L-theanine causes tonic inhibition which may cause the DMN to switch from a resting state to a task-positive state, thereby increasing arousal. Theanine crosses the blood brain barrier (BBB), via sodium-coupled amino acid transporters, reaching the brain approximately 30-60 minutes after oral ingestion. In humans, theanine has a bioavailability of 47–54% (capsules or tea) and can reach up to 72-74% if it is erythrocyte-bounded (plasma protein binding). This binding can be represented by the reversible equilibrium: Protein + Theanine ⇌ Protein–Theanine Complex Therefore, theanine reversibly binds with plasma proteins which affects its distribution and half-life. Daniel 020125 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Daniel 020125, why did you think this content dispute needed the attention of administrators of the community? Content discussion belong on the article talk page, not WP:AN. If, in the future, you have questions about Wikipedia, you should bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok that is good to know. I will use the Teahouse in the future. Since this is already here, I would like to readdress the problem into the entire pages management itself. The theanine page might benefit from more information, so I just did not understand why he outright deleted more than one section that others have tried to put in. Power abuse is what I think this problem represents. If he were to edit it by adding the sources [he can do this], I would commend and appreciate his effort to help the page itself. Daniel 020125 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, Daniel 020125, if you have a question about an editor's action, you don't come to a noticeboard, you go to their User talk page and, you know, ask them and discuss the situation. I recommend you try that first. Noticeboards are where an editor comes when every other effort at Dispute Resolution has been unsuccessful. But you don't start here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Non-notable journal?

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

---

Studies in the history of biology (journal) - edited, ref and links added to databases and independent sources. Is it OK now? Ivtorov (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter for WP:AN. As the article has been tagged with a WP:PROD tag, if you believe that it has been improved then you are free to remove it. CoconutOctopus talk 10:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible disruptive editing by SpaceHelmetX1

I've been in ongoing disputes with @SpaceHelmetX1 on two articles: Silverchair and Anne's Song. The latter seems to be under control, as I took our issue to the talk page, and when that did little to change anything, I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment.

On Anne's Song, there was a genre dispute that was taken to the talk page. Most recently, they added a genre which fails WP:EXPLICITGENRE, so I reverted it, only for them to say: "take this to the talk page before you get blocked." First of all, I reverted once, that's not breaking the three revert rule. Secondly, I already told them on the talk page the genre was not explicit before making my edit.

I also saw two contradicting edits by them that may fall under WP:TE. On Enjoy Incubus, they made this edit adding an unsourced genre, while on Hate to Feel, they made this edit removing a genre for being unsourced. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

An account with a single purpose: genre warring. It seems they've created their account to make only genre changes to album's articles. They don't take kindly to being contradicted. When you point out they're wrong, they quickly deny your reversal, ignoring what WP:BRD says. IMO, per my experience here, only their block is functional in this case. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations. I've made substational additions to Concrete Blonde (album), Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song), Dream Into It, Don't Need a Gun, INXS (album) and Plush (song).and created the articles Under the Blade (song) and No Way Out (Stone Temple Pilots song). I've only reverted your edits for disagreeing with your reasoning for me being wrong, and explained so in the edits. I've also been more than open to discussing disputes on talk pages CleoCat16 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Let other editors see your edit history to see if I've made any false accusations. You've already been alerted by @FlightTime. Your articles may be deleted at any time. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither of us have an unbiased view on this situation. I brought this to the administrators attention for a reason, and would prefer to wait for what they have to say. CleoCat16 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm so excited to see what they have to say about you. You've already been warned by @FlightTime. I'd love to hear his opinion about your edit history. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)