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)

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371	372	373
Incidents (archives, search)
1176	1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184	1185
1186	1187	1188	1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194	1195
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
488	489	490	491	492	493	494	495	496	497
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	66	66
TfD	1	6	7
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	12	13
RfD	0	10	10
AfD	0	2	2

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)[reply]

Just to provide a bit more context, the topic ban was imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1152#NoonIcarus and "Failed verification" in April 2024 and, ironically, User:WMrapids, the editor who instigated this review of NoonIcarus, was blocked a month later at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies so they do not require notification of this topic ban appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I regularly came across NoonIcarus on South American election articles and they were one of the most persistent POV-pushers I saw on any set of election articles. The topic ban was well overdue and really should have been implemented years earlier. I am not convinced that this behaviour would not return, and I don't see their absence from the topic sphere as a great loss. Number 5 7 22:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. If you encounter sources in the future that meet our normal reliability standards but that you have concerns about from an ideological perspective how would you handle this situation? Simonm223 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Simonm223: Thank you for your question. Sources that meet reliability standards, as established in WP:RS/P or newspapers of record, should not be removed. Besides reliability, the remaining important aspect is due weight, and reliable sources reflect a mainstream point of view, so that usually isn't a problem.

An ideological perspective can be addressed with attribution and neutral wording, where MOS:WTW is a good guideline. If there's a point of view that is not reflected, I would seek to provide content backed by an equally reliable source, but only provided it is also a mainstream point of view. Last but not least, discussing these differences with the editors always helps. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weak support - That TBAN should have been partially lifted. Stopping Noon from editing unrelated areas would be cumbersome. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote of confidence. If it helps, I should add that there's still an interaction ban between WMrapids and I placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies, meaning that I currently can't edit in articles that they edited or created subject to the dispute even if the TBAN is lifted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Pinging this to reset the archive clock in hopes of further discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

There is some dissatisfaction with what happened but insufficient consensus here to overturn (or force modifications to) the closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Notified: Special:Diff/1300487471

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

Closer (slakr)

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

Non-participants (NSONG)

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

Endorse. Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. Seeing the discussion at hand in the context of broader, higher-level consensus (especially as documentet in our policies and guidelines) is an important part of the closer's job, and I think the closer of this discussion handled it well. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. That's not my complaint. My complaint is that the closer didn't address an entire side of the debate. Closers are required to accurately summarize the discussion, weigh between the arguments, and evaluate consensus. Merely reiterating what one side said, asserting that there's consensus for that side, and not evaluating counterarguments reads more like a super vote than a neutral close. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that this discussion involves a potentially major change to the notability guidelines. I would expect a closer to very clearly explain why one side has consensus, not just assert that it does. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get what you mean. I just wasn't being clear enough. What I meant to say is that some aspect not being covered in the closing statement does not mean that the closer did not weigh that aspect appropriately. While we may wish slakr had dedicated some words to describing the other viewpoints in their own terms, we cannot from that conclude that they did not understand and consider them, that is, that the substantive result of the discussion, "rough consensus for Option 1", was wrong. That's not to say an omission cannot be indicative of a problem, but I personally do not see that being the case here, right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I see a pretty strong consensus that an SNG such as NSONG should not override the GNG. As noted in the discussion, this was settled at a 2017 RFC. WP:SIGCOV is also pretty direct in saying a topic (which in this case would be a song) "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for it to count as significant coverage. I realize the closer suggested you come here, but I really don't understand what more you're looking for. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what more you're looking for I think my statement is pretty clear. What part do you not understand? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 RfC you're citing is about NSPORTS and the opposite issue of too-loose SNGs eliminating the need for SIGCOV. The issue in this RfC was primarily about WP:NOPAGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC also ended in no consensus, which is clearly how this one should have closed given the significant diverging views about whether we should have articles for every song that gets SIGCOV vs. covering those songs in album articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants (NSONG)

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

Discussion (NSONG)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will opine that I think having SNGs being more restrictive than GNG is a slope we really don't want to start tobogganing down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was arguing for that though. The disputed guidance is about inherited notability and when not to split content. That's yet another reason why this close is flawed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: At least from my perspective, if the only sources are album reviews, then the song should be covered in the album article, rather than its own article. That's because notability is not inherited and for almost every album, it best serves our readers to have a single article that goes over the whole album. I think the guideline has reflected that consensus for a while; the opposing side here was not endorsing some kind of policy-violating LOCALCON outcome. But, if you and others want to deal with a dozen different fan-crufty articles that survey two or three reviews that each devote a sentence to a song for every single album article on Wikipedia, have fun with that. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that just because a topic is notable doesn't mean we have to have a separate article on it. However, if a review would otherwise count toward the GNG, there's no reason for an identical review within a longer piece on the whole album suddenly disqualifies it. That is why I personally went for Option 1.

I think you have also misread the crux of my comment here: Option 2 and Option 3 would have been perfectly valid outcomes of this RfC, if that had been the consensus of participants. The close seems to argue that regardless of the arguments made, Options 2 and 3 were invalid from the start. This implies that the closer believes these Options 2 and 3 would violate LOCALCON. That argument is wrong, as SNGs can be stricter than the GNG; there simply wasn't consensus for that in this RfC. (The close doesn't explicitly say this; instead, the close pushes this line of argumentation onto "Multiple comments" and, as you pointed out, does not address counterarguments.)
I think we agree that the second and third paragraphs of the closing statement are poorly phrased. I believe that if the closer had worded them more carefully, we would not be here. Toadspike [Talk] 16:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf said it best: [8]. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did misunderstand your point about LOCALCON. Thank you for clarifying. I'm not willing to do that much work adding reasoning to a close that's not there for a closer whose response to a close challenge is "ask another admin to change my close" and who seemingly doesn't know that close reviews are a thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: You've made it abundantly clear that you're intensely dissatisfied with either my work on this, the outcome, or both, but I genuinely don't know what more to say to a colleague acting this way in response to my only two—ever—interactions with you on this ([9][10]), both of which I feel were lighthearted, straightforward, and accommodating to give you numerous options for achieving the end you so clearly desire (including just asking other admins to amend the close informally); you picked this format.
Yet, after all of that, if you're now not willing to put in any work to propose specific alterations yourself, and no other uninvolved admin has taken my offer to amend the close (a week later), what more is there to do here? How much additional volunteer time are you requesting from others on this?
--slakr^\ talk / 18:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the method the community has adopted for reviewing a close that somebody has challenged, not admins informally modifying other editors' closes. Generally speaking, if someone had come to me and said "I disagree with your close and think you missed some arguments," I'd either amend the close to reflect my reasoning and address those arguments. Or, if I thought I already had addressed those arguments, I would say so. I would not not address what the other editor had said and tell them to try something else before trying to resolve the issue on my own. I've also already said what I think should be the outcome here: no consensus. It's not my job to draft a new close. That's not how close challenges work. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure what I've said to offend you, but I'm sorry that I have. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Not offended; legitimately trying to exhaust all options for you. Let's see if I can help strictly via your desired approach. You want to go by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. It says
You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument"
... and recommends you consider using this format:
The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X never intended to apply to issues such as this
. In contrast, your initial complaint in this close was that I wasn't exhaustive enough in describing all points of view. So let's try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE's approach instead:
What was the issue I was to decide? (Yes, obviously people can read the diffs, but let's try it this way).

Which policy/guideline(s) did I apply?

Which policy/guideline(s) should have been taken more into account?

Which policy/guideline(s) was never intended to apply to issues such as this?

--slakr^\ talk / 21:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That format would make sense if the dispute here was over, e.g., whether a given source should be used in an article, with some editors calling it due and others undue for inclusion. This RfC was about changing a guideline, and I think the error in this close is more fundamental than failing to properly weigh between arguments about application of a policy: as noted, I believe that your close did not adequately account for an entire side of the dispute, and thus did not adequately weigh the strength of the arguments between the two sides. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the grounds for a close review is "if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Then what was a reasonable summation of the discussion? Again, post it here, and if people agree, then we'll update it. Just because you were involved in the discussion doesn't mean it's impossible for you to formulate a neutral close, after all.

If you're going to criticize someone's work, then you should be willing to suggest the alternative to replace it.

--slakr^\ talk / 00:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my position has been stated quite clearly. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a comment, which maybe is more relevant to a subsequent RFC about the next round of administrator election. I would suggest that the Discussion phase be renamed the Questions phase. The instructions to keep discussion neutral mean that there is relatively little discussion, because most of the comments that can reasonably be made will be either positive or negative. I understand that the discussion is to be neutral so that this is not a drama like a traditional RFA. However, most of the work of this phase is the questions by editors and answers by candidates, which are extremely useful. Keep the rule, but rename the phsse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmasthala mass burials

Dharmasthala mass burials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Just a note, the link you have provided is on Dharmasthala Temple, not the article in your title, which appears to be fine. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Just to check – you think we should move the article to Dharsmasthala Temple mass burials? I named it without temple because of these:

This article calls it the Dharmasthala mass burial case

The articles generally say things like the person, who claims to have buried many persons who were murdered and raped in Dharmastala,

Not opposed to it being changed (the complainant worked for the temple) but sources seem to describe it as relating to the town, and the bodies were buried along a river in the town (which I don't think is in the temple). If you want to move it though I don't have any strong feelings – I just went with what made sense. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Black Kite is talking about the article's name. I think he's pointing out that you've linked to two different articles, which I gather was your intention, but I think you may have forgotten a sentence before "On the other article", as it took me several reads to understand that what you're saying is: You've created Dharmasthala mass burials, which you think is up to snuff, but other editors are making problematic edits at Dharmasthala Temple, which could use some admin attention. Is that correct? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh I see. My bad, Tamzin – you're got the right of it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Google Docs links in that linked diff; share.google is a new URL shortener by Google (see this reddit post for more information), and they should be replaced with the true URL, or blacklisted if abuse occurs. OutsideNormality (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure am collecting idiot points by the handful today. Thanks for letting me know — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some days it do be that way - and to be fair, it looks like a "Google source". URL shorteners are a plague, both for that reason and for the fact that if you obsfucate the link you're actually going to, you have no way of knowing if the 'shortened' link is actually pointing to a bad actor until it's too late. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should've definitely just clicked it! Something for me to bear in mind in future rather than assuming the worst! But yes share.google is a very sus abbreviation. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better at least than the pure-random-alphanumeric-string URLs that Google uses for Google Ads(?) on some pages! Don't be evil is long gone, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have globally blacklisted share.google, since the policy on Meta for a long time has been to blacklist URL shorteners on sight. No comment on the rest of this sprawling mess. (Edit: it looks like Beetstra beat me to the same idea). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Time to Internet Archive, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wikipedia be caught in this considering the fact that we would have info from deleted sources? 2A04:7F80:67:1C1D:C8E6:1AE:1DB5:E341 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. It would make it harder to WP:V the information, especially if the sources aren't Internet Archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal regarding my topic ban from Aristides de Sousa Mendes and related topics

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

The appeal is closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNSUCCESSFUL

Clear consensus not to overturn the topic ban. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Now in April 2025, in the middle of civil discussions I was having with these sockpuppet accounts, another editor — 100.36.106.199 — made four rapid repetitive deletions of sourced content from the article Sousa Mendes, without using the Talk page. [11], [12], [13], [14]. While such behavior is considered disruptive edit warring under Wikipedia guidelines, no warning or sanction was issued in this case. Thinking this was an IP engaging in disruptive editing, I requested article's page protection. But the editor 100.36.106.199, in turn, filed a complaint against me, which resulted in my topic ban.

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

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

Consequences of my ban

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

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

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

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

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

Academic consensus and historiographical nuance

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

Historian Thomas Gerard Gallagher says:

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

— Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die

Costa Leite emphasizes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Diogo Ramada Curto, O desconhecido Veiga Simões, Expresso, 5 November 2017 [[15]]

Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram states:

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

Historian Neill Lochery similarly concludes that:

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

Final remarks

1) Cullen328, my main accuser claimed that I never wrote anything negative about Salazar. That is inaccurate. When discussing whether Salazar should be called a dictator or statesman, I supported calling him a dictator. (see:[16]) When others tried to label him as fascist, I also did not oppose but instead listed reliable sources on both sides of the scholarly debate. I always respected WP:NPOV and never deleted properly sourced content.
2) Cullen328, also claimed that I never wrote anything positve on Sousa Mendes, also not accurate. Here is an example. [17]
3) Cullen328 seems to have forgotten that it was I that took the initiative, back in 2013, to reach out to him and asked him to review my editing, showing the will to follow Wikipedia policies (see here: [18].)
4) I was wrongly accused of being a Civil PoV Pusher. I recognize the importance of identifying and addressing editors who engage in civil POV-pushing — that is, those who maintain a tone of civility while persistently biasing content to reflect a personal or ideological agenda. However, I respectfully submit that this label does not apply to my editing history. Over more than a decade, I have created over 20 articles from scratch and contributed to dozens of others, including Battle of Aljubarrota, Sain Francis Xavier, Spanish dictator Francisco Franco article, where I was one of the main contributors. I do not shy away from controversial subjects — on the contrary, I actively seek to improve them — but I do so by consistently adding reliable academic sources, engaging on Talk pages, and avoiding the deletion of properly sourced content, even when I might disagree with it. In the case of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, the article I was banned from editing, the starting version was shaped by advocacy groups and reflected a hagiographic tone, lacking scholarly balance. The academic literature on Sousa Mendes presents a more nuanced, and at times critical, view — not an attack, but a contextualization of his actions, legacy, and relationship with the regime. My edits aimed to reflect that academic consensus, not to discredit or promote any figure. I worked to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s core principles: verifiability, neutrality, and the use of reliable sources. Moreover, I was the editor who detected and reported the coordinated activity of multiple accounts now confirmed as sockpuppets — accounts that truly did engage in ideologically driven and unsourced editing. I believe my contributions reflect an effort to raise the standard of Wikipedia’s coverage, not push a personal agenda.
5) Since my ban, the Aristides de Sousa Mendes article has been rewritten primarily by confirmed sockpuppet accounts, with a notable decline in academic rigor and neutrality and with the whole bibliography deleted. While multiple editors participated in the discussion that led to the topic ban — including comments from accounts now confirmed as sockpuppets — the decision ultimately rested with Cullen328. I do not question his good intentions, but I believe his judgment in this case was unfair. He acknowledged not having expertise in Portuguese history, and that he lacked time to fully analyze the article. He had not actively engaged with the topic or its Talk page in over a decade. Since the ban, he has also shown no interest in the article’s trajectory — even after over 20,000 characters of reliably sourced content were removed. I say this not as a personal criticism, but as a structural concern: topic bans must be based on careful content evaluation and awareness of prior editing context. In this case, unfortunately, a well-meaning administrator made a quick call on a complex issue, based on a perception that I was "attacking a hero" rather than engaging with well-documented academic nuance.
6) While the popular narrative surrounding Aristides de Sousa Mendes often casts him as a lone hero defying a tyrannical regime, this portrayal has been significantly challenged by a wide range of academic and diplomatic voices. Historians such as Tom Gallagher, Avraham Milgram, Joaquim da Costa Leite, Diogo Ramada Curto, Lina Maria Madeira, and Neill Lochery have all called for a more nuanced and evidence-based account. Their work demonstrates that many of the central claims promoted by advocacy groups — including the notion that Sousa Mendes acted in direct defiance of government policy, or that he died in poverty and disgrace — are not supported by archival documentation. These scholars are joined by prominent diplomats such as João Hall Themido, Carlos Fernandes, and Calvet de Magalhães, as well as by the late José Hermano Saraiva, who publicly questioned the narrative of Sousa Mendes as a singular opposition figure. This diversity of perspectives reflects not marginal dissent but a significant scholarly consensus that the story, as often told, is overly simplified and at times factually incorrect. Wikipedia, committed to neutrality and verifiability, should reflect this complexity.

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

I don't know if you're correct about the historiography of Sousa Mendes or not. What I do know is that massive walls of text and perseverating on the underlying content dispute are liable to get you indef'd rather than result in your topic ban being lifted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed. This does nothing succinctly, and it especially does not succinctly explain what led to the ban or what will be different moving forward. One major omission: a link to the community TBAN discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's a community topic ban, first proposed by Cullen328 but still a community CBAN and J Pratas is treating this like something imposed by Cullen328 suggests that at a minimum J Pratas still has very poor understanding of basic Wikipedia processes. Disappointing for someone with such a long tenure but even more so for someone sanctioned under those processes and now appealing such. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be considered good that an editor isn't experienced in being sanctioned, not bad... 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said an editor should be experienced in being sanctioned. However like it or not, understanding how or community processes work is something that generally matters. Perhaps it could be argued for a pure content editor who somehow never gets involved in content disputes, it doesn't matter, but this is not the case for JPratas who was in several disputes with editors. E.g. [19] [20] [21]. And according to their very own opening comment they were editing in an area heavily affected by sockpuppets and they had an active role in reporting these sockpuppets. But anyway, even if we say it doesn't matter that JPratas had no idea how community processes work on Wikipedia before they were sanctioned, the onus was on them to learn how they work before making an appeal. (Frankly I'd argue the onus was on them during the community discussion which lead to them being sanctioned.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and 100% opposed, and I'm seriously considering a WP:BOOMERANG may be needed here, as this WP:WALLOFTEXT demonstrates that absolutely nothing has been learned from the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I stand by my assessment in the discussion that led to the topic ban that JPratas is a sophisticated, well-educated civil POV pusher willing to spend 12 years doing your (their) very best to portray Sousa Mendes in the poorest possible light. The editor is also either incapable or unwilling to write concisely, and seems to think that more wordiness is better when it comes to an appeal. I disagree with that notion. If I was incorrect when I supposedly said that 100% of their edits about Sousa Mendes were negative when the figure was more accurately 99% plus, and they once added that an Airbus was named after Sousa Mendes 60 years after his death, then I apologize for the mild exaggeration. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When JPratas acknowledged that Salazar was a dictator, that was in the context of spouting a series of cherrypicked pro-Salazar quotations, such as a 1940 Life magazine article calling him a benevolent ruler and by far the world's best dictator. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Additional Opposing Comments

I see that this request has already been closed out, but would like to pile on a few details. I looked up the history because I handled a dispute at DRN concerning Aristides de Sousa Mendes . First, two wrongs don't make a right. There were conduct violations by both "sides". JPratas is right that there was sockpuppetry involved in the support for Sousa Mendes. The POV-pushing by JPratas began more than a decade before the sockpuppetry. But, second, there was an RFC in which good-standing editors took part that inserted language that JPratas had tried to keep out of the article. See [22]. Third, as mentioned above by Firefangledfeathers and Nil Einne, it is incorrect to say that Cullen imposed the ban. It was a community ban, proposed by Cullen, in which the closure was by The Bushranger. Fourth, in case anyone is interested, the DRN might as well be considered void, because JPratas did not participate, and the two editors who did participate have been blocked as sockpuppets. It was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_255#Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes. But it resulted in the RFC, which was a valid RFC. Fifth, it is usual for an editor who has been indefinitely banned or topic-banned to wait six months, not two months, to request lifting of the ban. There was a mention of a boomerang in the closed discussion, and I will suggest that this thread be a warning to JPratas not to waste the time of the community. Sixth, I knew that Cullen could not have unilaterally topic-banned JPratas, because The Holocaust is not a contentious topic except in Eastern Europe. Maybe The Holocaust should be a contentious topic in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove Speedy Deletion tag multiple times!

Ali Tajdari was improperly moved from AfD to main-space without proper review or acceptance. See Special:Diff/1301387057. The IMDb is fake. Non of the films are real and he doesn't act in any of that! You can't find even a single sequence on any platforms. Please delete this article and protect to create. 1.47.136.205 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1.47.136.205: You might have a point that the article shouldn't exist. But, you cannot repeatedly tag an article with G11 when it has been declined. C.Fred already declined speedy deletion under G11 for the reasons in their edit summary, so I have just re-removed the tag to enforce that.

For everyone else, there does seem to be potential problems here, including the edit that moved this back to the mainspace and comments left on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there potential problems with the article? Yes, potentially. However, that would require reviewing the sources to see if they support the claims in the article. In the immediate term, the article is not so severely promotional to warrant deletion under CSD G11.

That said, looking at the allegations on the talk page, I don't see where any of the nominations have been made in bad faith, nor am I inclined to (yet) ascribe bad faith to any of the pro-article editors on the page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the talk page comments was that the one user accusing others of bad faith editing. (On a separate note, Cactusisme is getting asked to resolve this.) Edit: Ah, they made an edit where they drafted the article a second time. That is why they are being asked now. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC) (Amended on 03:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I will wait for an admin to resolve. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 01:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I haven't made it to the entertainment side of the biography, but in the sport side, a lot of the dates have been wrong. However, this also involves translation from Iranian SH dates, so I'm giving the editors some grace that it was an honest mistake. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred @Super Goku V there are no any RS. The article clearly not meet GNG, NMMA and NACTOR. Any of Persian language Wikipedians can confirm it. 1.47.136.205 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then a registered, logged-in individual can nominate the article for deletion. See WP:AFDHOWTO. Speedy deletion is only for obvious issues that don’t need any discussion. This does. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can fine, there are two reliable sources in English regarding the person, but I would say that things are very shakey even with them. ~~At the same time, I have a concern that myself nominating the article for deletion would fall afoul of something like TAGTEAM now due to getting involved with this.~~ Resolved by Fram. (But the article also can't stay like it is, so I guess I will try to do a pass on cleaning up the issues that I believe I might be able to resolve.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC) (Amended on 19:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)')[reply]

Request to create page List of Minecraft servers

This is a request to create a redirect at List of Minecraft servers to redirect to Minecraft server#List. It is currently blocked because of the rule ".*minecraft (?:server|download).*". Tarna652 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created. That said, I'm skeptical the target section is a good idea; it seems too much against WP:NOTDIR for my taste. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because not everything in that list has its own article yet. What do you think would be a better? Tarna652 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the section, it is designed to just be notable servers and half of the list appears to have individual articles. It also looks like there have been attempts on the talk page to keep the list notable only. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made certain edits to that article consistent with WP:CSC. It is unlikely that this list will be removed as it suffices to improve it by removing the bad entries, as I have done, and in this compliant version it is relevant in the article. As a result, the "List of Minecraft servers" redirect should be taken to be a normal redirect. —Alalch E. 01:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's weird...

Hopefully this doesn't break anything ... voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

...is anyone else seeing the difference in the closure boxes' size on here (bottom) vs. on ANI/how it should be (top)? The bizzare thing is when I edit a section and hit 'preview', the closure box shows the correct size! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked in the history, it starts doing that in this diff. All diffs prior to it have the closure description boxes in the "correct" size. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if I hit 'undo' on that bot archiving edit and then preview, they show correct. Previewing the entire page here, as it is, shows the "broad" boxes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Apparently it was something to do with this closure using a non-standard box as the first closed section on the page that was causing it, replacing the coding wiith the standard {{atop}}/{{abot}} fixed it. Very weird. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

July 23–29 – Voting phase
July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

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

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

requesting an uninvolved admin close a talk page discussion

Please post at WP:CR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

At Talk:2024 United States presidential election there is a discussion titled "Trump's infobox picture" that would benefit from a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to create protected article

Not a matter for AN. Please use AfC to create the draft. Star Mississippi 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to create protected article "Ayaz Sheikh"

Respected admins, I would like to request the creation of the page Ayaz Sheikh or Ayaz Sheikh (Pakistani artist), which is currently blacklisted due to previous multiple failed attempts.

I have a properly written, neutral, and sourced draft ready. The subject is a verified Pakistani singer and OST artist featured in Dunya News, The News International, HUM TV, and has a Wikipedia Urdu page as well.

Please guide or assist in creation. Thank you 39.34.132.61 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account and create the article in your sandbox. If it gets accepted by the AfC reviewers, they would move the draft to the right place. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you tried to create this article before under a different account? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP editor posted their draft article on AN below this request. I have removed it as not appropriate for this board. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@39.34.132.61 The sources you provided are all PR pieces (some of them being blatant AI slop) and do not confer notability. If you try to create this article through the AfC process, it would likely be declined. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting close of an ARBPIA merge discussion

CLOSED

Closed by Sandstein. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Proposed merge is now the oldest open merge proposal at over nine months, and there have been no new comments in a month. Note that some of the participants have since been topic banned or indefinitely blocked as a result of WP:ARBPIA5. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some of the participants have since been topic banned or indefinitely blocked as a result of WP:ARBPIA5. - this shouldn't matter, if they commented before their ban/block, their comment should still count now. Unless these were sockpuppet accounts, then it would matter. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the discussion. Sandstein 17:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal for article creation ban removal

No consensus to overturn or narrow the ban. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. I would like to propose my article creation ban to be removed. It's been over 6 months, and I've learned my lesson. I will no longer create poorly sourced new articles. Hopefully you can forgive me for my bad behavior. I am truly sorry for what I've done. I will never continue this mistake. Best regards. --Pek (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly forgive, but you are going to need to do better than this statement- you need to show us that you understand the issues that led to the ban and will not repeat them. This should include some examples of properly sourced edits that you have made. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pek, can you provide examples of poorly sourced articles which you've improved with better sources? If so, please provide diffs. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue, the sources I used were either blogs, or some other poor quality sources, when I had no better alternatives. I will not repeat them. If I won't find good sources for an article, I will simply not make that article. Here are some examples of my properly sourced edits: League of Legends, Lebanon, Bougainville Island, Internet in Finland, Ecosia, AVG Technologies, Huawei and Breast implant illness. Best regards. --Pek (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To provide history for other commenters, you agreed to a voluntary six month ban from creating new articles in August 2023 as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#User:Pek repeatedly creating poor quality stubs, where you were essentially told it was either that or a CBAN. After that voluntary ban expired, you were indefinitely banned in November 2024 as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry, because you immediately returned to the problematic behavior.

As I noted at the second discussion: I would strongly oppose any time-limited ban, given Pek's previous history of simply waiting out the duration of the ban and then returning to creating articles with no change in behavior. Unfortunately, I think that is what we are dealing with here. You’ve made about 50 articlespace edits in the eight months since your ban was imposed. At one point you asked for "special permission" to create an article on a web browser despite your ban, proposing three sources of the same poor quality as you've used in the past to create problematic articles: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201#Special permission to create an article.

My suggestion: spend a good period of time making substantial, high-quality edits to existing articles. If that goes well, perhaps we could consider a trial in which you would be permitted to work on a single new article at a time in draftspace. But at this point in time, I would oppose any changes to the ban. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Agree with Gorilla here. Show me a longer history, than 50 mainspace edits, without incident. I wasn't particularly impressed with the edit at Special:Diff/1281884062 where Pek added content and at the same time added a citation needed tag for the content that they added. TarnishedPath^talk 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful that removing the ban would end well. But if we were going to do this, I'd suggest a trial period (e.g., a maximum of one article per month for the next year) and special requirements along these lines:

that all articles be created in a User: sandbox and remain there until approved (any admin? NPP? AFC?),
that all articles exceed the median in length (>350 words, as measured by the prosesize gadget), and
that all articles exceed the median number of cited sources (>4 sources).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make this idea more specific, in line with restrictions like Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#FloridaArmy:

Pek is prohibited from creating new articles in mainspace. Any new articles must first go through the Articles for Creation process.
Topic ban: The community restricts Pek to no more than 1 pending Articles for Creation submissions at any time. Their existing restriction on mainspace article creation is still in effect.
Any article creation must be at least 300 words in length and must be fully cited to at least three reliable sources. (Commentary: Numbers here may be adjusted)

I'm inclined to give some WP:ROPE here. The AfC process is good at preventing low-quality articles from entering mainspace, so the potential for harm is minimal. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removal of a political party with ballot access by partisan users

We The People Party has ballot access in several states. When I tried to make a basic entry - they get undone for political reasons. Neutrality is key to Wikipedia. Is there a way to address this. Thanks! StabbyStaby (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Please assume good faith and do not assign motivations to editors unless you have direct evidence. US politics is a formally designated contentious topic, please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case the editor is making unsourced additions at We the People Party that have been reverted for lacking citations. The solution to their problem is simple: use reliable citations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in previous edits many links and sources are mentioned. They were removed multiple times. This is creating an impossible standard. When links are added to official pages with legal ballot access - they are called spam by random users, who then request a softblock. When they are not included and only internal links are used it is said they are not properly sourced.

Can nobody take 1 min and just make sure this is done correctly please? Or make specific suggestions of where sourcing is needed. I have no problem helping. The main site I included in the info box has ballot map for multiple states with official links to the state party websites. What else is needed?

Much smaller parties half or a 7th the size are on Wikipedia with very similar sourcing. There are hundreds of articles, videos, official Secretary of State websites. What else can be needed? StabbyStaby (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a bit of a mistake on your part because the party does, in fact, have a page. What you're being told is that to make the changes you want to make to the page, those changes, in specific, require citations, preferably from independent secondary sources. So the answer to the question of what needs citations is clear: the edits of yours which were reverted require citations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is very old. It's clearly written incorrectly. None of the basic concepts of the party, beliefs, systems or leadership are mentioned. It needs updated. Anyone who reads this will be misinformed.

Except for an only RFK reference who cant even legally interact with the party due to the Hatch Act which I cited.

There is a page true, but no listing under minor political parties. Which multi-state ballot access more than qualifies for.

I will say you guys are ontop of it as far as responding! StabbyStaby (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. However I figured you would check the page and see the most recent UNDO was publicly stated partisan reasons "Another SPA trying to pretend that a web page blogging Jr.'s Make Amercia Crazy Again is an encyclopedia-worthy political party."

The same comment was made on the listing of America Minor parties.

Here is that entry: 14:02, 25 July 2025 M.boli talk contribs 100,966 bytes −1,605 Undid revision 1302448925 by StabbyStaby (talk) Rv wishful thinking by an SPA pretending a Make America Crazy Again blog is a notable political party.

Are these edits to be should expected on wikipedia? They show heavy bias. StabbyStaby (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StabbyStaby, I did the last revert [23] as unreferenced. I then left you a Welcome message that incorporates the need for referencing. Knitsey (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message but I don't get why you guys keep saying verifiability policy violated, or no sources or whatever. It's very easy just google the name, check any of the links, its literally registered with the government all over the country with hundreds of thousands of signatures.

What does it take to be verified? Nobody can find a sentence that needs referenced. Your acting like something that is in voter pamphlets and on hundreds of thousands of ballots is a fantasy. I will reference anything you need sourced. But I can't do that if nobody will point out what needs sourced.

Does nobody update the list of minor parties? It's been over a year. StabbyStaby (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to read WP:BURDEN...The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Knitsey (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) StabbyStaby (talk · contribs) is

Confirmed to Starlordy1 (talk · contribs), who is under a username softblock from when their account was named "Wtpnational". Users softblocked in this situation are normally permitted to make a new account conforming with the username policy, but they're not allowed to then continue editing topics where they have an undisclosed conflict of interest. They probably should be part-blocked or topic-banned, but I'm going to leave this for more comments. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a great case for a soft block, and pretty much played out predictably.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name the part that needs sourcing, there's a ton of sources on this party. It's a real thing, if someone else would bother to update it based on what is new over the past year that would be great. StabbyStaby (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every part that has been challenged, and any of your edits that has reverted as unsourced has been challenged, must have a citation to a reliable source. If you are aware of reliable sources that support the content you are trying to add, then include citations with your edits. Otherwise, do not try to re-add content that has been reverted as unsourced. Donald Albury 18:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Edited 18:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but you must disclose if you are affiliated with this organization in any way. Please see paid contribution disclosure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will try and source it again. It's word for word off the websites of multiple state parties as it is which is registered with the Secretary of State. So gov sources usually are accepted.

But I've noticed many have overlooked clearly partisan edits. So the sourcing wont fix it if someone doesn't like MAHA or RFK (even though WTP is its own entity completely) and deletes it solely for that reason as I mentioned and showed evidence of above has already happened 2 times explicitly. StabbyStaby (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's word for word off the websites of multiple state parties This is close paraphrasing or outright copyright violation. Also note that websites of multiple state parties are very likely primary sources which can only be used for simple factual statements and do not serve to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem I'm seeing here is promotional tone. If I can look at the edit and get the impression that you support this party or its ideas, then your edit probably doesn't comply with the requirement that articles are impartial. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StabbyStaby ignored my warning about paid contribution disclosure above and has continued editing the article inappropriately, so I have left a disclosure requirement warning on their talk page. If they continue to ignore, they should be (re-)blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some background for this discussion. I'm an editor who did much of the work on the We the People Party (United States) article during the past year.

Last year there was news coverage of the various state parties which were created to get RFK Jr.'s name on the presidential ballots in individual states. There were also assorted candidates using the same party name (but not party organizations) at various times.

What there wasn't was a national party organization with that name. The new editor is trying to revamp this article to focus on a putative national WTP party. (And sometimes those edits removed the references to the other uses of that party name.)

Regarding the recent edits describing a WTP party:

I think a few days before the Nov election (oddly) somebody registered a We the People Party organization with the Federal Election Commission. (It was hard to ferret out because of the large number of other entities sharing the same name, including PACs and state parties and other WTPs unrelated to the RFK Jr effort.)
It has reported zero income and zero expenditures to the FEC, despite several quarterly report deadlines having past. It doesn't appear on the FEC list of parties for searching.
This entity has received, as near as I can determine, zero coverage in anything resembling a legitimate news outlet.

So absent any news coverage and barely any FEC existence, my attempt to figure out for myself whether the recent edits may potentially have any encyclopedia-worthy reality concluded they don't.

The domain wtpnational.com, registered in January of this year, is a web page that contains a lot of blather about a wonderful political party along with a blog roll of "MAHA" news. This is the one-and-only source, it is primary, and unless and until it receives some news coverage I'm inclined to still believe it is aspirational and not encyclopedia-worthy.

The SPA keeps yapping I am "partisan". I agree my edit summaries were somewhat acid. I wrote those after multiple additions and reversions had occurred. But if I have any partisanship, it is to Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks backlog

Hi folks, the backlog at CAT:RFU is now at over 115 people waiting for response from an administrator (and another 30+ waiting for a response from the blocked editor). Any help much appreciated. If you've previously been annoyed by the fact that you have to respond to these by hand, I can report that User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UnblockReview.js now works most of the time. (You still have to do the actual unblocking by hand.)

While I'm here: can I make a desperate plea to stop no-warning softblocking people for username violations? Please, please, give them a warning so they can attempt a rename under their own power. I know the softblock message says "go ahead and make a new account". Many don't - they request unblock instead, and then get stuck in this backlog for no good reason, sometimes for weeks. Please give them a chance to fix the problem without adding an extra layer of delay and admin busywork. Or at least let them make some dumb promo edits first so you can hardblock and we can read them the riot act. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to knock out a few more today. You've been doing the heavy lifting recently, so thanks for that. It definitely hasn't gone unnoticed! Also, username soft blocks should be used when User:CocaColaCo is productively editing articles such as Golden retriever and Hibiscus and aren't responding to a request to change their name, not when a user named after their company or group is attempting to write content or influence articles on said company or group. Soft blocking in such cases just pushes the problem to another account and obfuscates the extent of the disruption. In my opinion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever, Ponyo. And yes, precisely. The ones that are really driving me crazy are the softblocks for people who haven't edited at all, or only made one or two edits. Their first edits are unblock requests! Waste of everyone's time and not a great newbie experience either. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to all the criticism the unblock review team has received, I've shied off. Lot's of frustrating effort, and life's to short. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been my belief that blocking an account for a promotional username (even if it is a soft block) when the account hasn't edited at all is a violation of the text of the WP:PROMONAME policy, which requires a user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors in order to give a block. Mz7 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, WP:CORPNAME with no edits = warn/discuss. WP:CORPNAME with non promotional edits = warn/discuss or SOFTERBLOCK. WP:CORPNAME with promotional edits = SPAMUBLOCK. Some make SOFTERBLOCKS despite COI/promotional edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see people in that second category blocked only if they keep editing long past a warning, or even long past two warnings. Someone who isn't making overly promo edits is probably actually trying to do things correctly, so a warning has a hope of working out productively with minimal fuss. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get some of these done tonight/tomorrow if I can. Also, some of those username blocks might be my fault - Sorry! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If each admin did one each month, what wonders we would achieve. I did a SOFTERBLOCK. Those are easy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knocked out a couple. I'll try to keep an eye out on the queue on my more active editing days. Star Mississippi 14:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to process a few here and there. I keep getting sucked into checkuser rabbit holes though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kantamanto Market

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

It might be a good idea for an admin or some other experienced users to take a look at Kantamanto Market since it has been edited by several newly created accounts over the past few days. One of these accounts asked about removing "misinformation" on my user talk page, and another then subsequently removed cited content claiming it was "misinformation". I've got no idea whether that's true, but this is a minor article and the accounts seem to have created just for the purpose of editing it. So, I figures more eyes on it might be a good thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marchjuly,

Instead of just pointing us to an article, could you supply some diffs so we know what you are concerned with? You might get a faster response. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that there's a related editathon/workshop. These accounts are mostly listed at the bottom of my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[24] according to the edit summary, is an account removing information. They change sources and info regarding a fire there. 2001:8003:B15F:8000:1CA8:4555:D1E6:34A (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marchjuly, And to add to the reply I was facilitator leading the editathon that made those changes to the various articles including the Kantamanto Market. All the changes were made in good faith and every editor was taken through the Wikipedia editing rules. Unless you are claiming the changed texts are not misinformation can you provide an alternative. Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, Zzuuzz, and Owula kpakpo: I was away for a few days so I apologize for the lateness of my reply. The edit that caught my attention was the one mentioned by the IP above; my apologies for not including a diff for it in my OP. The fact that the article is being edited as part of an editathon according zzuuzz kind of explains all the new accounts. The combination of the post on my user page asking about "misinformation" and then the edit made to the article removing "misinformation", just made me feel someone else perhaps should take a look at things. Since Owula kpakpo seems familiar with the subject matter and also is helping with the editathon, I have no problem deferring to their judgement on the this; however, the content that was removed as "misinformation" was supported by citations to three sources: 1 (archived version), 2, and 3. Is the misinformation because the Wikipedia content didn't use those sources in proper context or because the sources themselves are incorrect or otherwise not reliable? The first sentence "The Or Foundation found that a fire was deliberately set by real estate development firm set fire to part of the market in December 2020." is probably the most contentious claim, but it is what souce #1 says. The other two sources also seem to support the content they are being used as citations for. So, what is exactly the "misinformation" user who removed the content is referring to? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Revision Deletion – Accidental IP disclosure

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I’m requesting a revision deletion to remove my IP address from the page history of a talk page edit I made while accidentally logged out.

Details:

- **Page**: User talk:FieldArchivist - **Revision**: 17:20, 27 July 2025 - **Reason**: I accidentally posted a comment while logged out. This was my own contribution, and I have since reposted it under my username at 17:31. I’m requesting redaction of the earlier revision to protect my privacy.

Thank you for your help. FieldArchivist (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revdelled. For future reference, please see the edit notice and don't post revdel requests on a high-visibility public page like this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

RfC closure review request at Talk:Uğur_Şahin#RfC_about_Turkish_ethnicity_in_first_sentence

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)[reply]

Notified: [25]

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)[reply]

Closer (Fieari)

Non-participants (Uğur Şahin)

Participants (Uğur Şahin)

Discussion (Uğur Şahin)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Zionism/Archive 35#Moratorium proposal and Talk:Zionism/Archive 33#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism

Discussion with closer: {{User talk:Chetsford#c-Chetsford-20250727170000-Zionism RFC appeal}}

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for both

User requesting review: Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: [26]

Reasoning: The lede says that Zionists wanted “as few Arabs as possible”, which is not supported by the sources provided by DancingOwl and other editors who participated in the discussion. The RFC was almost entirely dominated by users subsequently topic banned for behavioral violations (including one editor specifically cited for “selectively boost[ing] sources that agree with their position”). A new RFC should be conducted now that sufficient time has passed for those intimidated away by said users have had safe enough time to resume activity in the topic space. Chetsford has agreed that a substantive review and prudent evaluation of arguments being made by editors should take place, guided by an admin with expertise in the topic area; Chetsford has mentioned having a lack of expertise in the topic area. Since battleground editors crowded the conversation (including two now banned editors), the closing was in contravention of established protocol recently reaffirmed by the Arbitration Committee pertaining to “evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases” (especially when there is a suspicion of off-site coordination, sockpuppetry, & meatpuppetry).

1. Per WP:MORATORIUM, “moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia”. A twelve month moratorium imposed to a highly contentious article within an even more contentious topic space is not only a troubling silencing of discourse and debate, it effectively sides wikipedia with one side of the conflict when there were an abundance of substantive counter-arguments stated in the debate that were drowned out and effectively reduced to a WP:HEADCOUNT against general policy (another trouble item cited in PIA5 proceedings). It should also be pointed out that a 12-month moratorium on this discussion lasts almost the exact amount of time until the banned editors may file first appeal, potentially placing the entire conversation in stasis until sanctioned individuals may potentially resume participation.

2. None of the sources directly (or with evidence) support the statement “wanted a land with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible”. The statement is pure WP:SYNTH and likewise is not in wikivoice. This was procedurally reviewed citation by citation by DancingOwl during the RFP [27]and subsequently ignored without rebuttal. The statement does not specify which “zionists” are being referred to, and derives “want” from pure conjecture and post-conflict analysis by mostly partisan sources. The sentence does not reflect the diversity of scholarly voices presented and it is WP:CHERRYPICK to allow it in the lede. The drive by certain editors to cement this sentence in the lede may reasonably be construed as WP:ADVOCACY.

3. Canvassing and WP Ownership: The aggressive and dominant behavior of the highest contributing editors to this discussion is well established. Most of the participants have been ‘owning’ this article, for a number of months, coinciding with a number of now-exposed off-wiki canvassing operations.

4. WP HEADCOUNT: This complex and deluged discussion should never have been reduced down to a head count, when the section is imbalanced and flooded by one-sided editors. In this case, it cannot come down to numbers, but quality of argument. Again - simply - none of the quotes affirm the clearly stated desires and goals of Zionist leadership, but instead are selected examples from scholarly opinion. A review, citation by citation, of the sources, does not support the sentence as written, plain and simple.

The area needs a new set of editors; the toxicity and incivility in the area has put off neutral editors. As I proposed in the RFC, a Rollback to mid-2023 (to the lede’s last healthy stable draft) may be the best solution to mitigate the impact of all above stated factors so revived editors may re-approach this topic free from the burdens that plagued the previous effort. Also, active care and attention by admins must be taken to avoid domination by battleground editors. This is a joint close challenge of the RFC and moratorium. I am requesting a vacating of the moratorium and re-run of the RFC post-PIA5. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC) }}[reply]

Closer (User:Chetsford)

→ Due to the length of text involving multiple, archived sections, I'm (with two exceptions) providing direct links for ease of reading in lieu of diffs. I aver that each link is an unaltered and accurate representation of comments made as of this datestamp.

On 4 January 2025 I closed an RfC on the initial question. I opened that closing statement by saying "A pulse check done by means of headcounting ,,," before entering into a qualitative evaluation of the RfC per WP:DETCON. As I later explained to the appellant, the invocation of the word "headcounting" was not meant to infer that the decision was based on a headcount (it wasn't) merely that I did make an observation of the quantitative disposition of opinions before closing the RfC based on a qualitative evaluation (as I also explained in the 718-words closing statement). The conclusion was that there was "consensus that the sentence referenced in the OP is compliant with NPOV and should remain in the lead and the body" but that "CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and any decision the community has arrived at here is not etched in stone and may be revisited or adjusted in the future if there's a consensus to do so".

In any case, regardless of my superintendence, the community decided to go ahead and etch it into stone. On 21 February, I closed a second RfC [28] that imposed a one-year moratorium on further discussion of the contentious sentence in the lead. In this case, the consensus was so overwhelming in favor of the moratorium that I didn't even feel the need to engage in a detailed recitation of the arguments (something that, in retrospect, I probably should have done but wouldn't have changed the outcome in any case).

I received the following responses to this on my Talk page:

1. On 23 February, editor 81.108.173.4 requested I "go to hell" followed by a phrase I didn't entirely understand. I liberally construed hell to be a reference to the Arbitration Committee and advised they would need to file a case directly with it (it was my feeling I could not initiate a self-report under WP:ADMINACCT).

2. On 2 March, editor @Toomuchcuriosity: requested a numerical breakdown of opinions in the moratorium RfC.

3. On 20 March, editor Allthemilescombined1 filed a request for reconsideration of sorts; specifically, that (a) "the area needs a new set of editors" and that, (b) I modify the length of the moratorium from one-year to a a 30-60 day 'cool down period' as topic-banned editors, they alleged, had participated in the discussion. On the first point, I explained that RfC closers do not have the authority to conscript editors from other areas of Wikipedia and I could not, therefore, provide the "new set of editors" they wanted me to provide. On the second point, without declining the request for reconsideration, I asked for additional information as to the identities of the topic banned editors, to which Allthemilescombined1 replied "Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I need to think carefully before naming editors, as I found out once before." I next heard from Allthemilescombined1 on...

4. 2 April when they clarified that no topic banned editors participated in the RfC, but that editors who participated in the RfC were subsequently topic-banned (after the RfC closed) and the RfC should be re-adjudicated on this basis. They also seemed to make a request that I invest myself with extraordinary authority given the "special amount of attention" this subject purportedly carried with it, and that I then issue a variety of emergency orders such as a mandate only subject-matter experts close RfCs related to this topic, and so forth. The powers they requested I assume are too long to completely recite, but my response was that:

"In summary, you are asking me to do things I have neither the power nor authority to do. No one has granted me the authority to simply decree a 30-day "cooling down period" because I think it's preferable to what the community decided; to unilaterally modify our policies and guidelines to make topic bans retroactive; to require only subject-matter experts close RfCs, etc. If you would like me to be granted these special powers, you will need to make that request of the WP:WMF's board of trustees."

At this time I advised they might be better served by filing a CLOSECHALLENGE.

5. On 20 July, Allthemilescombined1 filed a further request for reconsideration which, as I interpreted it, was again based on their view that the RfC should be reopened and then reclosed to account for !votes of editors who were not topic banned at the time the RfC was closed but were subsequently. I declined this request for reconsideration as I felt that topic bans take effect at the place and moment of the ban and are not retroactive through time and space. I again suggested they could file a CLOSECHALLENGE.

At various points in this discussion, I did indicate my personal opinion that the one-year moratorium was excessive and ill-advised. To be clear, this was my opinion as an editor and, while I continue to maintain that opinion, it is also clear to me the consensus was overwhelming in favor of such a moratorium and any contrary close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE.

One final item: "Chetsford has agreed that a substantive review and prudent evaluation of arguments being made by editors should take place, guided by an admin with expertise in the topic area" This seems to be an ... innocent misinterpretation ... of this exchange of 8 April 2025 [29]:

Allthemilescombined1:"Generally speaking, do you believe that people closing proceedings in contentious topics should be experts, or at least have some expertise on the nuances of the subjects they are adjudicating on?"

Chetsford: "I have no opinion on this question one way or the other."

Chetsford (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participants (Zionism)

Endorse close The close accurately and fairly summarised the discussion and the close has more than adequately been explained by the closer after the fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close of the initial RfC, overturn close of the moratorium discussion as a bad RfC. Local consensus of WP:MORATORIUM cannot overrule the policy at WP:CCC. If specific editors are engaging in a way that is disruptive, that can be addressed as a conduct issue, which is exactly what's happening below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12 months is very long, are there seriously no avenues for someone to challenge a moratorium? Other than another RfC I guess? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 consensus landing on a 12 months moratorium was a response to the level of disruption. After there being discussion on the sentence for a very very long time, there was an RFC in which the overwelming consensus was that the sentence was policy compliant and that it should stay. The RFC had barely even closed and there was a number of editors trying to relitigate it in a new discussion. Editors had enough and there had to be some sort of break.

On your question of what avenues there are to challenge it, you can read what Chetsford wrote at Talk:Zionism/Archive 35#Moratorium proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 22:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There was a cheeky rough consensus to move it to the second paragraph here, it appears most people’s objection to it is its prominence, being in the first paragraph? While we all agreed that change would violate the moratorium, that doesn’t appear to something the close addressed. Remove/replace is obv off the cards, and personally I don’t see that changing even after the moratorium ends Kowal2701 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it appears most people’s objection to it is its prominence, being in the first paragraph?

In the RFC, editors against it wanted it removed altogether. The RFC question was:

Does this sentence violate NPOV and should it be removed from the lead and the body?

"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible"

Of those voting that it was policy compliant and that it should stay, I didn't see any of them state that they had a problem with it being in the first para. Therefore I would imply that consensus was that it stay not only in the lead but in the first para.

Regarding you comment about a cheeky consensus. I think not. TarnishedPath^talk 22:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:CCC, however that does not mean that we must entertain endless relitigation of what was overwhelming consensus. In their close of the moratorium discussion Chetsford outlined clearly what situation they thought would allow the moratorium to be terminated early. TarnishedPath^talk 22:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants (Zionism)

Endorse close - Consensus in the RFC was clear that the sentence did not violate WP:NPOV and that it should stay. Even if we disregard to votes of those who were topic banned (2 who !voted that the sentence should go and 4 who !voted that it should stay), which WP:GRAVEDANCING provides guidance that we shouldn't, consensus was clear. TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. This will be a bit long because the rationales given for overturning are so scattershot. Answering each off them:

The consensus in the RFC was clear, and strong sourcing was provided to support it; see eg. [30][31][32]. The current statement in the article cites 17 sources. The argument that it is not supported by the sources provided by DancingOwl (someone who opposed the current wording) is silly - obviously if you only look at sources provided by one side in a dispute you can get whatever outcome you want; but the discussion as a whole focused on sources, already in the article, that a consensus of editors determined support the text in question. The simple fact that a minority disagreed with that reading of the sources doesn't make the closure invalid; no one is obliged to satisfy you.
OP also argues that DancingOwl's statement here was not rebutted, which is plainly wrong; simply scrolling down shows numerous people disputing it using detailed source analysis and policy-based reasoning. The claim it was not rebutted makes sense only from the perspective of "well I don't agree with the responses, so they failed to successfully rebut it", which is an argument that would allow anyone to close or overturn any discussion in any way they please. People who feel strongly about a topic are rarely convinced by the arguments for the other side; that's why RFCs need to be closed by uninvolved editors.
The fact that many contributors to the discussion were later topic-banned does not affect the consensus; and in any case it is true for editors on both sides of the dispute.
A moratorium was not imposed lightly; it was only done after months of circular discussion that constantly got reset because new users were being poured into the article by outside coverage. The constant attempts to re-litigate this issue (including this one), coupled with extensive and constant outside efforts to direct editors to the article, show why a WP:MORATORIUM is necessary - we cannot have an article's talk page consumed forever by a dispute over a single sentence; we do need a way to settle disputes, make people who disagree with a consensus WP:DROPTHESTICK, and move on. I have said in the past (and still believe) that no moratorium is truly binding, since a clear consensus can always overturn it; but you need a solid reason to do so (usually some new real-world event). "Several people in the topic area on both sides of the discussion were topic-banned" coupled with "we're right tho" are not solid arguments.

It's a huge article on a massively complex topic. Focus on some other aspect of it. Any other aspect of it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closes. OP is trying to relitigate two extensive RfCs that were properly closed. No good reasons are provided. In fact OP misrepresents the facts by falsely claiming that there were no sources supporting the disputed text in the first RfC. Search for the lists compiled by Levivic for many examples. This request has no redeeming features and should be considered disruptive. I also invite admins to scan OP's contribs for any sign of balance in editing, and good luck because I couldn't find any. Zero^talk 12:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Zionism)

The RfC being demanded to be overturned here was closed in January. The moritorium was closed in February. It's now nearly the end of July. I don't think we have a statute of limitations but this still strikes me, even before getting into any of the details, as rather...excessive a span of time to demand a do-over, especially given that from the time the RfC was closed to now is getting close to the amount of time from now until the moritorium they're up in arms about expires. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Zionism article in general has been seeing a disproportionate amount of demands for edits (against the RfC consensus) and unprotections at WP:RFPP as of late. A part of me thinks that there's an off-wiki campaign involved as most of the requests are coming from IPs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the closing admin said my points were valid, yet we have numerous editors who arrived within minutes to hours demanding I be topic banned. I'm not sure how they knew to arrive here so quickly. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will be in part due to you posting the request to review the closure across multiple venues of Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing to make vague insinuations of a coordinated campaign against you instead of addressing any of the points raised is not going to help your case. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the spikes tend to coincide with mentions on Twitter, I went and had a look. It seems some account called Global Update tweeted about Zionism being defined by Wikipedia as the "colonization of Palestin" on 9 July. This saw a bunch of others tweet about it, all with not insignificant engagement. There was then a large boost due to a tweet by the American Jewish Congress about it on 11 July, and since then constant tweets about it from various accounts critcising the article, all with thousands of engagements. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN proposal

I propose that Allthemilescombined1 be infinitely TBAN'd from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. This is WP:GRAVEDANCING and I have already warned the editor about it at Special:Diff/1302532562 in relation to their prior conduct at Special:Diff/1301619045. This is disruptive behaviour in a CTOP area where we need less disruption, not more. Note: the editor has previously been advised of CTOP at Special:Permalink/1251530895#Introduction to contentious topics. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. They are a border line WP:SPU engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In addition to the WP:GRAVEDANCING above, they have recently:
- Lodged a frivolous complaint against another user for hounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_about_following_me_around_per_WP:HOUND. They have yet to show that any of the edits made by this user were disruptive and are demonstrating WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by complaining about tags on articles they created.
- Edit warred by reverting removals of content they originally posted. See: Special:Diff/11302093596, Special:Diff/1301634446, and Special:Diff/1302350307.
- Engaged in POV pushing such as this proposal on titles for separate articles on human shields usage by Israel and Hamas: Special:Diff/1296267223. Or this one making accusations of "blood libel" against Israel: Special:Diff/1294986422. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support I have not studied the issue too closely, but the frivolous complaint brought my attention to more serious issues with their editing. I do not think that they should be editing in this topic area until they understand how to use reliable sources. Indefinite block need not be infinite but the editor is not currently a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per EvansHallBear. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This dispute has consumed enough of the community's time and energy; their efforts to get us to spend even more time on it, in light of their other edits, are plainly tendentious. And, beyond that, it shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and practices in a way that seems likely to continue to waste the community's time; while inexperience alone isn't sanction-worthy, continuously ignoring the advice of more experienced editors and wasting everyone's time with scattershot efforts like this falls short of the higher level of WP:COMPETENCE necessary to edit a WP:CTOP where they clearly have strong feelings. --Aquillion (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No closer, of any discussion on any topic, should be subject to so much badgering by a single editor. -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above Kowal2701 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support As for the request to redo a RfC because some of the participants subsequently became topic-banned: if that was a general rule, we would have to redo the great majority of RfCs in the I-P-area, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per EvansHallBear and Aquillion. I've been unimpressed by this editor's contributions since I saw these in January: [33][34]. in response to their edits getting reverted by multiple editors, they've stated several times that the articles are "far from" NPOV or "not allowing" their edits, to an extent that seems tendentious or WP:DEADHORSE: (Israeli apartheid [35][36][37][38] and Zohran Mamdani [39][40][41][42][43]). They've also disregarded MOS:TERRORIST as recently as this month: [44]Rainsage (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It feels to me like this user is trying every single avenue to get their way. I understand they disagree with the consensus and decisions made, but WP:DEADHORSE won't do anything. BeŻet (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing Me on Wikipedia User:ChildrenWillListen

Obvious Thesolicitors sock blocked.Sam Kuru (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Respected Editors,

I am trying to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but User:ChildrenWillListen is repeatedly accusing me of being a paid editor without any proof [1].

Such behavior violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, and is discouraging for new contributors, contrary to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In the last month, this user has made over 5,000 edits, mostly challenging and reverting new editors, which feels disruptive.

He is also reverting Author deletion from Draft:China Piece (film) Shruti Siddhi Deshmukh (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesolicitors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This has taught me that communicating with UPE editors and trying to get them to change isn't a good idea. I guess it was still worth a shot. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shruti Siddhi Deshmukh: there is nothing wrong with querying another editor's possible paid editing status or other conflict of interest. And if a response is not forthcoming, it is also perfectly appropriate to repeat that query. Why couldn't you just answer it on your talk page, rather than bringing the matter here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Non-participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

Participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

Discussion (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

Global ban for Chealer

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

Hi, I made a notification on the village pump about this but I've been told that this is probably a better place to notify this wiki of this ban as per the global bans policy. In any case, the request is at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James William Camba Escanilla vandalism

See [45] from the simple english wikipedia. A couple of IPs appear to have been vandalising in a similar pattern, adding "James William Camba Escanilla" as the governor of Bolinao. Special:Diff/1302682211. * 110.54.198.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302682311, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302682211

110.54.129.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302451207
182.255.43.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) possibly based on IP location
216.247.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1296660919
110.54.154.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1300294965
112.198.121.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1293307425
111.90.195.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1288084491
112.198.113.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possibly? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1293696710
112.198.120.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1294057759

Timtjtim (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's Talk Page Protection and problems donating

While anyone can still edit Jimbo Wales page, his talk page is currently semi-protected. That makes perfect sense.

I wanted let him know that I tried to donate my 2 cents, but the greedy foundation told me that it wasn't enough, even if I covered the $0.35 transaction fee too. If you won't accept my humble offering, I kindly ask that you stop showing me requests for donations. As they say, beggars can't be choosers. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to know that the person on your IP address at this given moment has seen a donation request. If you create an account, you can turn off the donation requests. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The requests shouldn't be shown to anyone if they aren't willing to accept donations of any amount over the transaction cost. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong place - administrators don't control that sort of matter. And anyone can register an account. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanted to talk to Jimbo since he is one of the founders and he is featured in the donation request, but his talk page is protected.

Don't administrators control page protection? It seems like one of them might have screwed up if the idea that anyone can edit is to be substantiated. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably, Mr. Wales' talk page is often disrupted. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but aren't there many volunteers and automated programs ready to revert vandalism in an instant? 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The transaction cost goes to the payment processor; it would probably cost the WMF more than 2 cents to collect your literal two cents. You are free to disagree with the collection policy of the WMF, but this isn't the place to discuss it. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe they should ask for

volunteers to do that part too or include the cost of hiring people to count their money for them in the transaction costs. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that they shouldn’t show the donations and it’s mathematically proven that WMF can survive a good few years without donations so you should donate to somewhere that really needs it like Miraheze, AN is the wrong venue 95.5.189.119 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please anonymize my bot account?

Here. i thought this would be great for something but then i realized i don't know how to use programming languages other than mediawiki, so can someone anonymize it? Your Local Italian (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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