Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	0	0	33	0	33
TfD	0	0	4	0	4
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	43	0	43
RfD	0	0	93	0	93
AfD	0	0	16	0	16

• 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 52 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 96 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 30 requested closures
• 23 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 24 Copyright problems

Closure request for ITN RfC

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A quick skim of it makes it seem like it may be better closed by a panel. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there some sort of dedicated venue to request panel closes? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu - Wikipedia:Closure requests ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but a request to close that RfC has been sitting there for 3 months. Is there a special page to request panel closes? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... with panel, if they'd like to announce themselves here they can :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank youse! Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Reverse partial blocks are coming to MediaWiki!

Hi! I’m excited to announce a new feature—reverse partial blocks—which I developed for the admin toolkit and is coming soon to MediaWiki core. I’m posting here to gather feedback, discuss usage policy, and answer any questions. I think it's important for developers to communicate with the community (in this case Admins) effected by new changes or features so we can work together to find out the best way to implement them.

What is it?

Reverse partial blocks allow admins to block a user sitewide but exempt specific pages or namespaces. This was based on a wish from Barkeep49 and implemented in MediaWiki. (Note: TPA access works separately, based on the "allow user to edit their own talk page" option on Special:Block)

The code is complete, passes all tests, and is waiting for approval from WMF Trust and Safety. You can track progress and view the code here on Gerrit. Once approved, it will go live on English Wikipedia the following Thursday.

Try it out

I’ve set up a Patch Demo instance where you can preview the new features, including the updated Special:BlockList and Special:Block interfaces. Log in with admin username Patch Demo and password patchdemo1 to experiment with reverse partial blocks, but please reset block settings to how you found them once you've finished, to allow others to experiment. (Note: if you're a wannabe admin or just curious about how the tools look, you can use this account as well to test them out).

To see how it works for a reverse-partially-blocked user, log in as Mallory (without TPA or account creation, editing only allowed on their "ArbCom case" page) with the same password.

Your feedback

If you could change anything about this feature, what would you do? (I will implement any wanted suggestions!)

If you don’t have time to try it, what would you expect from a feature like this? When do you think it’s appropriate to use, and when is it not?

I’m happy to answer any questions about how it works and would love to hear your thoughts!

Thanks for all the great work you do as admins! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're naively optimistic about the code review process - it's more likely in my opinion that this will languish unreviewed for months. Cool idea, and thanks for coding it up, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess so, I was just so excited to have actually coded a new feature! Maybe it will be approved in time for the 1.44 release in mid-April but we will have to see. Thank you for helping me with rechecks! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

MolecularPilot, I'm curious for the process of this coming together. Is there a discussion page you can point to that followed the progress of this admin tool? It seems to come out of nowhere but maybe I don't have the right pages on my Watchlist. Except for obvious vandals, I don't do a lot of blocking so I don't know how much this feature will impact the work that I do here. I'll have to consider this a bit more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see phab:T27400, that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope it can be useful to you admins once it gets approved and merged. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting feature. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

When I look at the message at [1], unless I'm missing something, it seems to be saying he (she?) is ONLY prevented from editing the Arbcom page, as opposed to being blocked sitewide except for the ArbCom page. "blocking the page ArbCom/Cases/Mallory with an expiration time of indefinite". Doesn't that sound like they can't edit their ArbCom page but can edit anything else? --B (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for trying it and providing this feedback! Yeah, I totally agree and am fixing the log message now :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I feel like this feature could be very useful. However, the block log message seems kind of counter-intuitive and inaccurate because it is still the standard P-block message, only a "reverse" label added to it. This could create confusion because it is still literally worded "blocked (user) from editing the page (page title)... (reverse)". This still implies that the user is blocked from editing those specific pages, when in reality the user is blocked from editing every other page except those pages, so this message isn't really that much accurate. I think something along the lines of "with the exception of pages (pages)" could work. User3749 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Mallory" is an autogenerated account by PatchDemo, I'm not quite sure about their gender lol, but yeah, the log message does need improvement, thank you for your time in trying it out and bringing that up (with a perfect suggestion for the new message). I'm fixing the code now. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Update on feedback: I've successfully improved log messages as requested (thanks for the feedback!), they look like the below:

Log message
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
02:36, 25 January 2025 Admin (talk|contribs|block) changed block settings for MolecularPilot (talk|contribs) blocking them sitewide except for the page ArbCom/Cases/MolecularPilot with an expiration time of 1 week (autoblock disabled) (Blocking with this summary) (unblock|change block)

Additionally, someone noted on the Patch Demo wiki that there was a bug with revoking TPA but using a reverse partial block. This has now been resolved, it is possible to revoke TPA but use the new feature to still allow them to edit some pages.

This isn't avaliable on the Patch Demo or gerrit yet, but will be soon. Thank you to everyone for their feedback! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

LOL, that was me testing the feature, I needed it because I run a bunch of other MediaWiki wikis (mostly Miraheze). Should I also note, that once I tried reverse partial blocking for a specific page while also blocking account creation, and while logged in as Mallory I don't think I was actually prevented from creating accounts (I didn't actually try to create one but I was able to access Special:CreateAccount which normally should not happen) which might be an issue caused by this. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for helping to find bugs! Yesterday I submitted the new code (with better log messages, fixed TPA, rpbs via the API) to gerrit and today I updated the patch demo instance. I tested it (locally and on patch demo) and it seems the behaviour is that you can go to Special:CreateAccount and fill out all the fields etc. but actually pressing submit will tell you "you are blocked from doing this", and it's the same with regular old partial blocks w/o account creation. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

On a terminology note: rather than calling it reverse partial blocks, which to me feels like I have to mentally invert the set of affected pages a couple of times, perhaps the feature could be called something like block exceptions? isaacl (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I like that name, thank you for suggesting it! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I second this, seems less confusing compared to reverse partial blocking. In this case there would still be a separate option on the Special:Block interface, but labeled "Sitewide with exceptions". User3749 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's perfect! I'll update the (currently pending WMF review) gerrit patch. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Admin dashboard

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

---

I just noticed that "Administrator instructions" at the top right of Template:Admin dashboard is a redlink. Could someone with template editing experience please fix it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we perhaps just remove the link as there's not really much dashboard-specific to explain while each of the noticeboards has its own instructions? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it has to do with part of the Admin dashboard/rfarfp section. Not sure how to fix it though. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

What's its purpose? GiantSnowman 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks to be coming from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Header. Perhaps someone more skilled in the art of template-fu can help. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's the source @Jake Wartenberg. If you remove the portion for perms and hit preview then the red link disappears, but the same doesn't have when removing the AIV bits. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. So, it has to be one of the pages transcluded by Template:Admin dashboard/rfarfp. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

looks like the {{Floating link}} at in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav needs an <onlyinclude> to ensure it's only displayed on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and not anywhere else that page gets transcluded to. Nthep (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Cross-posted to VPT. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Somebody may have edited something since this discussion started because I cannot see what this is about. I see no "Administrator instructions", red or blue, at Template:Admin dashboard. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav was suggested as the cause but it's not currently transcluded there. It does make an "Administrator instructions" link but it's blue on every page [2] where it's currently transcluded. It's only red on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav itself but that page does not appear to be meant for direct viewing. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this is resolved; thanks for pointing that out. Not sure who fixed it or how, though. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, it was broken 24 January by removing <noinclude> in [3] and fixed 26 January in [4] by restoring it – unless Template:Admin dashboard was transcluding another page which passed on a transclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Editing behaviour!

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

---

 Request withdrawn because everything looks good! Sorry for the unnecessary discussion. Kindly close this discussion.

User @Garvitpandey1522 has done around 600 edits in the last 10 days, which is good, but their editing behavior seems suspicious. They are directly targeting pages for speedy deletion[5],[6] and the articles he created seem to be AI generated please also check timestamp.[7],[8][9] I feel they doing all these activities from a chatbot without following Wikipedia's guidelines. They seem to just be trying to increase their edit count. He is also blocked on Simple Wikipedia maybe for abusing by multiple accounts.[10] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:S-Aura, why didn't you notify the editor about this discussion? This is mandatory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have just added it to their talk page. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why @S-Aura is doing this. I haven't made any wrong edits or created non-notable pages. When I pointed out S-Aura Page mistake on Kuldeep Sandhu's page—where he manipulated references by using news sources about different people—I corrected all the references and removed those that didn’t represent Kuldeep Sandhu. I also raised this issue with senior editors. After that, he started targeting me.

Is it my mistake to raise concerns about using incorrect references to make a page seem notable? Or is it my mistake that I am actively contributing to Wikipedia by creating notable pages?

Moreover, the Kuldeep Sandhu page, created by User:S-Aura, is different, but the article he wrote is actually about Kuldeep Sandhu. When I pointed this out in a constructive manner, he started targeting me.

You can check my edits—if I have done anything wrong, please point it out. Most of my articles have already been reviewed by senior editors. If I have made any mistakes, please guide me, and I will ensure I follow the guidelines properly in the future. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I am contributing to Wikipedia with good intentions, adhering to guidelines, and welcoming feedback. While I do use AI to help me with grammatical corrections, I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Garvitpandey1522,

It’s not about the Kuldeep Sandhu page it’s about your overall behaviour note it WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I have already explained that the issue happened due to confusion between Sandhu and Singh, so you shouldn’t exaggerate my mistake. I am completely agree with your action on that page. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yea! But fully depends on AI generated content without proper verification or editing may lead to inaccurate or biased information. It should not be used to bypass the responsibility Read it carefully. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I have properly cited references for every line and even every word in my articles. If you are pointing this out, you are also questioning the editors who have reviewed and approved my articles. If I were doing anything wrong, the reviewers would have highlighted it during the review process.Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Brother, I am not questioning the editors who reviewed it, because they can also make mistakes. If it only about a review, Kuldeep Sandhu was also reviewed, but there is an error on that page so please. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe it should be left to the experienced editor to decide. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Bullying on edit summary

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

---

User:IndianBio used a bullying words, [11]. Also, he reverted my warning on his talk page. Please check this user. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible WP:BOOMERANG here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand, what do you mean? Is that possible to curse someone in edit summary? Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No, @Camilasdandelions, it's not acceptable, and the edit comment has been removed and IndianBio has been admonished; they really should know better.

However, you also need to be more careful in hurling the v-word around, it has a very specific meaning here (see WP:VANDAL). And you should have notified IndianBio of this ANI, which I don't believe you did. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry and thank you. I'm first time to report some user in Wikipedia, I'll try to notify him if i report someone. Thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've sent the alert to IndianBio already btw. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :)!! Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and PS: if you post a warning on a user's talk page, and they remove it, you do not need to post it again, and arguably shouldn't. When a warning is removed, that denotes that the user has seen it. They are within their rights to remove most messages from their own talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I thought we can't delete most messages from our own talk page. Thank you for telling me! Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: there are indeed some messages one is not allowed to remove, but they are very much the exception; see WP:REMOVED for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the "bullying words" were in the edit summary revdel'd by RoySmith.[12] IndianBio has been blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

IndianBio's been blocked by @RoySmith. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• I realized that this complaint has been archived but wanted to note that Camilasdandelions has now been blocked twice. Maybe we are archiving these cases too quickly before they are completely resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Editing permenantly protected pages

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

---

I'm VidunOriginalezLK, I have permission to edit semi-protected Wikipedia pages now, but I can't seem to figure out the requirements to edit permenantly protected pages.Can anyone help me by sending me the needes requirements? VidunOriginalezLK (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to extended confirmed pages, you can see the requirement here: WP:XC. The requirement is that account has existed for at 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:NOT

Might be worth keeping an eye out for any non-policy compliant/non-consensus-based changes to this policy page. FYI. Serial (speculates here) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this about just the one soapboxing editor that you didn't notify about this discussion, or is it a more widespread problem? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

When I start a discussion about an editor, I will certainly notify them. If I thought sanctions were due, I'd have posted at Incidents. If it were an ongoing bevahioral issue, I'd have posted at Incidents. In the interests of keeping things low key, I post here with a request for eyes. And the system works. Not forgotten, I see. Serial (speculates here) 14:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You started a discussion about disruptive edits on a specific page on which only one editor has made disruptive edits. It's a stunning bit of wikilawyering to say that that's not starting a discussion about that editor. And I really don't know what that other discussion you linked to has to do with this at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You did, indeed, start a discussion about an editor. You did not notify them. You are required to notify them. Don't WP:WIKILAWYER and instead go notify them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Would you be willing to explain what exactly you mean to say about Ivanvector with that aside, "Not forgotten, I see"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Just before anyone else pries that Pandora's box open any further, I'd like to point out that I have long subscribed to the philosophy of not giving a fuck, and if Serial thinks that I commented here because of a vendetta over an utterly inconsequential comment about whether or not I was involved in an unban discussion from two months ago, and not because I'm an administrator and have the administrators' noticeboard on my watchlist, then they are simply wrong. Serial, if this is about something more serious that I've completely forgotten about, feel free to remind me on my talk page.

As for Stevenmitchell, who ToBeFree notified a little while ago: they seem to have been on a crusade about what they perceive as administrative overreach, but they were the only editor disrupting WP:NOT and were reverted pretty quickly. This isn't out of character for them: they've had a list of "Some Articles That I Have Started & Were Deleted by the Heavy Hand of Wikipedian Deletionists" front-and-centre on their user page since 2017. That POV doesn't seem to leak out of their userspace often, but every once in a while they drop a comment like this BLP violation, or this one, or this. Actually a lot of their talk contributions are posts like this, asking leading questions like "why don't we write about this awful thing that this awful person did?" without providing any citations to support what they're suggesting at all, and complaining about other editors removing their comments although I didn't actually see any examples of that. Also, of the six articles they list as heavy-handed deletion: three never existed, one was PRODded, one was draftified and then expired (PROds and G13s are both eligible for WP:REFUND), and one is currently an article which Stevenmitchell added an external link to in 2010 (7 years before creating their list) and hasn't otherwise edited, and that article has never been deleted. I think we may have a WP:RGW WP:NOTHERE case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-unselfdebasing and autoflagellating comment) Serial (speculates here) 16:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Keeping things low key doesn't work at this noticeboard, which is why requests for revision deletion are prohibited here for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, thoughts? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for temporary account block due to exams

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

---

I would like to request a block on my account until February 14th, inclusive, due to upcoming professional exams. I find Wikipedia a bit distracting at the moment, so I kindly ask for a block that prevents me from editing anything during this time. Thank you for considering my request. Paradygmaty (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for the requested duration. —Ingenuity (t • c) 19:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Just a note that prior to this request, this editor received a final warning from User:Deb that a block might be coming their way for disruptive editing and a proposed indefinite block is being discussed at WP:ANI. Maybe prior to fulfilling these requests, we should look into the circumstances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps a somewhat longer block than the one requested would help to clear this user's head. Deb (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to commingle the two. If the ANI thread (I haven't looked at it) leads to a community block, that will supersede their self-requested block, just like an admin resigning under a cloud. I don't think we should open the door to scrutinizing self-block requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Indefinite protection of Square

• Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I saw a post on Reddit ([13]) about the article square (the geometric shape, not the payment processor or the pejorative) being indefinitely semiprotected. The article was protected in 2015 by Anthony Appleyard, who I have not pinged since he died a few years ago. Anthony mentioned frequently reverted IPA edits, which I assume is a typo for IP edits. I went a bit back through the history before protection and it does seem like every IP edit was reverted over a long period of time; I didn't review each one but a few I looked at seemed like typical high school vandalism, which makes sense given the subject. I don't think that any article should be protected forever, so I thought of trying pending changes or removing protection entirely and seeing how it goes, but what do others think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine it would have got a lot of rubbish, but please unprotect and we'll see. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

My controversial opinion is that pending changes is best for very low-visibility articles, and has been kind of tragically misused for the exact opposite of that. I'd say if you want to trial-unprotect it, just go for it. Can always reprotect if needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. I use pending changes for the kind of articles that get vandalism once a year, but take 3 months to be reverted. Semiprotection is overkill but pending changes is perfect for those situations. On popular pages though pending changes kind of just gets in the way. Galobtter (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If each admin watchlisted a couple (or at least one) random article that's likely to get vandalized or spammed, I think it'd help a lot. Just pick a word that's really common, like "square" or "pencil" or "casino". I already got casino because that's an obvious spam magnet. But why not think of a commonplace word and watchlist that article? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Emphasis on "a couple (or at least one)" (or try to have other outlets). And odd watchlist entries beget more odd watchlisst entries in the medium/long-term, in my experience. Keeping a relatively crazy watchlist of pages I had no real interest in going for many years was a major factor in how I lost my adminship, because I found so much weirdness over the years. Maybe it's just me, but reading about a disruptive user (speaking in general terms here, and I'm talking about both good- and bad-faith disruption) on a noticeboard, etc. is a far different experience from finding them on your watchlist and seemingly being the only user around to clean up their edits. But "seemingly " might be an illusion; there are lots of other admins and editors here, whose attention is often fragmented by their own aims on this project and real life, and who may or may not be as willing to investigate/monitor a user as you are. But we do have way too many articles that aren't properly watched by experienced users, a state of affairs that compromises our integrity as an encyclopedia. But it's worth trying to keep a sense of balance and perspective regarding your watchlist; it's one of the few aspects of Wikipedia editing that's completely private. I don't know where I want to go with this, or even if this is the right place for this mini-rant, but I had to put it out there. Graham87 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Having said all that, I've added a note at that article's talk page in case any watchers of that article want to comment. Graham87 (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I looked at my Watchlist but I think it was a few years ago. I think there are around 200K pages on it. I don't know of a quick way to whittle it down. My advice? Don't click the button that adds every article you edit to your Watchlist or it will grow unmanageable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Special:EditWatchlist/raw; ctrl+a; ← Backspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Special:EditWatchlist/clear also works, and it's two-click! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin and theleekycauldron, thanks for the suggestions. I tried using the tool listed on the Watchlist page when it was only 30,000 pages and it didn't work at all. I'll try out these ideas. I'm sure there are a lot of pages for entire namespaces that I can easily remove. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Pending changes seems to work fine for Timeline of the far future and Iodine, which receive 2+1⁄2 times the pageviews. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Looking back at the Reddit post just now I'm a little concerned that I've put together a tasty bean salad, so I'm going to lower the protection to PC with an expiry date and throw the page on my watchlist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Added to my watchlist. In fact, as I have edited this article and it's in an area central to my Wikipedia-editing interests, it surprises me a little that I did not already have it watchlisted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that Anthony had died. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Michaelshea04 (formerly Michaelshea2004) unblock request

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

---

I'm bringing forth an unblock request on behalf of Michaelshea04. Relevant context:

• UTRS appeal #99181, the current appeal
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive
• User talk:Michaelshea2004, the original account, to which this editor no longer has access
• [14], the previous AN unblock request
• Yamla has found no technical evidence of VPN use or ban evasion

Unblock request, as submitted to UTRS:

As I have been instructed, I have stayed away for 1 year and now I'll try my best to not make a mess of it like I did my previous one and try to keep it fairly straightforward. I am still globally locked. As you know, I am guilty of my extremely inappropiate and vulgar edit summaries as Michaelshea2004, as well as my non constructive edits where I only changed one or two words, mostly past tense to present tense. Whether or not it was for either reason, I do understand why I was blocked for "not here to build an encyclopedia" because overtime I understood that when I have a user account, I am expected to contribute and actually improve the encyclopedia, not just perform minor edits, because even if I didn't understand that there was anything wrong with that at the time, I do now, and I was indeed "not here to build an encyclopedia" I was only here to act immature and as I said in my previous appeal, I absolutely deserved everything that came to me. Of course, like everyone else, I did not take this well and I had numerous accounts and IP addresses blocked after the same behaviours occurred. In my previous appeal, I did not understand that if I wanted to be unbanned, I had to convince you that I want to actually improve parts of the encyclopedia, and not just that I will not repeat the same behaviours again. By saying that I wanted to just be on Meta and not your project, or by proposing the edits I wanted to make, which was much of the same as before, I believe that is the reason why the decision was unanimously opposing. I do wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, but not to the same articles as before, and certainly not the same disruptive edits as before. I want to contribute to vintage computer magazine articles, any associated software printed in it, as well as any computer music software as well. I promise that I will not just change 1 or 2 words. I will not change past tense to present tense, and I will use the edit summaries properly.

Asked to comment directly about vanishing (see previous AN request for relevance):

[...] I already understood that vanishing just isn't an option. It's as simple as that, I was not intending to game the system, nor am I now, but I can understand why you believed it came across as that, because if I want to be unblocked just to be vanished, what's the point of unblocking me anyway if I am not going to contribute and improve the encyclopedia?. I have no idea if I will get 500 edits, constructive or not, I will absolutely do my best, even it it takes a year like you said, or over that. Like I said, I want to start over with a different and much better editing style and much better choice of articles. [...] No vanishing. It's not an option. It's as simple as that.

With thanks in advance to the community for their consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. The original block was, in my view, pretty small potatoes. As for the socking and related disruption that happened afterwards and resulted in the lock, well, that was two years ago, and they've expressed their embarrassment for being a dumbass and pledged to avoid edit-warring. Time for everyone to move on. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. per Asilvering above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Looked over prior appeal and user page and contributions, glanced at sockpuppet investigations. Original issue seems to be immaturity. Appeal sounds earnest. This looks like a low-risk (to Wikipedia), so appropriate to give them another chance. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral as prior closer, which was purely about consensus vs. any personal opinion on MS' conduct. I do not have any time to look into their behavior, but have no reason to oppose this request either. Star Mississippi 03:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, user now has clue, user wishes to edit constructively. I say let said user edit constructively and unblock them. JayCubby 00:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per above. There's no reason to doubt the appeal. Welcome back. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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

HouseBlaster and SilverLocust promoted to full clerks

The Arbitration Committee thanks HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) and SilverLocust (talk · contribs) for their excellent management and clerking of Palestine–Israel articles 5. After consultation with the clerks team, the Committee is pleased to announce that HouseBlaster and SilverLocust have completed their traineeships and are promoted to full clerks, effective immediately.

The clerks team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the team is welcome to apply by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § HouseBlaster and SilverLocust promoted to full clerks

Relentless POV-pushing and ignoring Administrators's instructions, reverting their edits

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

---

@Taha Danesh has been taking part in relentless POV-pushing by ignoring administrators' instructions and reverting their edits and making disingenuous edits to pages with the intent to "Iranify" historical personalities. Examples of reverting administrators' edits here [15][16], also he removes content that describes a historical personality as Arab and instead Iranifies him with no source provided here[17] other examples of reverting administrators edits here[18][19][20][21][22] he also removes the part about a statement being a warning to Iran I presume because it doesn't fit his political agenda, in the same vein he downplays the number of political prisoners executed in Iran here a number of times [23][24][25] Montblamc1 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Montblamc1: you are required to notify this editor of any threads that you start here, per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Everything I have added is based on highly reliable academic references, including works from many top-ranking universities worldwide. You did not mention anything except claiming that I added information, but in reality, I have provided more than 20 references combined across these pages, all of which are highly reliable and among the best sources available. The number of references is so extensive that listing them here would be frustrating; instead, you can see them in the links our friend has mentioned, which are very clear.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Taha Danesh (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And I haven’t ignored any administrator’s instructions or reverted their edits as far as I know. I believe this claim is false, I haven’t received any warnings about this matter from any user—not from them, nor from any administrators. Taha Danesh (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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

I would like to request a revision to my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban

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

---

Dear All. I apologize for placing too many tag templates on articles, and have made every attempt to refrain from doing so. Now that we are approaching six months of my topic ban, I would like to ask for the following amendment to my topic ban. The reason, that I am recommending this amendment, is because the topic ban recommended, that I refrain from adding templates such as {{initiated}}, {{requested move}}, {{stub}}, {{split}} and {{histmerge}} that were not an issue for me.

I would like to have the topic ban lifted, but I would be agreeable to refraining for at least 6-12 more months from adding {{2p}}, {{ic}}, {{+Li}}, {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} tags (if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else), or even making statements on talk pages to either get references added or information updated. I also hope, that I will still be permitted to remove obvious vandalism. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: AN/I thread leading to the following topic ban:
  

  Jax 0677 is indefinitely topic banned from applying any maintenance tags or templates, broadly construed, to articles, drafts or other applicable project spaces.

  Discussion following imposition of topic ban. Jax has not been blocked since the topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Jax has not shown that he understands why the topic ban was necessary to avoid disruption and has not explained why the topic ban is no longer necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  The topic ban was needed so that I would add citations to articles instead of adding tags. My plan is to add references instead of adding tags. This is why I listed the close to one dozen templates above that I do not plan to use. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've struck my oppose for now. I'll review your edits further. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  The request contains a statement of willingness not to use these templates for several months. Sounds like a decent explanation of why-topic-ban-is-unnecessary to me. No opinion on the whole request, since I don't have time to look into the situation properly. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning modified oppose with slight support, although I do commend Jax for their efforts in this topic ban. Part of the issue with their template usage was they'd continue to ask editors to do something. This I raised when they occasionally ping me for "can I do X?" which I think is much better than doing it and ending up accidentally blocked. I do think Jax means well. Some of this just not need doing or if it does, there's no reason it has to be Jax doing it since they're not aware of when it becomes a nuiscance. I don't think there's an issue with stub and history merge does need action by someone else, but initiated, split and requested move are too much of the same clerking that got them here. So while I have no issue with the ability for some tagging, I don't think opening to all of these is good idea.

Star Mississippi 02:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Leaning more strongly oppose per @Cullen328 but also per Jax's reply to @Caeciliusinhorto-public. Jax, you still seem to be missing the piece that you don't need to do these. Someone else can list for closure, etc. I don't think you yet fully get the issue with your tagging so it may be too soon. Star Mississippi 14:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Good evening. I have had some time to think about things. I realize that I need not use {{initiated}}, {{split}} nor {{requested move}}. For {{requested move}}, the titles of the articles will be what they are, and redirects can allow readers to find the article in question. For {{stub}}, I need not use it, because people know that the article is short whether the template is there or not.

However, there are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons".

Perhaps I need to request exemptions for specific templates based on need only. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The topic ban was imposed exactly six months ago, indicating that this editor had the six month mark on their calendar, ready for an instant appeal. The discussion six months ago showed that this editor did not understand why other editors disagreed with their radical overtagging. The editor repeatedly engaged in I did not hear that behavior to the point that some other editors thought they were trolling and several supported an indefinite block. The editor displayed a complete inability to "read the room" and rapidly re-adjust to the legitimate observations of other editors. The extreme length of that discussion indicates that the editor was willing to act as a wilfull and defiant timesink, who seemed to lack the competence to realize why their overtagging sprees were disruptive, and a willingness to force several other editors to waste time studying their disruptive editing pattern. I believe that the volunteer time of our productive collaborative editors is our most precious commodity, and that we ought to have little patience for overt time wasters. Their talk page requests for clarification of the topic ban shortly thereafter are additional evidence of a lack of understanding. Now, after six months and a handful of minutes, we have this brief and overly succinct appeal of the topic ban which amounts to "I don't really want to tag articles but I want to be allowed to do so anyway". Their listing here of many tags/templates that they want to discuss and either use or not use indicates to me that they still maintain an unhealthy over-interest in tagging. No remorse for the massive time wasting of six months ago and zero explanation of how lifting this topic ban would benefit the encyclopedia. Perhaps I am wrong and could be convinced of that by reason, self-reflection and an actual persuasive argument. Cullen328 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding just the this editor had the six month mark on their calendar, ready for an instant appeal part, that seems like a petty objection. I assume this request was made per WP:SO which requires that you Wait at least six months. They waited six months. If we wanted them to wait "six months plus some random amount of time which makes us think you're not really eager to get this over with", we would have said that. If you have some other objection, that's fine, but let's not beat them up for following the instructions. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's the issue with time-guided sanctions @RoySmith. Editors are not wrong to think "six months (in this case) is over, I can go back to doing what I was doing" whereas we intend it more as "six months should help you learn more about how to better edit here". It's my POV from the discussions on their Talk that while Jax absolutely means well, they don't yet understand that the tagging is unnecessary/unwanted. The project has not fallen apart due to their inability to tag and I think allowing them free to tag will bring us all right back here. They're within their right to request the SO, but in this case so case is made for changed behavior. Star Mississippi 02:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: a ban from using eleven (possibly more, given Jax's comment that "if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else") different tags seems unnecessarily complicated and convoluted to me. The issue was not with these specific tags, it was with Jax's excessive and inappropriate use of tags in general. Twice in the original ANI discussion, Jax promised to refrain from adding specific types of tags and then immediately started adding a different type of tag ([26], [27]). I don't see any reason to believe that the problem was or is those specific tags. If Jax now understands why their tagging was disruptive everyone would be better off if they just appealed the TBan in its entirety: they would not have to remember which tags they are or are not permitted to use, any nobody else would have to concern themselves with remembering which arbitrary set of tags Jax is or isn't allowed to use. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am OK with lifting the entire topic ban in its entirety. With the topic ban the way that it is, I cannot add stub tags, request a proper new article title (case in point, Emily Armstrong), nor request a histmerge of an article that underwent a cut and paste move. If I add a closure request, I have to add the closure request without the {{initiated}} template, and wait for someone else to do so. I offered the suggestion as a compromise. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: rechecking tags is time-consuming, and any appeal needs evaluating in that context. This restriction was applied 6 months ago when an AN/I complaint rebounded on him. In that discussion, and others leading up to it, Jax 0677 leaves a strong impression of WP:IDHT together with misunderstanding how to appropriately use mainspace tags. For an experienced editor, both problems are considerable and not easy to overcome. I simply do not have confidence that giving back 'tagging rights' will end well. The proposed trial period doesn't help: if the previously problematic tags are excluded, the trial period is not trialling much at all. Trials should not be used to paper over the cracks of a fundamental doubt, of the sort which exists here. arcticocean ■ 21:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a very mild ban. Not being able to tag pages is a minor impediment to an editor, and I think the risk of recurrent problems outweighs the benefit of allowing this particular user to tag pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm hesitant to change what appears to be working well, especially when I tend to get so much push back from Jax virtually every time I ever warn them of misconduct or ask them for clarity on the confusing things they do. It took a rather harsh and extensive reaction from the community to actually get Jax to even seem to listen to the concerns. I think where it's at, is where it should stay. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Report on Moderator Misconduct: Rusalkii

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

---

Description:

I am reporting user Rusalkii for unjustified removal of my edits on the Peer Gynt article, specifically regarding the “Peer Gynt Disco” project. I believe their actions are not in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines, as the contribution was written objectively, referenced independent sources, and focused on a contemporary artistic interpretation of Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt and Edvard Grieg’s music.

The moderator’s feedback cited promotional content as the reason for the removal, but the edits were clearly framed in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, emphasizing cultural and artistic context rather than personal promotion. This deletion appears to be an overreach of authority and potentially a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.

I am requesting a review of the moderator’s actions and an evaluation of whether the edits can be restored after further refinement, if necessary. Attached are screenshots of the removed contributions and all relevant discussions for context.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kirieolay (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang you are only here to promote your project. That's not what wikipedia is for and you are edit warring for which I've blocked you. When the block is lifted you may resume editing but not about your project. Star Mississippi 02:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• The Bushranger, I am, for now--look at their talk page. I don't know, maybe they thought we're all the same person. You know how this is going to end: editor wants to put their own work on here, editor has no interest whatsoever in learning what we do and how we do it, editor persists and gets upset, editor gets blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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

SunloungerFrog is making promotion

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

---

@SunloungerFrog this user is making promotion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Ghulam_Shah_Badshah_University. I've just removed some sort of promoiton, but it was reverted back so I need your attentinon. Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

See too my entry for Jazzbanditto on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for harassment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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

3X standard offer appeal for WikiManUser21

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

---

WikiManUser21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is appealing their block, as they were repeatedly caught socking, WP:3X requires a community review before unblocking. They appealed six months ago, but had made a single block-evading edit shortly before that so it was declined. They appealed again yesterday, a CU has not detected any recent socking, and the blocking admin has stated that they are ok with an unblock if the community approves one. Here is the text of their appeal:

It’s been six months since I’ve tried to appeal my block. It wasn’t accepted due to me socking a week prior. I wanted to comply with Wikipedia’s standard offer. Therefore, I have decided to take a long break from Wikipedia. However, as we have passed the deadline, I want to appeal my block, which in my opinion, was 100% justified. Again, I want to remind you that I’ve been blocked for numerous reasons, including disruption, ignoring warnings from other Wikipedians, using sock puppets to bypass my block and making up false allegations against administrators, accusing them of mistreating newer users. I take full responsibility for my wrongdoings and I apologize for being such a nuisance in the Wikipedian community. If I get unblocked, I promise not to disrupt Wikipedia’s policies anymore. My plan is to collaborate with other Wikipedians and to prove myself as a trustworthy Wikipedia user. Thank you. WikiManUser21 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 17:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question: I'd like to see a proposed edit from WikiManUser21, but support in principle. JayCubby 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a rough indication of this user's age. I know there is a prejudice against anything that could be taken as revealing personal information online, especially when it involves minors, but there is an enormous difference in the likelihood to learn between a seventeen-year-old and a nearly-seventy-year-old like me. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That's .... a bit of an odd ask. I've also found that the best path to good judgement is facing the consequences of your poor judgement, which is what this looks like to me. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this would be beneficial. Knowing a user's age group doesn't sound like a good thing to base an unblock on. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support standard offer, because we definitely shouldn't ask them to disclose their age as an unblock condition.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Attacks

Бардюк Олег Юрійович (talk · contribs) was blocked by me on UkWiki for vandalism. He started and continues to attack me here. Please take some action against him. ❄️Mykola❄️ 18:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it just the post to your talk page? Or is it the stuff in Ukrainian on User talk:Andriy.v too? For some reason Google translate won't work on that text, at least for me. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Google translate is working for me now. I'll have a word with them. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. ❄️Mykola❄️ 18:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please let me know if it continues. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I made a mistake and didn't check if they'd been notified of this thread. Mykola7, you need to do that if you report someone at AN or ANI. I've done it for you. However, hopefully I've nipped things in the bud. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The {{User}} does not send a ping on EnWiki? Or you mean that notification must be made on the talk page regardless of the ping here? Fortunately, I am not a frequent visitor here with such requests, but I will remember this for the future. Thank you. ❄️Mykola❄️ 22:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mykola7, it does ping, but a ping is insufficient notification. Please see the notice at the top of this page, which says: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Not just at the top of the page... Creating a new section without notification also requires ignoring a big warning message with similar text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Change to the functionaries team, February 2025

At her request, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of AmandaNP are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks her for her service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Please help with the page Crescent Enterprises

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

---

I started a discussion on the talk page about the content I added to the Crescent Enterprises page, I disclosed my relation to the company per WP guidelines. However, the editor Thenightaway keeps rejecting my edits by calling them "state propaganda." I used good sources like Arab News, Saudi Gazette and The National (Abu Dhabi) as well Gulf News. The editor claims these sources are state propaganda, which seems to show bias against Arab media and the Arab world.

Please review this issue with pushing POV and accusations in propaganda. I do understand that I'm not the ideal editor and I'm interested in the page, but the problems are that the sourced material is constantly being removed. Hangi Dowui (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hangi Dowui I see you have started a dialogue at the article's talk page. That is the right thing to do. If this fails please see if WP:DRN is the right venue for discussion. I suggest it because you are in some form of content dispute. This board here is not a place to bring content disputes, I'm afraid, so will I close the discussion. I wish you the very best with your conversation with the other editor, and hope you reach a suitable mutual understanding. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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

UTRS hit 100,000 requests

As of a few minutes ago, WP:UTRS hit 100,000 requests. See UTRS appeal #100000. Thanks so much to everyone who works hard to handle these requests, dealing with both private data and regular threats to kill us. It's a thankless task, but we do often get to point people to WP:ACC so they can be set up with an account and do occasionally get to unblock users. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Does the 100,000th customer get a prize? j/k 331dot (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

They get a chance to walk back their claim that their account was compromised. :) No points for guessing which way it'll go, though. --Yamla (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I keep meaning to help out there more. It is indeed a fairly thankless task, so thanks to those who are doing it. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you (Yamla, DFO, Pppery, Star Mississippi, 331dot, and many others), who deal with the jumbled mess that is unblock requests, death threats, wheedling, and of course aiding the users who genuinely wish to be unblocked! As a side note, thank you also for draining the cesspool of RfU and UTRS down to a reasonable level some time ago, and keeping the backlog low! At one point the oldest UTRS appeal (which if I recall correctly was a seemingly open-and-shut spam case) had been open for nearly six months. JayCubby 15:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there could be a more fitting unblock request for big number 100,000. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

LOL. I thought maybe a toaster oven . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, damn. We should have had a blinking banner ad ready to go. -- asilvering (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I would have offered as prizes a printout of Mr. Treason's hyperbolic legal threats, the sources Primetime plagiarised from, and a plaque reading "UNBLOCK REQUEST" on a set of wheels. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @JayCubby. @Deepfriedokra deserves all the Flying toasters for teaching me and so many others how to navigate UTRS. Star Mississippi 02:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Talk:Natalie Portman

There's quite the brouhaha at Talk:Natalie Portman. When I blocked NetanelWorthy, they threatened a call to arms noting they would "flood this site away". The article has had to be extended protected due to the subsequent disruption and the talk page is now being overwhelmed with edits based on posts on X by a couple of advocacy accounts. The talk page now has a CTOP notice, but the non-EC edits continue. Any help in keeping an eye on the talk page would be appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I've ECP'd for a few days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed several messages from NetanelWorthy's User talk page that I thought were threatening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Block User:Aidillia

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

---

Please block me from this Wikipedia. As I've made the greatest mistake. Aidillia^(talk) 01:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Aidillia_violating_interaction_ban for an ongoing discussion involving this user. --Yamla (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Admin needed at Denali

It needs either protection again or some blocks for edit warring. I'm too involved to make the call. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess I could protect it. Normally, listening to heavy metal puts me in the mood to block people, but I guess I've built up a tolerance to having angry people scream nihilistic lyrics in my ears. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Full protection on this article. Some editors could probably get edit-warring blocks but I'm nearly done for the day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming that at some point the outrage machine will move on to other topics and it won't seem like something important enough to get blocked over, but I've been wrong before. I miss the days when it was just a page about a mountain and not a political hot-button. Thanks for the protection NRP. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

LgShai

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

---

personal attack? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Diff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I posted them a warning on their User talk page. Let's see if it changes their behavior. Could just be someone having a bad day. Admins differ but I need to see more than one nasty comment to block for incivility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I really hope they don't make any more nasty comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What Liz said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

2409:4063:2301:1020:E9B6:5C0D:7B3A:E8A2 Vandalism

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

---

As above, this IP has vandalized multiple articles continuously and have been warned 3 times. 2405:4803:FE1E:13F0:B62B:7CB0:258A:5818 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and threats on an AfD

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

---

173.245.254.67 (talk · contribs) and 173.245.254.78 (talk · contribs)
I'm reporting both of these IPs (most likely used by the same person) as their behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash, which has since stopped, has been, to put it short, quite atrocious. Barring the non-constructive comments made on the AfD, these two IPs have made comments that are quite simply unacceptable, threatening the lives of users. [28] [29] [30] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Those IP addresses have rightly been blocked. Please close this, someone that knows how. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

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

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Administrator abuse in Portuguese Wikipedia (Chronus)

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

---

I would like to report an issue regarding administrator abuse in the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt.wikipedia). The administrator Chronus has been removing my discussion topics and blocking my attempts to seek mediation regarding bias in the article "Espiritismo" (Spiritism).

Main Issues:

Censorship of Discussions: Chronus deleted my mediation requests when I raised concerns about neutrality issues in the article.

Double Standards in Religious Articles: The Spiritism article uses terms like "purported" and "claims to explain," while other religious articles (e.g., Catholicism) are not subjected to the same skeptical language.

Imposition of External Labels: The term "Kardecism" appears in the introduction, despite the fact that Spiritist organizations reject this designation. Per Wikipedia policy WP:IMPARTIAL, groups should be referred to by their own designation.

Blocking Attempts to Seek External Help: When I tried to escalate the issue to a wider community, my discussions were deleted by Chronus, preventing me from addressing editorial concerns fairly.

Evidence of Censorship & Abuse:https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Esplanada/geral#Pedido_de_Revis%C3%A3o_e_Interven%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Administrativa_no_Artigo_Espiritismo - https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=69506993 - https://imgur.com/a/g46bGa3

I kindly request that neutral administrators review Chronus' actions and investigate whether he is violating Wikipedia’s neutrality and fairness policies (WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL). If necessary, I ask for intervention from global stewards to ensure fair editing practices in pt.wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

~~~~ Sócrates-Platão (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Portuguese Wikipedia. If you are not able to address issues on pt.wiki, you can bring it to Meta-wiki _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but please, if you do take this to meta, make your post legible by not bolding half the words. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Paid editing?

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

---

I strongly suspect paid editing is involved in the articles of Phoenix Ancient Art and Hassa bint Salman Al Saud

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.254.143.32 is registered to Charter Communications Inc, is that a PR company? Huldra (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it's an internet provider. Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks User:Schazjmd. This ip removes the criminal history of the people involved in Phoenix Ancient Art and of Hassa bint Salman Al Saud, that is why I am asking,Huldra (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That this IP is registered to an Internet service provider is not evidence either way, that this is a paid editor or not. It just means that you will have to look for other evidence, maybe behavioural. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for lifting my topic ban

Hello everyone.

I would like to request my topic ban, that has been imposed on me since 2022 (see here), be lifted.

I believe I have demonstrated good behaviour to the WP community during these about 3 years.

I am requesting the lift of this ban mainly because it greatly reduces my ability to work on Eastern Orthodox and Christian topics. Veverve (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If your main reason for wanting it lifted is to edit those articles, perhaps a narrowing of the tban should be considered. "Russia" is certainly a very broad topic. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Veverve, please tell us about the problems with your editing that led to your topic ban, how your approach to editing has changed since then, and why other editors can feel confident that removing or modifying your topic ban would not result in new problems. Are you expecting a complete removal of your topic ban or are you willing to accept a modification? Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A question: Given that the topic ban was instituted by WP:AE, wouldn't any appeals need to be addressed there? TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro

Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is yet another sock of long-banned Florentino floro, so technically all of these uploads can be speedy deleted. We have an entire article about him at Florentino Floro that may help those unfamiliar understand the issue we are dealing with here.

He's been blocked here for sixteen years, but continues to sock and disrupt both here and at Commons. He takes pictures of everything, completely indiscriminately. There is no reasoning with him, it's been tried and it has never accomplished anything. I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long, I was hoping the office banhammer would come down.

So, to get around to the point, there are hundreds of largely useless uploads from this account [31]. Do we FFD them one at a time or just nuke the entire site from orbit? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Just G5 them all. FFD would be a waste of community resources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What voorts said. (one can grow old waiting for the foundation.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

G5 them all. Not only are they useless, many of the photos include images of private individuals, including children at waterparks etc. No thank you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm also hoping that posting this will make more admins aware of his pattern so new socks are dealt with quickly. It seems like the reason he's doing this here is that they finally chased him off on Commons, so it is at least within the realm of possibility that if he keeps getting caught he'll move on to... I dunno, mass uploads at Meta or something. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've hit the nuke button, with apologies to the WMF server gods for the extra cargo.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so that was the database error! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Umm, it would appear so. I'll knock it back to 25 at a go, with breaks. I think this is the first time I've actually broken something.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I get an error when I try to delete the images even one at a time now, so I think it's now just a database lag from the massive nuke. I'll wait an hour and check again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Haha, I was trying to do it at the same time, so perhaps we both broke something? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's Spider Man pointing at Spider Man.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If my memory is not failing me, Special:Nuke has a tendency to break under exactly those circumstances. JayCubby 23:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two of you? Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not really a nuke button if you can't actually nuke anything without breaking the database. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Just curious about the context for I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long. Is there a feature of a global ban that would get around the "volunteers have to figure out it's a sock of a banned user and then take action" bit? If not, what does global banning do other than providing an easy reason to ban on other projects if/when disruption occurs? Regardless, global bans can be proposed on meta without the foundation, although perhaps there feature of the ban you're alluding to is only part of the meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and not just global bans? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't always work, but sometimes when a person is office banned, they change up from disrupting the projects to pestering trust and safety and/or legal, who get paid a lot more than we do. It was also my hope that as a former judge, maybe if the legal department told him to stop, he would. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Closed discussions which was not on Closure requests

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

---

On this talk page, many discussions were closed by some people. All of them were not on Closure requests, and they were on progress. The summaries seem to be unappropriate. A discussion I started were closed by the summary of "Waste of time" (in fact, it had not passed even 1 week after creation). Could you remove the closures? Or, can I remove them by myself? NakajKak (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

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