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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338
339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
V	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	3	92	95
TfD	1	13	14
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	3	5	8
RfD	16	66	82
AfD	0	2	2

Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro

MISCHIEF MANAGED

The database doesn’t take too kindly to multiple admins deleting scads of files at the same time. Either that, or Floro’s duendes were being mischievous on his behalf. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [1]. Do we FFD them one at a time or just nuke the entire site from orbit? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

I managed to successfully G5 the water park images of children files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All images have now been deleted.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, seriously, when they tell you not to cross the steams, you really should listen to them. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

File deletions are more work on the server than normal deletions because it has to move the entire file (and all versions of it) from the Swift container used to store live files to the Swift container used to store deleted files, whereas for text no content is moved and everything is in the same database. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From reading his article (and good lawd have mercy) the legal department telling him to stop would only "encourage" him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

copied from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes

Trainrobber66

New username: OA3g93hi
(understood why I can't put # in username, renamed as a result). I understand that my new username can be random. However, I simply want to remain anonymous on wikipedia now due to security reasons. If username is changed, could you also delete the revisions and entries from here? Trainrobber66 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renamer note: To clarify, user asked the stewards for a rename and was told to come here to see if the partial block raises any concerns about renaming. Generally, we do not rename if "under a cloud." It looks like the blocking admin, @Red-tailed hawk: is not available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Let me take a look at this case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After re-familiarizing myself with this case, yes, I do think this would be a case of "under a cloud". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the rename, but regardless of whether it goes ahead your not going to get revision deletion for all your edits. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda weird that they are claiming the name change is because they want to be anonymous when their current name is equally anonymous. In any event they currently are not allowed to edit article space at all. I'd say that's a pretty major "cloud" and wanting all their edits deleted isn't exactly encouraging. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not going to fly. If it weren't for the pblock I'd just suggest WP:CLEANSTART but there's the pblock, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go for it? Create an account under the name OA3g93hi? Trainrobber66 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Worse than obfuscation of your partial block by changing user names , it would be creating a sock puppet to obfuscate your partial block. Successfully appeal your partial block. Then seek renaming. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Trainrobber66 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick uncontroversial move request of interface page

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked-xff be moved to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-xff? Apparently some maintenance script (I presume) supposed to update the messages didn't do it so now the message is in the wrong place. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also fix the parameters so they are correct after the move. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you might get a faster response to your query at WP:VPT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page deletion which I have made

So I have written a wikipedia page about Pernia Qureshi and Now I want to permanently delete it. Rohitbisht1985 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pernia Qureshi article has existed since 2013. You're also no longer the biggest author of the page. [2] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the OP last previously edited in August 2019 before appearing today to try to G7 this article (declined due to not being the only, or even largest, contributor) and then PROD it (removed the PROD as no rationaile was provided at all). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be clear for any new editors reading this, that being the largest single contributor to a page confers no special authority. A request to delete a page is sometimes acceptable if there are no other significant editors (meaning roughly, that there may be other editors but they are either performing administrative task like adding categories or maybe fixing a typo but not adding anything of substance to the meat of the article.) There is never a situation in which simply being a substantial contributor to a page gives you the right to request removal. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They made four or five attempts to delete it. I’ve pblocked them from the article. I am very interested to find out why @Rohitbisht1985 wants to do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's the "Personal life & Legal Cases" section that could be seen as not very flattering. I just don't know why they didn't remove any negative content and instead sought deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on an IP did try deleting stuff today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the legal issues are about her father, not her. I’m going to remove some of those. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask User:SierraTangoCharlie1 if Pernia Qureshi or a relative has been in the news as they edited the article today, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some unknown ip address edits to her wiki page. On further reading I found that the page had a lot of data which was about her father or a relative, and not exactly worth being kept on her wiki article . Hence, I removed those edits and stated reasons for the same. STC1 _talk 08:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the negative info came from a single edit last month: Special:Diff/1270596693. That editor Samdan25 only made that one edit. I’ll invite them to the party too. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samdan25 blocked from Pernia Qureshi 31 hours for reinstating some of the stuff about her father. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why delete the article? If vandalism occurs, we can always correct it. The Last time Pernia was in the news was when she divorced her second husband (early 2024) followed by a Vogue India article about Wedding Gowns (late 2024). STC1 _talk 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New redirect

Not an issue for AN. Editors are reminded that AN is generally for serious matters and that they should check for the existence of other noticeboards or ask at the Teahouse if they're unsure. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting the creation of a redirect. New South 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 redirect to New South Wales Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AN noticeboard is for issues impacting the project's administrators. I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, Servite et contribuere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Liz But I do find Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a bit confusing. Do I just type it at the bottom of where I can type? It's not an important redirect anyways. It can be done later Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, there is a blue button named Click here to request the creation of a new redirect. Click on it, and it will give you instructions regarding the creation of a new redirect. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Noreste It's after the Blue Buttons I find it tricky Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For help like this, I recommend going with your questions to the Teahouse. They have editors around to walk you through steps like these. AN? Not so much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dev0745

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Dev0745 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Per informal admin colloquy, it is noted that Dev0745's edits since [the earlier, broader] topic ban's imposition have largely violated it, but also largely been acceptable, and as such imposing a sanction for these violations would not serve a preventative purpose. Instead, the ban is narrowed to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed; Dev0745 is warned that this new scope covers some of the edits they had been making, which they must take care to avoid in the future.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Waived. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dev0745

Hello, I got banned by Tamzin on 10 May 2023 for continued use of low-quality sources, misrepresentation of sources, and improper synthesis of sources. See [3]. Since then I have learned considerably about how to find proper sources. Then, Tamzin narrowed the ban to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed on 11 January 2025. See [4]. I request to uplift the ban from all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan since I have learned considerably about how to find proper sources and write them. Dev0745 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, In the article of love jihad, what I wrote was that Popular Front of India was under scanner by NIA for conversion cases. Later banned for links with SIMI, a terrorist group banned by Indian government which were clearly mentioned in those articles. Whether they found any evidence of love jihad or evidence of coercion is different thing. I was only mentioned they were under investigation by NIA for conversion in 2017. Later banned for links with terrorist groups in 2021. I don't know that not writing about India Today media report of not finding coercion is against Wikipedia policy. I will ensure that I will follow Wikipedia policy properly. Dev0745 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PFI do conversion by running centre to convert non-muslim by indoctrination as per NIA. see news articles:[5], [6], [7], [8]. Religious conversion is not a crime in India unless it is force conversion.

Rsjaffe is saying that I wrote PFI was under scanner for love jihad cases. Actually I wrote PFI was scanner for conversion cases. The Wikimedia page love jihad mentioned incident of 2017 where NIA didn't find any organised plan of conversion and not mentioned about ban of PFI in 2022 for links with Terrorist groups. So I wrote PFI was under scanner for conversion cases in 2017. And later got banned in 2022 for links with terrorist groups. I have accepted by fault, if that was violation of Wikimedia policy due to ommison of not finding coercion in conversion by NIA. Dev0745 (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, I accepted that I have done mistake by ommison. In original edit, I wrote that PFI was under scanner for conversion. But I written love jihad in palce of conversion in appeal section as I didn't written exact sentence which I have written in love jihad article page. I have been banned since 10 May 2023 and learned considerably about finding reliable sources and will try to follow Wikipedia policy. I want unban from religion, politics and culture related articles. But if you guys are not in favour unbanning from all banned articles, at least unban from politics and culture related articles. Thanks. Dev0745 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

No comment at this time, other than to note the previous unsuccessful appeal. That was filed shortly after the initial ban, so shouldn't have much bearing now, but still ought to be noted. Also, this was posted without using the template that ArbCom requires, so I've taken the liberty of fixing that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also, courtesy pings to @Bishonen and @RegentsPark per involvement in Special:Permalink/1267943278 § Dev0745: accept fait accompli, or indef?. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I imposed the TBAN as an individual admin action for reasons explained initially here and at greater length here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dev0745: Since no one's supported or opposed yet, I'll try to get the ball rolling. In my mind, the biggest issue with your conduct was that you wrote In 2017, PFI was under scanner of National Investigation Agency for carrying out conversion of hindu women and marrying them to muslim men, citing a source that includes the sentence However, the agency concluded its probe in October 2018 after it found no 'evidence of coercion' that could result in prosecution, a fact you completely omitted from your edit. In your first appeal, your response to the charge of misrepresentation by omission was I never read it at any Wikipedia policy, which triggered a rather incredulous response from the Oxford IP: Do you seriously need 'don't misrepresent what sources say' to be spelled out in policy for you? I'm shocked, that is such a fundamental and common sense statement. If you genuinely didn't know that misrepresenting sources is wrong that points to there being serious WP:CIR issues at play here.
Two years later, do you feel you have a better grasp on why it's such a big deal to selectively omit details from a source like that? Do you think that, if unbanned, you could ensure you wouldn't repeat that behavior? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dev0745

I find it useful to have links to previous AE discussions so here are several, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263#Dev0745 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive313#Dev0745. It looks like the topic ban wasn't imposed as a result of an AE discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a general lack of admin activity and response to most discussion threads in AN that is disappointing. Or maybe I have higher expectations. There is also a decrease in activity I've noticed in AFDs. We seem to be seeing a decrease of editors in some very important areas of the project and it's not even the holidays or summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions were narrowed a month ago so this may be a bit too soon but I'm willing to give it a shot. The edits since the ban was narrowed appear to be mostly gnomish and what references I've seen look reasonable.RegentsPark (comment) 16:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the reply to Tamzin's question about the Love Jihad article edits totally unsatisfactory. what I wrote was that Popular Front of India was under scanner by NIA for love jihad cases ... Whether they found any evidence of love jihad or evidence of coercion is different thing. I was only mentioned they were under investigation by NIA for conversion in 2017. That is distortion by omission and I see no recognition of the problem by Dev0745. Given that, I am against the appeal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the narrowed topic ban needs to remain, based on Dev0745's responses to Tamzin and rsjaffe above. I don't know that not writing about India Today media report of not finding coercion is against Wikipedia policy. doesn't do anything to convince me that they do understand what the problem is. An additional problem is the fact that Dev0745 edited their reply to Tamzin after rsjaffe had quoted it (Dev's original reply, rsjaffe's comment, Dev changes original reply) and then accused rsjaffe of misquoting. The basic meaning of the original response is the same whether Dev used the phrase "love jihad" or "conversion", and so the distortion-by-omission problem is still there, but it should be obvious to an editor with as much experience as Dev0745 has that tampering with a post that has been replied to is inappropriate. Tampering with a post that's been quoted, and saying that the quoting editor was wrong is more than inappropriate (and indeed another form of source misrepresentation!) --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dev0745, you are topic banned from all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed[9]. And in this discussion on Bishonen's user talk page, Tamzin explicitly pointed out that the ban includes edits about tribes, and that you need to stop editing about ethnic and social groups in India. That linked discussion includes a post from 6 January where you acknowledged this limit. Since then, you have made almost 30 edits to Talk:Kudmi Mahato, participating in multiple discussions about whether that community is a tribe or not: [10]. Your argument about Raj-era ethnographers is valid, but that doesn't matter – a topic ban means that there shouldn't be any edits at all about social/tribal/caste/ethnic groups in India. Your topic ban includes culture in India, so the fact that you created a new article about an Indian singer (Pawan Roy) today would also appear to be a topic ban violation. --bonadea contributions talk 16:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC close

Does anyone want to tackle the close here: Wikipedia:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity? Formative days have mostly passed and not enough recent opinions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing of editor King Lobclaw by a now-banned user

EMAIL ACCESS BLOCKED

Canvassing and threatening. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Krucial Khristian Kru, an editor already banned for a username policy violation, apparently had an email conversation with another user, @King Lobclaw (see here) where Krucial admitted to canvassing. Lobclaw later admitted to having been canvassed as well (see here) and later confirmed this in the discussion thread on the Gulf of Mexico page as well as on their own user talk page when asked about it. Cortador (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krucial Khristian Kru is blocked, not banned. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know the consequences if you fail to do so certainly sounds like a threat. I have suggested to King Lobclaw that if any further efforts are made to compel them to edit on behalf of a blocked user they should contact the trust and safety team. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI that King Lobclaw just said they plan on deactivating their Wikipedia email link in order to sever that contact method and prevent Krucial Khristian Krew or any of their socks from targeting them further. I think we should likely discount their compelled !vote but take no further action against King Lobclaw. However for the threatening editor I think a community ban against the sock master for canvassing with threats should be logged. They should not be coming back from their block. Ever. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked email access for Krucial Khristian Kru. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm pretty confident that Krucial Khristian Kru and their family of socks are FiveSidedFistagon - so, yes, they are banned. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their name abbreviates to KKK, so regardless, they're not here to contribute positively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today "Crucial Christian Crew" (now blocked) appears to have doxxed and alarmingly comprehensively. RFO sent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for Review of Closure: RFC on Musk’s Alleged Nazi Salute

CLOSE STANDS, CLOSER CAUTIONED

72+ hours later, it appears that the consensus is that the close was valid, but the rationale was not. Therefore, the close stands, but guninvalid is advised to, in the future, be more careful with closures they peform. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I request a review of the closure of this RFC, as the closer failed to properly weigh arguments and misapplied WP:SNOW.

Failure to Weigh Arguments – The closure relied too much on vote count rather than policy-based reasoning. Several valid policy arguments were not meaningfully addressed.
Misuse of WP:SNOW – The discussion was active and contained several perspectives, making SNOW closure inappropriate. The outcome was not so obvious as to justify shutting down debate.

The closer reiterated their belief that this is SNOW close in the follow up discussion. I request an administrator review the closure, as it may have prematurely ended a legitimate discussion that had only been open 12 days. Given this is a WP:BLP more care should be applied to discussions of this nature. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer statement

Closer here. I'm not sure whether I count as a participant or not so here I am. I reread through it just now (and probably more closely than I did when closing it) and I support my original close. As @User:Simonm223 pointed out here, most of the non-trivial B arguments boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Multiple A/C voters directly rebutted these arguments on multiple points. From weighing these arguments, I agree with some A/C voters that WP:RECENTISM was being misinterpreted. Looking back at my close, I could consider removing the WP:SNOWCLAUSE assessment, but I'm not convinced I would even do that. The only other option I would seriously consider is closing as no-consensus and reopening with better options and proper question wording. guninvalid (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any editors directly argued against WP:NOTNEWS, but several editors disputed WP:RECENTISM. Next to the WP:RS arguments though, I'd say it still weighs in favor of A/C. guninvalid (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participants

Hard to evaluate the close when the RfC is so badly worded: "So, can we say 'Musk received widespread criticism for what some perceived as a Nazi salute (An accusation he denied)'" -- say where? Instead of what? Based on what sources? Is it asking whether it can be mentioned in the article at all, or is it about the lead? Is it about one sentence about the salute among the full paragraph that's there? At the most basic level, insofar as there's we have an entire article related to something Musk did, it would be contrary to summary style to exclude it -- is that the debate? Or is it some aspect of the wording? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse RfC result Having read through the thread I would have closed it exactly the same way if I'd come across it. There was a massive numerical superiority to including mention of the nazi salute in some form but, beyond that, the stronger argument was for inclusion. Arguments against inclusion boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM but neither of those accounted for either Mr. Musk's now multi-year flirtation with the far right (which kind of undermines the recentism argument) nor did they provide adequate justification for how WP:NOTNEWS applies. Discussion of whether to include Mr. Musk's trolling photo collage of democrats with their arms stuck out or a video of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez making an arm gesture that was clearly not a Nazi salute is completely pointless to an assessment of the RfC question and should honestly be struck as WP:NOTFORUM. Meanwhile those who supported inclusion successfully demonstrated significant reliable coverage of the gesture Mr. Musk made and demonstrated that it was a notable action. This was a good close. There's no need to belabor RfCs that clearly will go a specific way just so that Musk fans can repeat the same forumy asides about perceived opponents of Mr. Musk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda odd seeing the closer quote Simon223's analysis/summary of the arguments when the closer should have done that themselves, considering they knew it was a contentious topic. I also think it should have been allowed to run the full thirty days. Should it be overturned, probably not, but in the future, the closer should take note of giving a more detailed closure rationale when closing a contentious topic RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason was because I thought it was WP:SNOW. In hindsight, I probably should've still included a sentence or two, but as I stated in the post-close discussion, I felt that the B arguments had been properly disputed by A/C editors. I just explained it in more detail in my statement above. guninvalid (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close I second Isaidnoway's concerns about process/closure rationale, but overall the close seems like an accurate reading of consensus. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close although I think we need to be aware of proportionality. It doesn't need excessive coverage, and if he does many, many more things it may end up being dropped to keep the article balanced. This shouldn't bind us forever. Secretlondon (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was malformed, and the specific question was whether to include it at all. That's why I added that the exact wording should be discussed separately. guninvalid (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Substantial numerical superiority on one side after a couple of weeks != SNOW, considering the arguments before the closer.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Void. This RfC is ineffective, serves no purpose, makes no difference, because the stand-alone article Elon Musk salute controversy exists and it obviously not going to be deleted, and per Wikipedia:Summary style, the language to be used in the Musk article should be language which summarizes the salute controversy article and draws from the language used in that article. Using significantly different language would be impermissible WP:POVFORKing. A mention of this event was already in the article, and there being some edit warring not in itself a reason to start an RfC—this is ultimately just about how to describe Musk's gesture. Starting the RfC actually gave air to the preposterous and concerning idea that the Musk article can not mention the event at all, which is clearly not on the table. The only question is how to word something, and the RfC did not make any progress on that front, and no specific progress is needed to begin with, because the "Elon Musk salute controversy" article answers how to word it.—Alalch E. 09:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn early closure and Relist - When WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are being argued as issues, and when there is a minority viewpoint being argued, even if by a minority, an early closure, whether snow or otherwise, is unwise. This is especially true if the closer is an inexperienced editor closing a contentious topic discussion. I don't like most appeals of bad non-administrative close, but this appears to have been one. The RFC should have been allowed to run for 30 days, and should be allowed to run for the remainder of 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But to what end? Despite actually thinking the close was, for what it was, appropriate I actually find @Alalch E.'s point quite compelling. As the controversy page exists and is unlikely to be deleted WP policy is pretty clear here. And reopening the RfC won't change that regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

Well it should not have been snow close but to assume that "Failure to Weigh Arguments" seems like a massive assumption, based on (dare I also say) it a Failure to Weigh Arguments.Just becasue they did not get the result they wanted did not mean their arguments were ignored, just that they may not have been good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here (by the way) is the RFC [[11]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's shouldn't be closed as SNOW and the merits of the arguments, especially in context of this being a BLP need to be part of the closing discussion. This is a case where the declared consensus may be correct but if the RfC is to have meaning the rational should also be correct. Note that I !voted exclude but by going only by the numbers I think this is consensus for include. Springee (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, since people are asserting that WP:NOTNEWS wasn't addressed - I view NOTNEWS and RECENTISM as intrinsically connected, at least in this context. My extended comment there rebutting the RECENTISM arguments obviously applies equally to the NOTNEWS ones; I assumed that that went without saying. Beyond that, while the RFC was oddly-worded and should have had more workshopping on a specific wording, it was clear that the real dispute was "should this be included at all", and the discussion was extremely lopsided in favor of inclusion. The arguments for exclusion (as I pointed out when analyzing the hollowness of the RECENTISM argument) were weak because they lacked specific reference to the context at hand - simply repeating NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no context-specific argument, as many of the arguments for exclusion did, isn't a strong argument at all and isn't something people ought to expect would help them in a case where such arguments also clearly failed to convince many people. Note that Namor's own arguments from the RFC fall into this category - a vague handwave towards NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no explanation for why they apply here; those policies obviously do not support the automatic removal of everything in the news or everything recent, so the lack of context made them extremely weak arguments. As, again, I clearly indicated during the RFC, and which nobody adequately rebutted! And many of the other arguments against inclusion relied on editors trying to interpret Musk's gesture themselves or expressing their own personal opinions about it, which a closer obviously had to disregard. Overturning a lopsided majority requires that you have clearly stronger arguments, and while obviously everyone is always going to think their own arguments are the strongest, I'm simply not seeing how anyone could hope to win on the merits of their arguments with arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RfC result, the rationale was poor. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Unless someone can point to a specific line of NOTNEWS that applies here, it's a weak argument. The only paragraph that could maybe be used is the second one, and even then the gesture and reactions to it definitely exceed "routine news coverage". – MW_(t•c) 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse result, but not the close. Per Rhododendrites above, the RfC was malformed, and to provide some context here it also doesn't reflect the current situation with the Musk article nor the Salute article. It arrived when the page was 14,000+ words prior to undergroing summarisation, and a day before the AfD was imitated, with the overwhelming number of votes coming during this period. To relist would be to reassess such consensus prior to a dramatic change in content that has become the status quo. Now that there is consensus for the Salute article as a standalone article, and the Musk article converted to summary style, the argument for exclusion, inclusion, or reduction of content, would be completely different. There are no size issues to consider anymore, nor an issue with where to locate the content, and the summary in question was also been trimmed (without opposition) since the original RfC to align with rest of article, as opposed to an ever expanding liveblog-like commentary. Generally I feel like the previous dispute was resolved given the changes that occurred to the article, the consensus established at AfD, and the content being completely different now. I believe these factor should be strongly considered here, not to mention the lack of any recent editing dispute at the article to reduce or expand the summary. I concur with others it was not a snow clause and the rationale was poor, but I really feel like we could just move on from this and instead continue improving Musk child articles rather than rediscussing an expired issue. Edit: also what Alalch E. said (that I didn't see before my comment), as this is another good way to look at this situation for broader context. CNC (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elias Hossain(s)

There was a bit of a mess which I think (?) I've sorted out, but wanted to flag up here just in case.

Elias Hossain had a redir to Elias Hossain (disambiguation), which dabs between Elias Hossain (journalist) and Elias Hossain (footballer).

An hour ago, Darkonexdo requested G7 on Elias Hossain (journalist), which I declined because they're not the only or even the main author of it. They then copypaste moved the content from there to Elias Hossain, replacing the redir that was there, effectively making the journalist the primary topic for this term.

I've no idea which, if either, is the actual primary topic, but I assumed there was a reason why that term was pointing to the dab page. Also, the copypaste obviously would have lost the edit history. So I reverted things back to how they were.

In doing all that, I was reminded that there's also Draft:Elias Hossain (journalist), declined at AfC on the basis of the main space article. But that draft dates back to Jan 14th, whereas the main space one seems to have been created only on the 25th. At least one editor has edited both versions, so there may have been some copying across (I haven't checked), but it wasn't a straight copypaste move at least. I guess my question is, is there any (easy) way of determining if any of the history from the draft needs merging with the published article? And/or does anyone spot anything I've missed?

Finally, just to say that this subject has had a bit of a troubled genesis in more ways than one, so I wouldn't be surprised if some interesting critters are found in the undergrowth. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some confusing article creation and page moving around Mohammad Elias (educator), Mohammad Elias, Elias Hossainn, Imtiyaz Ahmed (actor), Imtiaz Ahmed (actor) and Imtiaz Ahmad. Mostly deleted through CSD but also an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imtiaz Ahmed (actor). I think this is all about usurping page titles for the preferred article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late to the discussion – Doublegrazing asked for my input since I'm one of the editors who have been dealing with some of the confusion created by all the cut-and-pasting and renaming of pages. I agree with Liz, I'm sure these are attempts to promote people by creating articles about them and making those articles the main titles. Imtiaz Ahmad looks like an exception, that seems to be a genuinely notable person as opposed to the actor. Perhaps it's step one in a new attempt to shoehorn an article about the actor into mainspace.

And now Darkonexdo has moved their user page and talk page to User:Hackone, an unregistered user name. Another warning has been posted to User talk:Darkonexdo since, so it needs an admin to untangle that. --bonadea contributions talk 18:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and it is not the first time this has happened, and the user was warned twice; as with almost all their previous warnings, their only response was to remove the warning and say "Sorry". I count about ten instances in the history of their user talk page when they did exactly this. (When the user pages are moved back to the right place, my links in this post will probably break, it's all in the user talk page history.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And they've now created Draft:Darkhackbd after attempting to create Imtiaz Ahmed (hacker) - which appears (a) to be something they made up one day and (b) themselves. Given the mess they made at Shariful Haque Dalim, the repeated page moves, shuffling of redirects, and this, and their all but complete lack of communication, along with the fact they were blocked before for "persistent removal of content" and just Wikibreaked the block away before resuming, I've blocked indef per WP:DE and WP:COMMUNICATE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Images with Albums/Singles

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Cover Images with Albums/Singles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCubby (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scammer

Known issue. Nothing for Admins to do here. Star Mississippi 22:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user named "Muhammad Shahroz Muhammad Aslam" on LinkedIn is impersonating a Wikipedia administrator and targeting users in the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. He messaged me, claiming he could approve my Wikipedia article if I "fix some issues."

Wikipedia editors should be aware of this scam to prevent others from being tricked into giving up information or paying for fake approvals.

LinkedIn Profile: [INSERT LINK HERE] Screenshot of Message: [INSERT LINK OR COPY TEXT OF MESSAGE] ButtonWarren (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a WP:VP. guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ButtonWarren,

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning, it should have some information for you and where you can report this scam. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that this message appears to be entirely AI-created. Strange? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mellk Has Acted Contrary to Wikipedia Guidelines

Clearly a sock and a WP:RUSUKR violation to boot. Hatting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Any editor in good standing is welcome to present a case, should there be merit. Creditcot, please take this as a final warning. You will be blocked for disruption if you continue down this path, regardless of whether you're socking. Star Mississippi 19:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:UNCIVIL: The aforementioned user @Mellk has twice referred to the edits and contributions of other Wikipedia users as "bullshit" and told other users "not to write nonsense".

WP:EDITWAR: The user has consistently participated in editing warring since his first block on April 1 2020, a block which he has proceeded to delete any record of on his talk page. He is a permanent fixture on the Wikipedia Admin Noticeboard for his involvement in editing warring.

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers: A brief glance of his talk page reveals numerous editors he has intimidated and pushed off of the platform for holding competing views.

WP:OWN: His self-confessed patrolling of articles concerning the topic of 'Ukraine', in one instance he wrote 'I watch the page Ukrainian language'.

In November 2023 he wrote that if "you use your user page to try convince everyone that your POV does not negatively affect your editing, it is not a good sign' however Mellk repeatedly deletes edits to his talk page that question his objectivity.

Mellk has been accused by numerous editors of allowing his POV and overt pro-Russian bias to adversely affect Wikipedia and the articles he edits, he has similarly been accused by numerous editors of going after editors rather than content and making personal attacks on editors.

A topic ban on the area in which he causes most disruption on Wikipedia (Eastern Europe) is long overdue.

Creditcot (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to formally notify Mellk of the existence of this discussion as instructed at the top of this page, pings are insufficient for this purpose. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a sock. It is definitely strange that a new account that has made about a dozen minor edits all outside of the EE topic area and has never interacted with me before is now proposing an EE topic ban and recalls something I supposedly said in 2023. Mellk (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk has been notified of this discussion, as predicted he will proceed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my account, this is routine behaviour for Mellk, as his editing on Wikipedia speaks for itself (aggressive and intimidatory) he will move directly to attacking my account, as he has done with so many others.Creditcot (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Creditcot[reply]

Whatever, please use your normal account to open AN threads. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually socking aside, isn't this complaint a violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War? Creditcot lacks EC under this account. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as predicted he will proceed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my account. Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would suspect you of acting anything other than completely aboveboard. Do you really expect everyone to believe that as an account created last month with 12 edits, having never edited an article which Mellk has edited, for your 13th edit you reported them to AN based on ... an edit made more than a year before you created your account, and more than 25,000 edits back in their contributions? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

CBAN appeal - Roxy the Dog

UNBANNED

Roxy the dog is unbanned by the community. Editors unanimously felt that we can give Roxy a second chance and that their appeal was thoughtfully-worded.

I will acknowledge that this discussion was closed earlier but reopened because the discussion was open for less than 24 hours. It has now been reopened for almost 72 hours, so we are ripe for closing.

There was no consensus to impose a separate topic ban from WP:GENSEX, but there are two things to keep in mind: First, Roxy is currently Indefinitely banned from the article Lia Thomas, as well as making any edits about transgender athletes, broadly construed. (Because a year has elapsed from its imposition, it may be modified by any uninvolved administrator.) Second, Roxy is obviously aware of the contentious topic designation, and uninvolved administrators can therefore implement AE sanctions (including an indefinite topic ban) as necessary.

Roxy, I will also re-log your commitment to that you have no desire to edit article space in the GENSEX area, and wont do so. If, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment, it will be with politeness and empathy. at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. Best of luck. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(From talk page) It has been about eighteen months since I received a WP:CBAN, here. From my pov, it is awful reading, outlining a litany of Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behaviour by myself. The closing Admin suggested a discussion with User:Sideswipe9th would be essential in helping me understand how my behaviour affected people, and I have tried to initiate a discussion, which SS responded to. A serious problem with medication supply has prevented Sideswipe from editing for quite some time, and no substantive discussion has taken place. See my Talk page archive there

Two thoughts occur to me over this. Firstly I apologised profusely at the time, and will be ashamed of that stuff for a long long time, and I stand by those apologies now. Secondly, I hope that being unable to discuss things with Sideswipe should not prejudice the outcome of my appeal. However, in a surprising and generous unexpected post [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]] volunteered to stand in for Sideswipe. This discussion has been taking place on my Talk page in recent days, and I thank participants, who have been quite frank and generous toward me.

I know how to behave - I would like the community to accept that and allow me to demonstrate it. I feel that the time has come to ask the community to rescind my ban. To be clear, I have no desire to edit article space in the GENSEX area, and wont do so. If, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment, it will be with politeness and empathy.

Give me some rope. Thanks. Roxy the dog 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Roxy the dog 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support lifting this ban. The discussion on Roxy's talk page shows that he's been willing to reflect on what he did and how it affected other people, and to take other people's perspective into consideration. I don't think continuing the ban serves any useful purpose. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appeal comes across as genuinely reflective and remorseful, and it appears the sanction has served its purpose. The only caveat I'd add is that I cannot speak for anyone who felt wronged by anything that was said or done, and if they raise an objection then I may return to strike my !vote. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent appeal, the achievement of self-knowledge can occasionally seem a rarity in these parts. Serial (speculates here) 14:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I appreciated reading the thoughtful conversation on Roxy's talk page, and commend YFNS for taking the time to drop science regarding some of the common fallacies that underpin transphobia. While Roxy and I still don't see entirely eye to eye on trans issues, that's hardly a deal breaker. What's important is that they've demonstrated a commitment to thinking through this fraught topic collaboratively, and in general to engaging with civility at the forefront of their mind going forward. Generalrelative (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well-spoken and thoughtful request that shows reflection on the incidents. A read of the original discussion and subsequent interactions indicates a commitment to avoid the topic area and a more understanding approach when working with other editors. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been helping out with explaining some appeal & editing basics to banned editors, when I came across this appeal. It looks like they're genuinely trying to understand and engage with other viewpoints, which is admirable and shows they're trying their best to work with others. The appeal is well written and thought out, so I asked if I could show my support as a non-admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An individual deserves a chance to prove themselves. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, preventative; not punitive. Low likelihood of relapse. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let the existing topic ban remain. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read the conversation on Roxy the dog's talk page the other day and thought "this is heading in the right direction". Glad to see a sincere, self-reflective appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a solid unban request. I recall the gross "typical transgender hounding" type comments at the time, but apparently, I didn't participate in the ban discussion (I thought I did, but I don't find myself in the discussion, so I guess not). Anyway, the part they feel the most ashamed about is the part that bothered me the most, so I support unbanning, and I'll again commend User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist for taking the time to discuss this with RTD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to hear from User:El C who reviewed the community ban discussion and also consider a topic ban before considering an unblock. Please review the community ban discussion along with an unblock appeal.

I also don't know why you are discussing another Wikipedian's medication issues and I can't find an on-Wikipedia reference for this statement. Sideswipe9th hasn't edited since April 2024 and I think that comment is sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wasn't needed, but it's in the second link in RTD's unban request above. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your comment about El C makes me wonder whether it would also be appropriate to notify User:Maddy from Celeste, who made the previous ANI that resulted in the CBAN. I'm at least pinging them now. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this is an WP:1AM situation. While I'm not going to Oppose an unblock, I do have some misgivings. But given the support from editors like User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist who has worked with Roxy, I'm not going to derail this moving train. So, let's remember WP:ROPE and move forward. Besides considering a topic ban from GENSEX though, I do think that this request should be open for 48 hours before its inevitable close so it's clear it received its due, thoughtful consideration and wasn't rushed through. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, since you asked about Sideswipe9th, if you look at User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 13#Follow up, you will see that Sideswipe told Roxy about the health issues, so yes, there is a clear record of Sideswipe volunteering this information. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the subject was mentioned back in November 2024. I don't see the relevance of mentioning in an unblock request as if it is current reason why an editor isn't editing. A minor point, I just thought the reference was unnecessary. Moving on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think he's shown solid growth, understanding, and remorse and believe sanctions should be preventative not punative. There are some extra parts I wish he'd included in his appeal, but that's on me for not discussing them when he was drafting it as it's been a busy few days. I'd strongly recommend, but not require, he consider himself under a voluntary GENSEX TBAN for at least a year as if he feel[s] the need to comment on GENSEX the most polite/empathetic thing to do for the time being would be not to for a while / only comment on the least controversial articles / discussions. That being said, welcome back Roxy, and you can always still ping/email me if you want to discuss / learn about anything! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is precisely what I look for in an appeal. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like a really good unblock request. Though if they are volunteering to step away from the topic area, I would suggest an official topic ban from GENSEX. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I have a history with Roxy and have interacted with him when I was a teenager, so to me he is kinda a teacher figure to me.

Other older contributors I have interacted with like User:Tgeorgescu are viewed as teachers to me. Tgeorgescu knows that Roxy has been a valuable contributor to the project.

Also Roxy’s apology appears genuine. So why not give him another chance.

I spend a few minutes to write this reply. I am currently in class, so please ping me if you plan to reply to this comment.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of people been talking about some topic ban.

To be honest I don’t feel the need to address that and I don’t wanna talk about it.CycoMa2 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry y’all but I don’t have the time to scroll through all the discussions on this.

I have school and my own articles to write.CycoMa2 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to do more article writing for this project.CycoMa2 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to participate in this discussion at all @CycoMa2 and definitely not continuing to post. Go write the articles you're interested in. Star Mississippi 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support appears to be a well thought out request with backup to points they are making. ~~No opinion on whether a t-ban is needed. Star Mississippi 19:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Given the post-initial close discussion on the extant topic ban, revising the latter part of my support to "No opinion whether the existing topic ban is still needed. I imagine that would need to be appealed separately, but am not positive." Star Mississippi 02:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a unilateral AE sanction that's more than a year old, so it can be lifted (or narrowed, or broadened) by any uninvolved admin at this point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, Tamzin, I think you might be right here, Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Duration of restrictions. So, there would have to be consideration whether to reimpose some kind of topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: No, the un-CBAN wouldn't automatically lift the TBAN or anything. I'm just answering Star's question as to whether there are separate appeals rules for it, to which the answer is: yes, but in the direction of appeal being a lower standard, not higher. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I found the point you were making in policy but now your recent comment has me questioning if this topic ban expiration after 1 year is the point you were trying to make. I'll leave this to admins who are more policy wonks than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, to clarify, per WP:CTOP, a CTOP sanction imposed by an individual admin can only be lifted by clear AE or AN consensus in its first year of existence, but after that can be lifted by any admin. So this sanction hasn't expired, it just has gotten much easier to lift. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tamzin for the explanation. @Liz glad I wasn't the only one confused. Star Mississippi 13:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good request as per above. Jay Cubby 20:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per YFNS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support As someone who was in a similar situation here not too long ago. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the others. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per everyone above. A valued member and a net-positive to the project. Their interactions prior to the unban request and the unban request after are both sincere, apologetic and honest. I see no reason for Roxy to remain blocked. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and I'm so very happy to see that I'm far from the only person here who feels that way. I, too, am convinced of the sincerity of the appeal, and I, too, note that we do not often see that amount of demonstrated self-awareness in appeal requests. Roxy has been very helpful in one of the areas where I edit, trying to keep POV fringe out of our medical and scientific pages, and I'm sure that he can be helpful there once more. He knows his limitations, has acknowledged explicitly that there is an element of "ROPE" in his appeal, and I think the community can feel confident about granting this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re-opened. My apologies to voorts and Roxy. I have no real opinion on the merits of the unban or the close, but I do feel pretty strongly that re-opening it now is the right thing to do in the face of all this doubt. My suggestion would be to let it run for another 48 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity, here is the previous close (with strikethroughs from when it was modified):
Roxy the dog is unbanned by the community. There is a clear consensus that his apologies and recent civil interactions are entirely sincere. ~~Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop.~~ Roxy has stated that he ha[s] no desire to edit article space in the GENSEX area, and [won't] do so. If, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment, it will be with politeness and empathy. (emphasis added). The community has determined that those promises, as well as Roxy's growth and commitment to civil discussion, are sufficient to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Roxy is encouraged to avoid GENSEX entirely for several months.
voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support what seems like the platonic ideal of a unban request. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion on the previous close

Now moot; continuing discussion is not serving any useful purpose. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Note: If someone has an objection to the unban as is and wants me to reopen the discussion I will do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to go on the record and say this discussion was closed too soon. Not open even for 24 hours. If you disagree, please read the original CBAN discussion. That's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy has a topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Individual sanctions (GENSEX) and here is the notice User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. Is this still in force, voorts? I'd ask User:Courcelles but they haven't edited in a few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say clearly yes. It doesn't seem like Courcelles ever revoked it or another admin with their permission. It was mentioned in the cban discussion as still being in effect. Neither of these discussions would seem to have revoked it, it wasn't even mentioned above AFAICT, so even putting aside it didn't use the CTOP template, I don't see how you can have consensus to revoked it when it wasn't mentioned. And the cban discussion seems to have resulted in a separate remedy distinct from CTOP I mean it was in ANI so not even the right place to deal amend a CTOP sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since it's been over a year I don't think Courcelles permission would be needed for any adjin modify it. Still needs an admin to clearly say they're removing it though which would include modifying the log. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Liz. I have no problem with closing a discussion "too fast" when it's to a user's favor (in this case unbanning them). However, the idea that Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop. after 16 hours is not an accurate reading of how the community works. It is not an accident that community bans must normally be open 72 hours - things can swing. I would ask Voorts to consider striking that part of his close. I'm happy that there is consensus to bring Roxy back to the community but I do think a fair chance - on a weekend no less - for people with concerns to have a chance to express them is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly problematic; it's just an exercise in paperwork. As with most of our discussions, consensus is formed by a (well argued) majority addressing and overturning a previous consensus. Since the extant topic bans were not raised in this discussion, they have not been overturned by consensus, and must stand. So all we need to do is adjust this close to reflect that not only was there no consensus to impose a new TB, there was, by default, no consensus to lift the previous one. Adjust the log to reflect this and inform RtD that, unfortunately, his voluntary promises will not be required at this time, as they are still under the same restrictions they were before the Cban.
As far as the discussion not being open long enough, I can find nothing in WP:CBAN or WP:UNBAN that mandates a minimum opening period for ban appeals. Presumably it will require a well-publicized RfC to effect the necessary policy change. On the merits though, while it could have been held open longer, per WP:NOTBURO, it is common place for discussions to be closed when an overwhelming consensus appears. If it was sparsely attended, of course, it would have been very wrong to close it too soon. But it was not sparsely attended. The last 13 unban appeals of any vintage on this page attracted 12, 4/5, 5, 4, 13, 6, 25, 9, 16, 6, 5, 5, and 7 participants. Only the (very!) high profile Sander v. Ginkel case attracted more participation, and that failed. So in fact RtD's appeal is the most well attended successful appeal over the last month, at over double the average participation of 8/9 attendees. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck that part of the close about the TBAN because apparently one is still in place. I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer. Liz isn't proposing a topic ban, Barkeep isn't proposing a topic ban, and the few editors who mentioned that one might be needed didn't even condition their support for an unban on imposing one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note for the record that 1) I think it was closed too early and 2) I did not like being the only openly trans editor who voted. I stand by my vote, but don't speak for all trans editors. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer." is a moot point, for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate... A discussion less than that can not come to a clear community consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As @Fortuna imperatrix mundi noted, 20 people responded in less than 24 hours, far more than all but one of the recent ban appeals here. If someone has a serious objection, I'd be happy to reopen the discussion. I understand that various editors think I jumped the gun here. I was applying SNOW in good faith in closing the discussion, but lesson learned for the future. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a question of how many people responded, for me its a question of how many people had the opportunity to respond. I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. WP:CBAN states that "For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours." If we're going to set any limits, it should be at 24 hours, but I'm generally opposed to limiting the scope of IAR closes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that you violated policy and guideline, I'm saying that you did not meet intangible community expectations (which is why you have a whole bunch of editors complaining). You don't have to be so defensive about this, nobody is questioning your good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just responding to your point about 48 vs. 24 hours, not trying to further defend myself. My point was that I think that if we're going to have any kind of limit going forward, it should be 24 to align with CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back @Voorts @Fortuna imperatrix mundi should language be added, it should match the 72 unless 24 that exists currently unless consensus emerges on different numbers. Otherwise the disconnect is odd.

Noting here as I did on voorts' Talk, I'm concerned about the perception created by the early close even though voorts' close is fine by current guidelines. I did support both the lifting and the initial C-Ban. Star Mississippi 19:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but for that perception that I was trying to cut off discussion, I think editors would need to believe that I somehow want to give anti-trans editors a pass, which I think is belied at the very least by my recent close of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here wants to accuse you of having anything but the best intentions. This is just a matter of folks in the community feeling that the conversation had not yet had time to fully ripen. Generalrelative (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to a point that SM made on my talk page that there could be a perception here that the discussion was closed early to avoid anyone adding opposes. SM expressly said they didn't believe that was the case. I'm merely saying here that I think that a reasonable editor who knows all of the relevant facts would not find that perception to be true. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the close as lifting, but a quick close (in real world terms - since as discussed policy doesn't preclude) can look like "OK, enough weighed in, let's close this before there's dissent" especially with Roxy's long history here. We as a community are not good at constructing timing as was the issue in the Admin Recalls.

I personally (editor, not admin) would say as a supporter, I have no concerns in this being reopened to see if the community-which may not be represented by a Friday night discussion when people may not be online - does feel it's time to lift the c-ban. Roxy has been c-banned for going on a year and a half, a day and a half won't matter in the long term for discussion. Star Mississippi 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I understand your point, and I agree that the perception of a fair process where dissent is allowed to be heard is important. My point is that if those perceptions are unreasonable as applied to this particular case, I don't think that's a very good objection to the process. In this case, I don't think that a reasonable editor who knows me would think that I closed this discussion to avoid dissent. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense all around. We'll see where this shakes out. Noting for clarity, I think this discussion is good and healthy. I think the discussion should be reopened but not strongly enough that I'm going to request it from someone who didn't !vote. Star Mississippi 19:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I !voted "support" above, wholeheartedly. But I share the misgivings articulated by others that the close was premature. As Horse Eye's Back emphasized, it's important to give the community a chance to weigh this over before pronouncing the matter settled –– I will add: especially given the inflammatory and hurtful nature of the comments that led to Roxy's CBAN in the first place. And as Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist said, it's important that she not be the only openly trans editor to have a chance to comment. I will therefore formally ask you to reverse your close for now, and give this the standard 72 hours. Generalrelative (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so if someone comes forward with an objection to the unban as is. I will not reopen a discussion purely out of formality. That said, I've already said on my talk page that anyone can revert my close, so if you really find that necessary, notwithstanding that nobody here is proposing a topic ban at this time, go ahead. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: Could you please point to the policy basis for your suggestion of a standard 72 hours? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to debate you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you made an assertation, and you were asked to explain it. I'm not here to debate you is not an appropriate response. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The request was directed to me and I've responded. I don't think Generalrelative is obligated to reply further. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Voorts, Generalrelative has requested a 72 hour discussion. This is a general discussion for the community, and it is unhealthy to discussions to make assertions and not justify them. And where does 72 hours come from anyway? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Literally right below this you are failing to justify an assertion... I asked you to justify your assertion at 19:34, you asked Generalrelative to justify their assertion at 19:41... Do you not see the problem here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, it was originally Barkeep who brought up the 72 hour guideline for considering open community bans and I've found that Barkeep knows policy as well as just about anyone else on the project. Maybe he can find the passage where this is mandated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49@Liz @Horse Eye's Back I think it's a disconnect in language between the UNBAN and C-BAN which notes the 72 hours. It's my opinion they should align, but they don't currently. Star Mississippi 02:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 72 hours is for closing a CBAN against someone. There is not - to my knowledge - any 72 hour requirement (or 24 hour snow requirement) for lifting a ban. Sorry for any confusion. My point there was to note that in community discussions for bans we've chosen to institute a time requirement to ensure that editors have a chance to weigh in because the initial grouping of editors to respond (especially in this case on a weekend night) may not be representative of all editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think an important point here is that most CBANs appeals are also discussing imposing sanctions. It's surely very rare that someone appeals a sanction without the community considering whether to impose a lesser one. Whenever this is the case, surely the 72 hours provision of WP:CBAN applies? No where does it say it doesn't apply when discussing imposing sanctions as a reduction of some stronger sanctions. This one clearly did involve imposing sanctions since Voorts themselves claimed there was no chance of consensus for a topic ban. Technically you could close the appeal of the site ban while keeping open the community topic ban discussion, but why would you? Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it would be 24 hours not 72 since it won't involve a site ban. Frankly IMO an appeal naturally is also discussing keeping i.e. imposing the original sanction but I decided not to go there to avoid arguing the issue. The point is some minimum surely applies since ultimately you we're nearly always also discussing the possibility of imposing a new sanction even in an appeal. 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate implies there's a number required. So for RtD's appeal more than double the average number of attendees was insufficient? In any case, we can argue the toss about 24 hours or 48 hours or even Another 48 Hours, but until one of these bunch of people complaining go and start the aforementioned policy-altering RfC, I don't see how this meta-discussion to an individual appeal can change anything now, and still less bind the hands of the next appeal at WP:AN, which will probably be attended by a handful of editors who will form a consensus to which no-one bats an eyelid. C'est la vie. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it imply that? "sufficient opportunity" implies a prominent venue and decent length of time but I'm not seeing how it would imply that theres a number required (at least not a number of commenters, the only implied number is eyeballs). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I haven't read this entire discussion post-close, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a revert of the unbanning. To put it bluntly, how I see this, Roxy is a valued member of this editing community with lots of supporters but they have a complicated history on the project that involves appearances at ANI, an arbitration case and previous blocks. You can't review this unblock request as you would a discussion on an account that is a year old. You need to do some background checking and not rubber stamp the groundswell of support. That's the only point I have been trying to make.

I think part of this, Voorts, is that you have been active here for a couple of years and so are not familiar with Roxy's history on the project. That's just an observation, not a criticism. I mean, longtimers refer to disputes from 15 years ago and I draw a blank on them so we all started somewhere over the last 23 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As should be obvious, I'm a big supporter of Roxy, but I also feel the need to say some things about how this was closed. Like others here, I feel that it was a mistake (however well intended) to close the discussion this early. Among other things, I think it may result in there being a sort of asterisk on the unban, and that's terribly unfair to Roxy. Wikipedia works on discussion and consensus, and we should trust in that enough to allow the conventional 48 hours. That said, I feel very, very strongly that we should not even consider reversing the decision. That would be unspeakably unfair, to have a decision to unban, only to have the rug pulled out from under it. So this should stay, with lessons learned for future closes.

And I feel the need to say something more, as a matter of admin accountability. Voorts, you've kind of made yourself into the person who does a very large number of discussion closes, and I've noticed that you make closes that are sometimes found to be controversial, with this one really standing out in that regard. I don't want to escalate this, but I hope that you will voluntarily decide to step back from making closes for a while, and focus on other administrative tasks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of your view on some of my closes. Someone who does a lot of closes, particularly when discussions are well attended or are in controversial areas, is inevitably going to face disagreement with their assessments. That said, I am always willing to take on feedback, as I've done in this discussion by committing not to closing a community unban discussion this early again. I happen to disagree that, in this case, an early close was inappropriate, but I don't have to agree with community consensus to implement it. (I also don't think this close puts an asterisk on Roxy—20 editors unanimously supported this unblock!) If you're still planning to escalate this, you'll have to tell me what recent closes I've done have been improper, because I believe that I have only had one person challenge a close on my talk page since December. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is surely, that it was unanimous after barely 16 hours, but closing it meant we would never had known if there were editors planning to oppose but who didn't get a chance to express their opinion. That is what the asterisk would have been. Thankfully another admin has made the right decision to re-open. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reading through the above, and the follow-up comments, I think that the closer might want to consider reverting their closure to let the discussion run longer. This comment is in no way a "support/oppose/whatever else" comment about the topic under discussion - I'm staying neutral on that - but merely as a reader of this page and thinking that perhaps this close was done too soon. In this case, I decided that, rather than revert the close outright myself, that I would prefer to politely ask to the closer to re-consider - and so I have. - jc37 00:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said that I would revert the closure if someone has an objection that they want to be added to the discussion. Otherwise, I have also said that anyone can feel free to revert my closure here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. And sometimes, that's a way forward, to see in anyone else is sure enough of their read of consensus (or lack thereof) and would thus be willing to take ownership of the close. But in this case, I thought it might be worth suggesting that you take the opportunity to take ownership of your action and self-revert. I agree that that is not always appropriate - I have indeed said that to others myself about closes in the past - but in this case, I thought it appropriate to offer the suggestion to give you that opportunity, and so I did. What you do is of course up to you. - jc37 00:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert your close because I voted in favor of the original CBAN, but I do think it was premature. My view at the time, which hasn't changed, is that it's important for our transgender editors to feel safe. I note Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's comment above about being the only openly transgender editor who participated. I'd feel better about the unban if more of them had the opportunity to do so. There's no hard-and-fast rule on how long a discussion stays open, but 24 hours probably isn't long enough for a community ban, especially when thoughtful comments keep coming in. Your close is good, just reverse yourself and wait a few days. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate some of what I've said above: If anyone feels that it would be productive to reopen this discussion, they should feel free to do so. Consistent with my closing philosophy, I am declining to do so because, at this point, both discussions have been open for 40 hours and nobody has expressed a desire to oppose the unban or propse a topic ban. Going forward, I will not be closing unban discussions prior to the expiration of at least 72 hours, except ... where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious, consistent with the parallel provision for ban discussions in WP:CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you (and others above) have a good point in that an UnBan discussion should mirror a Ban discussion in its minimum length requirements prior to closing. - jc37 01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been reopened by asilvering. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this discussion reopening and running for at least 24 more hours from the time of reopening. Does that sound fair? That's not 72 hours but it's a decent amount of time. At this point, I think a lot more editors have heard about this discussion and are aware that it's occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't make closes until you can interact with mild but widespread critiscism in a manner other than stonewalling. If this is your philosophy then rewrite it... It isn't consistent with community expectations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stonewalling to decline to reopen a discussion, particularly when I said about half a dozen times that anyone could undo my close. My closing philosophy is consistent with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which says we generally shouldn't reopen discussions when nobody is asking to present further comments in the discussion. As for the criticism, I've literally capitulated to what you and other editors want from these kinds of discussions going forward (i.e., no more early closes)—notwithstanding my personal disagreement with that view. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I presume this is the aspect of my closing philosophy that you find objectionable:
Finally, if an editor believes that my close is incorrect, I am always open to discussing it. I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments. If I am not persuaded that I was wrong or by the new arguments, I will encourage the challenging editor to open a closure review at AN.
If refusing to reopen a discussion or overturn one's close is [in]consistent with community expectations, then you'll have to rewrite CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:VOLUNTEER: "You are never required to take any action or post any edit that you personally disagree with. Even if there is a clear consensus against your view, the most you can be required to do is to let others take the actions that they support" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments." seems overly narrow when "Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review: ... if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion." is part of Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That bolded part needs to be read alongside the following clause, which makes clear that it's referring to multiple editors who have something new to say.Otherwise, if a dozen people came to my talk page and said "you closed this RfC that I didn't participate in and have no intention of participating in, but I'd like you to reopen it", then I'd have to reopen that RfC. That is absurd. This situation isn't exactly analogous, but nobody in the post-close discussion asked to present additional views in the original discussion, and nobody new came to this post-close discussion—despite it being immediately below the old one—to ask to "bring forth a compelling new perspective". voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is the word "or" in between it and the following clause... That means that the following clause has no impact on it. Is it a normal experience for you to a dozen people came to your talk page to make such a complaint? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should read PAGs in pari materia. And no, I was using that as a hypothetical. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are, it says "or" not "and" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People were asking to present further comments in the discussion, that is a different standard than those comments changing the outcome of the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, editors were asking that others be allowed to comment in the discussion. None of those other editors showed up to ask to comment in the discussion, nor has anyone commented in the discussion since it's been reopened for 16+ hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its weird to comment now because of this whole thing but for example I turned up here to comment a qualified support. Commenting now would feel weirdly gravedancy, gratuitous, disrespectful to you, like I wanted to rub it in or something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This got pretty messy, so it obviously wasn't 100% optimal in hindsight, but I just want to "go on record" (whatever that means) that I think the original close was slightly rushed, but not unreasonable, and I certainly don't think you're stonewalling. Others obviously disagree, but I don't want you to think it's unanimous. The main takeaway here is: Never interfere with the opportunity for Wikipedians to argue with each other. That is what we love the most about this place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second takeaway is Never expect Wikipedia to do things the easy way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When this many people, here and on your talk page, are like hey your close wasn't great, please consider reopening. Just do that instead of arguing that you are right. That is half the trouble here, its kind of a WP:1AM and a Laws of holes issue. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Voorts has gotten the strong message to take more care with discussion closures, even when they seem unanimous, and to consider all possible aspects of a case when closing a discussion on serious issues like a community unban and to have a very good reason for closing one early. Is this discussion serving any more purpose by staying open at this point? And I say this as a person who kind of started it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Could someone please close this? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Codex Special:Block page Feedback Needed

Hello Admins,

As CommTech prepares to fulfil the Multiblocks wish, we are redesigning the Special:Block page using Codex. You are invited to test a prototype of the refreshed block page in a moderated user test and give us feedback. If you would like to join the test, please sign up on the Multiblocks project talk page. Counting on your support. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STei (WMF), I am not really interested in the test, but I do want to say as an administrator that this will be a very useful enhancement of the administrator's toolkit, and I look forward to its implementation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! Bishonen | tålk 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen and @Cullen328 thank you for the positive comments. If you change your minds, please let me know :D. Have a good week you all and thank you for protecting our projects! –– STei (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page move help needed

Taken care of at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

NeverBuyItForAntony (talk · contribs)

I had to time indef this user but I have to go elsewhere. Would someone please reverse the page moves and otherwise cleanup. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Johnuniq, with help from User:Yoshi24517. I didn't add a blocking notice on their User talk page as I thought that should come from the blocking admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately my user page was one involved. I think I undid all of my pages correctly, Liz, if you don’t mind doing a quick check for me that would be great. I got email notices for my user and user talk pages and their associated edit notices. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 06:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we got everything, Yoshi24517 (mobile). They are targeting some of the same admins as a week ago so I opened an SPI on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Week-old revert-list request on genealogy sources

Could someone process User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#Genealogy? Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purge something please

I just tweaked T:DYK. In the past, I believe there was a notice somewhere that reminded us to purge something after editing a Main Page component, but I didn't see the notice, and I can't remember what should be purged. Could someone do it for me? The Main Page doesn't have anything purge-related in its edit notice, and I assume purging the DYK queues and prep areas (the only purge-related items in DYK's edit notice) won't help with whatever I needed. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing on the main page right now reflects the edit you made, so I think we're good. If you ever feel the need to purge a page and there's no convenient link, you can go to Special:Purge and copy-paste the page title into the box. RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend There's a link to purge the main page on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors in the toolbox on the right. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

I know that most administrators have their own routine schedule of responsibilities they focus on but if you find yourself with some extra time this weekend, WP:AE could use some more eyes and help with closures.

Many thanks, in advance, as I know there are plenty of other demands for your time on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 closed now. There's 4 left, of which 1 looks closable, but I'll leave that for someone else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with closures, Tamzin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Could someone kindly revert all edits of 2604:3D09:96F:B800:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) between 18:06, 14 February 2025 (this edit) to now? The IP range has added a large number of non-defining categories with no explanation. I don't think they're doing it maliciously - no one has asked them not to do so until now - but it's too many edits for me to revert manually. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi.1415926535,

It looks like it is mainly User:2604:3D09:96F:B800:B8E6:4463:B4F0:EB9D. But Pi.1415926535, they don't even have a talk page yet, have you left any messages explaining why what they are doing is incorrect? It's one thing to rollback edits but without some effort at communication, they'll just continue to repeat this behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I left a message at User talk:2604:3D09:96F:B800:E075:80C7:546:560F, the most recent IP, just before posting this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem with IPv6 addresses is that they jump very often - it's within the /64 range most often, but it's still a different exact IP, and thus leaving messages is highly likely to go entirely unseen by the recipient because they'll be on a different address by the time a message is sent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range has continued these incorrect category additions. Given the scale of the edits and the inability to communicate with them due to the dynamic IP, I'd like to request a mainspace block for the range (with a pointer to this discussion in hopes they will respond here) and reiterate the rollback request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked from mainspace for one week, and asked them to respond here both in the block message and the block log. They should see one of those next time they try to edit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is wrong with the categorization they've been adding?

[12] [13] Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I sampled were overcategorization because they were not about the locomotive, but about which lines it ran on. I reverted to get a status quo to have the discussion. However, I can go back and revert the ones that weren't about the lines, if there are no objections. I'll do that in about an hour from now if I don't hear otherwise. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the American locomotive classes, it was an issue of non-defining categories - use on a specific railroad is not a defining characteristic for broadly-used locomotive classes. The edits to non-American locomotives don't seem to have that problem; if they're correct (I don't have the subject knowledge to tell) then I have no objections to re-reverting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, this is getting too complicated for a simple rollback. I'm going to undo my rollback completely, and you'll have to hash out what's correct and what's incorrect with other subject matter experts. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible offensive comments?

It seems that some comments at Talk:Rambo: Last Blood have digressed beyond editing, [14], [15]. I didn't know whether to revert or not, so I brought it here to bring to an admin's attention. Armegon (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:151.237.110.33 might be block evasion by User:89.215.227.67 as they both geolocate to Bulgaria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions closed. That's way over the line for what talk pages are for. If behaviour continues, consider this my support for dropping some counter-disruption blocks. Otherwise, this seems to be a fairly localized incident from that talk page's history. Note that 89.215.227.67 (talk · contribs) has a different talk page MO, which seems to be Wikignoming italicized movie titles in people's comments. Possibly just a bit harmlessly obsessive were it on its own, but it's coupled with a history of bad article editing. Uncle G (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with warning on the Jimbo Wales user page in dark mode

WP:VPT IS THATAWAY →

User directed to the correct venue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

in the User:Jimbo_Wales page there is a warning box that doesn't show up properly if the user is in dark mode, on account of the text being the same color as the background. since I wasn't Sure how to fix the problem and the talk page was semi protected, I came here. I am aware that the dark mode feature is in beta and that this might not be a problem for admins necessarily. if there is another place better suited for a problem like this, i would appreciate if I could be told where. 67.20.1.4 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 67.20.1.4,

For technical questions (and this sounds like one), WP:VPT is a good place to go. This isn't a really an issue that involves the admin community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help. thanks! 67.20.1.4 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting circular move

Redirects cleaned, up, RM started and snow-closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created Delta Air Lines Flight 4813 but I typoed it. The correct title, for Delta Airlines Flight 4819, currently exists already. I am asking the admins to perform a circular move to replace the existing one with the typo which has more information. guninvalid (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just merge your content to the correctly titled article? Then you can submit the typo'd title for deletion using G7 (author request). Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because that removes author attribution. Also Delta Airlines Flight 4819 exists now so probably both of them should be redirected. guninvalid (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the correct title? We cannot have two parallel articles (they are currently at Delta Connection Flight 4819 and Delta Air Lines Flight 4819). Giant Snowman 20:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I've seen just call it Delta Flight 4819 or just Delta Flight. I suspect there's going to be a lot of mess for a while, so it's probably ripe for an admin to step in and clean up the dangling pages and just pick one. guninvalid (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with the Delta Connection Flight 4819 article, if it needs to be RMed then so be it. (currently at AFD so might all be moot). Giant Snowman 21:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have done things incorrectly as I'm a new Wikipedia editor and am still learning, but I modified the title to what it should be "Delta Connection Flight 4819" using the move tool.

Someone at some point redirected this page to Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 and I tried to update that pages title to "Delta Connection Flight 4819" but it gave me an error because the original page with that title had already existed.

So my thought was to undo the redirect and instead do the opposite and redirect the Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 page to the newly titled Delta Connection Flight 4819 page. Then I also copied the existing content over that added additional information.

My apologies if this was done incorrectly, but given the ongoing incident and mass amounts of edits I thought this was the best course of action given my knowledge and trying to get everyone focusing on the same wiki page for the incident. I didn't know this would cause a big issue with others upset by their page being the redirect. MSWDEV (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everything above was done prior to my knowledge on this conversation. I think around 20:35 UTC? MSWDEV (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman What is the proper way to apply for move protection on the Delta Connection Flight 4819? Some users are moving it to "Delta Flight 4819" or similar titles when this flight was not operated by Delta Airlines. It was operated by Endeavor Air dba as Delta Connection

I'm not sure if only move protection is possible? MSWDEV (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Connection flights are very commonly misconstrued as Delta Air Lines flights which are not the same. Regionally operated flights via Delta are operated by a regional carrier such as SkyWest Airlines or Endeavor Air in this case while doing business as Delta Connection. These flights are not directly operated by Delta Air Lines MSWDEV (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources call it? Preciseness is not the only, or the most important, criteria for choosing an article title. The article talk page is the proper place to discuss its title. If a consensus does not easily arise on the talk page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (which does not include bringing it here). Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

discussion

Reports about sockpuppetry belong at WP:SPI and inexperienced accounts are discouraged both from moving articles around and making accusations about other editors based on suspicions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe user:guninvalid is a sockpuppetry account of user:MSWDEV, so basically from my view of whats going on is that user:gunisinvalid was upset that his article wasn't correct and that i had created the correct article, later used his alt user:MSWDEV which mysteriously makes dozens of edits today which his last edit was on October 2024, he has then moved and redirected the page tons of times and has since got it back to his article. While i don't really mind having article authority being snatched i find it as really weird behaviour by him. Thanks! RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who guninvalid is. I am an aviation geek who likes to write on Wikipedia occasionally and I do not appreciate the accusations.

I began editing on the first article I found regarding the ongoing incident, updated it to the correct title via the move tool. Someone then redirected the page to an incorrect titled page that has slightly more information. I was unable to rename the newly redirected page as the correct title already existed. So instead I undid the redirect, then redirected the incorrectly titled page to the correctly titled one and moved the content over MSWDEV (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't lying then fair enough, from the discussion above this user:guninvalid clearly wanted the article authorization which is clearly fine, I hope it made his day better that his hard work payed off doing that. have a great day. RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good man, let's just focus on helping provide good information to the ongoing incident. MSWDEV (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for sure! RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you haven't notified either editor about this discussion as is mandatory. Secondly, use WP:SPI for this. Giant Snowman 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Gunisinvalid (talk · contribs) does not exist. Giant Snowman 21:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a typo, no need to be toxic. have a great day. RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not 'clearly' a typo. You've accused another editor of being a sock puppet, with no evidence, without notifying them, and you can't even get their name wrong. WP:BOOMERANG might apply soon. Giant Snowman 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am supposed to be a wikipedia master as if i didn't create my account less then a month ago. If it makes you feel really better to attack another editor then feel free to ban me for "accidentally misspelling his name" RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, @RobertOwens01, I must ask that you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines on assuming good faith. guninvalid (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Renamed user 4c13730314a79abe934a0b7a263f1187

Please remove rollback and PCR rights; the account is vanished and globally locked. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article being reported to cyber police

Sambhaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chhaava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discovered something while preparing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#In brief. I don't really understand what's going on but Indian media are reporting that some government officials are "reporting Wikipedia" to the Maharashtra state cyber police in connection to one of the articles listed above. More eyes on the article might be a good thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji has been seeing a lot of activity, prompted no doubt by the release of the film Chhaava. Basically, people are objecting to the depiction of Sambhaji in our article. Both the article and article talk page are currently protected. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A little background that might help:
Sambhaji is a revered historical figure, and the film-makers were pressured about a scene where the character performed a Lezim. So the issue is that people have certain views of this person, which disagree with both the movie and with the English Wikipedia article, and Indian history books. (The other language articles are far less developed, and don't have the information in the first place; although there is one that does that the objectors have overlooked, because it is not a common language in India. And another, mr:संभाजी महाराज, is currently indefinitely semi-protected from roughly the time that this ruckus began.)
There has been some oar-insertion by politicians, again not just with respect to Wikipedia. Some spoke out about the dance scene in the movie as well.
It hasn't helped matters that many entertainment news outlets have run "Who was Sambhaji?" explainers over the past week, which haven't been (to put it kindly) good quality. India TV in particular ran an explainer that outright pointed to Jaswant Lal Mehta's Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 — a source that the English Wikipedia actually uses to support the point that the back-and-forth is about, and that even uses the exact words that people are objecting to — but that as you can see whilst pointing to Mehta said something very different to what J. L. Mehta in fact said. So in addition many people now have a false idea of what history says from their entertainment news.
Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verma, Sakshi (2025-02-14). "Who was Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj? Here's how history books describe Chhaava". India TV.
"Makers Of 'Chhaava' To Remove 'Lezim' Dance Scene From Film After Row". NDTV News. 2025-01-25.

@Uncle G, there's old news too, see India seeks to arrest US scholar from 2004. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra cyber crime department has sent a letter to Wikipedia stating[16]:

content in question was "inciting communal hatred, as Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is highly revered in India". “This misinformation is causing unrest among his followers and could potentially lead to a law and order situation. Given the gravity of the situation and its potential impact if not addressed in a timely manner, you are hereby directed, under the powers vested in this office by the relevant laws and regulations, to remove the objectionable content and prevent its re-uploading in the future,”

- Ratnahastin (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they also sent something similar to Chhaava's production company and distributor, I'm disinclined to believe Maharashtra's cyber crime department is going to do anything by demanding Wikipedia censor itself, considering the scene in the film is the main cause of the furore, and Wikipedia is collateral damage (from what I'm understanding). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was because the WP-article article differs from the narrative in the film, but maybe I misunderstood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Uncle G wrote above about the filmmakers being questioned about a scene in the film where he performed a dance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but per Chhaava, that scene was in a trailer, but per objections removed from the actual film. And the film seems to be a hit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/maharashtra-cyber-seeks-removal-of-offensive-sambhaji-maharaj-content-on-wikipedia-101739972757721.html

Administrators' noticeboard on Twitter The notice said:

The notice was sent under section " 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and section 168 (Prevention of cognisable offences) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)."

(emphasis added)

79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act states:

"(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if-- (a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act; (b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner." https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=105#

Section 168 (Prevention of cognisable offences) states: "Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent, the commission of any cognizable offence" https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193066845/

The notice further said:

This notice is being served on you under section 79 (3) (b) of IT Act 2000 r/w the Information and Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, which makes you liable to be charged under section "85(2) of the Information Technology Act 2000".

(emphasis added)

Section 85(2) states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (i) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (ii) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." https://indiankanoon.org/doc/589974/

It seems they want Wikipedia to remove the information as it is an intermediary and if they don't they might lose their intermediary status and then action can be taken against the organisation itself and people associated with it. Similar thing happened when twitter lost its intermediary status and cases were filed against its head in India.

Twitter missed the deadline, according to the government, which said the company temporarily lost its intermediary status, making it briefly liable for the content posted on its platform. At least two cases related to content posted on Twitter during that period were filed against Twitter’s India head, Manish Maheshwari, and a lawyer filed a complaint against the company for “spreading communal hatred.”

https://www.wired.com/story/indias-government-wants-total-control-of-the-internet/

If Wikipedia loses its intermediary status because of this, how will it affect their ongoing lawsuit in the Delhi court? Pinging @Hako9 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Wikipedia has not published its transperancy reports for July-December 2024 https://transparency.wikimedia.org I wonder why. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Uncle G wrote above about the filmmakers being questioned about a scene in the film where he performed a dance. Not wishing to be flippant about these threats, but if I can see Uncle G perform a dance in Chhaava, I'll die happy. Is the movie coming to Sweden soon, or can I download it? Bishonen | tålk 17:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Protection level at Talk:Sambhaji

As the section above notes, Sambhaji and its talk page Talk:Sambhaji are getting a lot of attention. We're getting a lot of emails about it at VTRS and because of the semi-protection of the talk page, they are unable to participate in any discussion, which would be the normal VTRS response. Can the protection be changed from semi to pending changes, I know that most of the contributions are unlikely to be positive but the apparent stifling of any discussion is not the best look for WP in a country where WP's reputation is already low. Nthep (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill is the admin who set the protection level. Rosguill, any thoughts? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Did you talk with @Rosguill: first? I believe this was done as an AE action, so an uninvolved admin can't just change the protection as a "bold" action. Seem like a good first step would be to see if Rosguill is willing to change it themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that protection is absolutely appropriate given the quality and tenor of edits that were coming in. New editors were repeatedly making the same vapid objections while completely failing to engage with the array of sources presented against them. The crux of the issue appears to be that these people believe the novel Chhaava by Shivaji Sawant and its film adaptation to be an authoritative source on history. I wouldn't be opposed to pending-changes protection, but it seems like that's apparently not an option. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine most of these editors made their one edit and then never returned? It sounds like the same crap as happened at Sushant Singh Rajput and its talk page around the time he was found hanged in his flat (and for the next two years after). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think pending changes can be applied to article talk pages. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it could, it's unlikely CRASHlock would be sustainable. Articles that see a lot of rapid-fire edits contraindicate it because it clogs the review queue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pain if it can't be used on talk pages. Nthep (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there we are... We are getting some comments, generally vague objections rather than specific edit requests, at WP:RFPP. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-protection is needed to prevent disruption and almost all the comments by non-regulars have been disruptive. See also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we protect the page, we risk reinforcing the disruptors' belief that legitimate discussion is being stifled. If we leave it unprotected, we invite unproductive discussion. Could we protect the talk page while creating an unprotected subpage? I don’t think it’s wise to give the impression that we are censoring discussions (especially regarding #Article being reported to cyber police above). In any case, the harm from a few (or even a sahasra worth of) unproductive drive-by users seems fairly minor compared to the potential damage were the Indian press to misinterpret our actions. Jay Cubby 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is reasonable or acceptable to expect good faith editors to engage with edits like Special:Diff/1276158100 _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Okay That’s a High Volume of Disruption in the Page History, and Also a Misunderstanding of Title Case. I Still Think It’s Worth Giving an Unprotected Subpage a Try, to Minimize ANI v1.1. Jay Cubby 01:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't know that having all of these IPs and new accounts making tendentious arguments and legal threats that then get shut down by editors is going to do any better for Wikipedia's reputation among those who have already been convinced it's corrupt. And it is going to wear out editors who are here in good faith, while also crowding out anyone else who would like to discuss how to improve the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, I would not expect 95% of those IPs/new users making posts to actually follow up on any replies to their answers (again, going off of what happened at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput around his death). They're basically drive-bys, making demands and not bothering to stick around regardless of whether or not they get a responce they like. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even need to extrapolate, this is what was happening in the day or so that disruption was ongoing before the page was protected. Out of the dozens of IPs and fresh accounts, maybe 2 actually tried to follow up on arguments, and neither of them well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is WP:beans but I fairly doubt anyone reading this wouldn't have figured it out themselves if they care. It's worth remembering that at least on desktop, we already direct editors who try to edit either the article or talk page to make requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit for when there is really some reasonable request they can make. Yes they do have to read the template, banner blindness and all that; and notably the submit and edit request button is intentionally (I assume) removed. However they're still told what to do. Some have made it there, but it's a lot less than would make it to the talk page I guess. And while I don't generally like making Wikipedia intentionally hard to force editors to think, I feel this is one of the rare instances where it's justified. In other words, if they can't figure how to make it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, it's unlikely they actually have anything useful to contribute. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine part of it is WP:TCHY since a fair number of users from the Subcontinent are on mobile. (This is why the SSR FAQ is set up the way it is, to get around this particular problem.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be clear on one aspect of this dilemma, these new editors are upset because Wikipedia's account of this person's life is different from the account in a current, popular film? Or are they referring to a different source of information? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I think Uncle G's rundown in the section above this gives a good explanation of why this has evidently hit a nerve in the public consciousness, and the range of sources involved, but fundamentally yes, when prompted for a source on the talk page, the few that have responded at all have pointed to Chhaava (or more precisely, the novel it is based on). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is like citing Catch-22 for the claim that every single soldier in World War II was insane. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's more like citing 300 (film). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comic the film is based on would be the better comparison, if we're meaning "Cite it for Battle of Thermopylae". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The director of 300, Zack Snyder, stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problems might include related articles like Execution of Sambhaji. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent edits, I think article might require a goldlock. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be overkill, particularly given that there are good-faith editors discussing and improving the article amid everything else. I think at this point any disruption by EC editors can be handled with blocks. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure review: Topic Ban of EMsmile

Closer: Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs)
Archived AN/I discussion , followup discussion with closer

In the context of a sprawling discussion (which is mostly not relevant to the topic ban proposal so feel free to skim over it) I proposed a topic ban for EMsmile on January 19. The topic ban discussion started in this section and continued in this one.

The discussion was closed on February 9, 12.5 hours after Femke requested closure. By this time, 910 editors supported a topic ban and 2 opposed. The closer, without mentioning either the numbers or the quality of arguments as things he had considered, incorrectly claimed that the topic ban proposer (me) prefers voluntary restrictions. In both my comments and my bolded !vote, I supported a topic ban.

I do like the tone of the closure, just not the supervoting in it. I respectfully submit that this closure should be overturned to a clear consensus for a topic ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn BADNAC -- (Involved) The closing statement simply mentioned the voluntary aspect, while completely leaving the TBAN unacknowledged, even though their was significant support for it. Furthermore, there were some people who were specifically against the voluntary option. The cited quotations seemed to be very supportive of EMsmiles, which was odd, given that was not the overall tone of the entire discussion -- and several quotes were misleading. And the rationale for closing was particularly bizarre, but it appears they have never closed a ANI discussion before. Add to this an closing editor who actively has a TBAN against them, and edits in the same subject areas -- makes further questionable. To me this seems like a clear cut BADNAC at minimum. While I agree with Clayoquot that it should be overturned, I'm not suggesting it needs to be overturned to TBAN, but rather simply overturned and reopened for an admin to properly evaluate and close. TiggerJay (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC) (Clarifying with !vote formatting, and parenthetical note about involved in ANI, but not in article itself 15:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Reclose, possibly overturn. BADNAC - the closer is not an admin. Had there been clear consensus against a TBAN or a similar remedy, maybe this closure would have been acceptable, but this outcome is definitely not obvious from this discussion. On the other hand, finding consensus in favour of a TBAN (and there at least is a plausible case for this outcome in this discussion) would have required the user to apply admin-level tools, which the guy doesn't have access to. In effect, this restricts the non-admin user to the "no block" outcome.

IMHO as a general rule closers should only approach discussions they know they have no constraint, other than the discussion's content and direction of consensus, in imposing a certain outcome, because the closer should approach the discussion with an open mind and not by thinking "well, I'm not an admin but I do want to close a block discussion so I must close as no consensus/consensus against (so as to not trigger BADNAC). Hmmmm, I'll try to engineer a reason for either outcome". IMHO the technical constraint the user has must have impacted the closure rationale, but that's not a valid reason to get a different outcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the topic ban was proposed by a user (Clayoquot, the OP) with a conflict of interest, which they had never disclosed during or even after the ANI dispute. It is an obvious deviation from our COI policy. Clayoquot is mentioned here as one of the editors who help in the Wikipedian in residence project of the Global Systems institute, which has a clear association with the Solar radiation modification (SRM) article [17](the focus of the ANI discussion),

Our policy requires that COI editors disclose their COI in related discussion.

... you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic

Basically it’s a case filed by editors from one party in an attempt to shut up an editor from another party. If I were to redo my close, I probably won’t just say “Any further content disputes belong to article talk page”. I would close it again with no voluntary restrictions of EMsmile, and suggest a boomerang to the undisclosed COI editors in that thread.

What’s more, I am surprised and upset that my efforts to close it as a neutral editor has been misinterpreted with untrue claims that bordering on personal attacks as seen on my talk page. I knew nothing about SRM before I came across that discussion. I just hope that people can resolve their conflicts peacefully through civil discussion. The “fighting mentality” from long-term editors really disappointed me.

PS. I don’t think the closure should be challenged “solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin” WP:NAC. BTW, as others said in the ANI thread [18], lots of volunteer hours have been thrown in, I’m reluntant to throw in more, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m reluctant to reply to the many untrue claims on my talk (WP:PAYTALK). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the exactly who "the others" you are referring to above, with a exact quote you are referring to both in the above and in the closing statement, as the only place I see "volunteer hours" in this discussion is in the following statement by EMsmiles, not in context of the ANI discussion itself but rather their overall time they've spent editing WP itself I have worked on them in a Wikipedia-in-Residence type capacity with lots and lots of volunteer hours thrown in, too. Because I enjoy the work.[19], nor do I see "reluntant"(sic) nor "reluctant", nor "throw" anywhere else in the ANI discussion -- can you clarify where you're reading this and your interpretation thereof? TiggerJay (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have not been involved in this discussion but I just want to provide some clarity with regards to your last comment. I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the GSI. Clayoquot has provided support to the Residency in an advisory role, and not on the content in the SRM article. SRM is listed as an article edited under this project in the reference above because User:Mhenryclimate chose to edit it at an editathon held in Feb 2023 as part of the residency program.^[1] Association with the GSI residency does not represent a COI for Clayoquot with regards to this current discussion on SRM. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TatjanaClimate, thank you for weighing in with your personal opinion. IMHO, you are also an editor with a conflict of interest WRT the current discussion.

Further, re Clayoquot has provided support to the Residency in an advisory role, and not on the content in the SRM article. SRM is listed as an article edited under this project in the reference above

You may want to read more about the community’s view on COI,

If you have a close association with the subject of a Wikipedia article, and you wish to edit the article, you are bound by some restrictions. WP:COIE

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, BADNAC. My own words were also twisted in the closing statement, implying I supported voluntary restrictions. Did I miscount: I thought it was 10 vs 2 in favour of a TBAN? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke, I did not imply that you support voluntary restrictions. It’s your misinterpretation of my closing statement. I appreciate that you have disclosed in the ANI thread that you are involved as you have disagreement with EMsmile before. However, I’m really surprised that you didn’t recuse from that discussion after you stating your stance in your initial comment. It’s appropriate for an editor to recuse in that situation, *not to mention that* you are an administrator.
Not only that you did not recuse, you push very hard on a topic ban proposal that was proposed in violation of our COI policy. Another point I want other editors to note is that, you are also mentioned in TatjanaClimate’s userpage as someone who has an association with the WIR Global Systems Institute project. You never mentioned this in the ANI thread, and you *didn’t* mention it here, too.
PS. Re 10 vs 2, FYI, there were 26 editors in that discussion. Further, per WP:CLOSE: “Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're implying I have a COI because I support Tatjana to organise edit-a-thons, where once, one participant decided to edit on the topic? That's tenuous, to say the least. But let uninvolved people discuss this further. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke, you're right it was 10 to 1. I corrected my statement above. W.r.t. the COI accusation what Femke said applies to me as well, i.e. it's absurd. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BADNAC and was uninvolved in discussion/proposal - should be re-closed by an admin with a formal topic ban, which there is an obvious and clear consensus for. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, BADNAC (involved), cf. my comments here as to how the quotes used in the closure were misleading. Even if consensus isn't strictly determined by a headcount (especially in close situations), overwhelming numbers like this are certainly evidence of consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This looks an awful lot like a supervote and one that did take a lot of editors' statements out of context. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good close This was an ANI, not a RFC. As far as I am aware, judgement of the closer is OK to be exercised whereas that would be considered to be a supervote in an RFC. Particularly with limited participation and which was starting to look like a "stick" pursuit. It had gone stale and so didn't get new participation by others. It had also gotten complicated/ messy (and IMO somewhat moot) while going stale because the editor imposed voluntary restrictions on themselves midstream during the process. It had gone stale and archived and was unarchived by the same person who initiated this closure review. Also, with relation to the SRM article, they indicated that their PE arrangement (which they had declared) ended on Feb 17th. If reopened, would probably need a whole new restart with fresh eyes and a clear statement of what is being proposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Edit for Climate Change FEB — Programs & Events Dashboard". outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2025-02-19.

Admin assistance required for moving

Hello Admins,

The page Rumel Ahmed is currently protected due to old logs, and I am unable to move it. However, the new page I created is valid and should replace the previous one. Please review the situation and allow the move.

~~~~ Jabiyan (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that the new page you're talking about isn't User:Jabiyan/sandbox, because that would just get deleted again. —Cryptic 11:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic the draft in User:Jabiyan/sandbox is still being improved, and I am confident it will meet Wikipedia's guidelines once it's ready. However, the page "Rumel Ahmed" is still locked due to old logs. Could you please advise how to proceed with moving the page once it’s finalized?

Thank you! Jabiyan (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it first, then ask the protecting admin, Discospinster. —Cryptic 11:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic thank you Jabiyan (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fake information about chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj

The Wikipedia text contains highly controversial and likely false claims about Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, such as:

1. False allegations about his imprisonment by Shivaji Maharaj due to "sensual pleasures" or "violating a Brahmin woman."

2. Fake claim that Sambhaji defected to the Mughal Empire and fought against his father.

3. Unverified accusations regarding Maratha soldiers raping and selling people during the Goa invasion in 1683.

These statements appear historically inaccurate and misleading. Now Shivkanya chaitu (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shivkanya chaitu and welcome to Wikipedia! These claims have been discussed before on the talk page of Sambhaji, which you can access by clicking here. You can also find a variety of sources here that support the first statement. For the second and third statement, you can easily verify their authenticity by accessing the references cited on the page. If you have reliable sources that are contradictory to the article, you are most welcome to discuss them at the talk page and explain how they support your claims. Thanks The AP (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user posting from an IP address

Hello, I wanted to bring something to your attention. I noticed that an anonymous user posting from the IP address 32.209.69.24 is the banned user Joseph A. Spadaro. The posting style and range of interests are unmistakable. I have already left a note on the IP's talk page. I also alerted an admin, Acroterion, who temporarily blocked the IP a few weeks ago. --Viennese Waltz 13:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something I've never done before...

If I need to request that an archived AN/I thread be un-archived as a result of new developments would I do that here, at AN/I, on the talk page of an admin or at some other location? Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: How recently was it archived? It may just be worth creating a new thread and linking to the previous discussion? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[20] This is the archived thread I want to re-open. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

@Smatteo499: Please follow the instructions at Template:Copyvio-revdel. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, can you delete all this revisions (copyviol)? Thanks, regards. Smatteo499 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Edit for Climate Change FEB — Programs & Events Dashboard". outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2025-02-19.

[1]

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 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

Open tasks

Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro

copied from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes

Trainrobber66

Quick uncontroversial move request of interface page

Page deletion which I have made

Further reading links

New redirect

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dev0745

Statement by Dev0745

Statement by Tamzin

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dev0745

RfC close

Canvassing of editor King Lobclaw by a now-banned user

Request for Review of Closure: RFC on Musk’s Alleged Nazi Salute

Closer statement

Non-participants

Participants

Elias Hossain(s)

Cover Images with Albums/Singles

Scammer

Mellk Has Acted Contrary to Wikipedia Guidelines

CBAN appeal - Roxy the Dog

Discussion on the previous close

Codex Special:Block page Feedback Needed

Page move help needed

Week-old revert-list request on genealogy sources

Purge something please

WP:AE

Rollback request

Possible offensive comments?

Issue with warning on the Jimbo Wales user page in dark mode

Requesting circular move

discussion

Renamed user 4c13730314a79abe934a0b7a263f1187

Article being reported to cyber police

Protection level at Talk:Sambhaji

Request for closure review: Topic Ban of EMsmile

Admin assistance required for moving

Fake information about chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj

Banned user posting from an IP address

Something I've never done before...

Revdel