Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive371

Attempted doxing issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP is using information not shared or found on the user's profile against the subject. Also see IP's message on subject's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_%28company%29&diff=1284897722&oldid=1284752784 Zinnober9 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup, and left some warnings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Another example of how OUTING rules allow people to get away with COI editing with impunity. This person has been open about their real life identity, but not open about their COI when editing the page about a company they are associated with, which for an admin seems extremely poor form. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The connection to the company is disclosed, but not their position or some other details I removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that he did disclose the connection a decade ago, I stand corrected. Ideally there should be a connected contributor template on the talkpage which there is currently not. That said it still seems poor optics for a wiki admin to be editing the article of a company that they are an employee of, even if the edits aren't overtly promotional spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There in fact appear to have been multiple people closely connected with the company editing the article. Not 'a' major contributor as the template says, but several. One has made the connection explicit on their user talk page, but others appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

The Arbitration Committee is considering motions to address WP:COI editing and WP:UPE by Tinucherian. The motions and discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J. K. Rowling under siege

Various article about Rowling's books and their derivatives are being supplied with less-than-WP:NPOV comments on the author's opinions regarding transgender issues. Special:PageHistory/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone illustrates the issue. It looks like the attendees of some internet forum are going into the world, feeling righteous. More eyes are needed. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This is useful to track likely problems: Special:RecentChangesLinked/J. K. Rowling. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a pretty widespread, organized spree. Maybe very liberal use of page protection for 3 days or so? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with that approach and have applied it to the article mentioned above. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Harry Potter has also served me well. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added a few more three-day semi-protections. Knitsey is doing a lot of the vandal reversions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You guys are on top of it; every time I check a Special:RecentChangesLinked, someone has just reverted the most recent vandalism. I'll still try to remember to check from time to time, on the many hands make light work theory. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I only realised after my revisions, that I probably should have left the reverts until they were blocked. I caused more clean up. I'm putting related articles on my watchlist now, such as Strike (TV series). Knitsey (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest continuing as you had been, if you have the time and inclination. I’m using the signal of multiple reversions as an indication that protection may be needed. There’s some other related articles that had a single hit-and-run vandalism that I’ve ignored for now as an indication of less disruption thus less need for protection.

And your reversions keep the article in proper shape for those casual readers coming by to use the wiki.

thank you for your help! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I can keep reverting. I've gone through just about everything Rowling related and waych listed it. I noticed a few had some reverted vandalism that happened once. Knitsey (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

organized spree? Nah, doubt it. She's just pissed off too many people at this point, especially with that recent picture of celebrating the latest anti-trans ruling with a cigar. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Floq on this one. Same "contributions", moving from east to west with the sun and alarm clocks. That's what internet fora are "good" for. Thank you all for your efficient response! Favonian (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Sarek here and would like to suggest that adding "anti-trans activist" when describing someone who is very clearly in fact an anti-trans activist is not "vandalism". I agree the information is likely WP:UNDUE on these pages but I feel like using the word "vandalism" here is a way of de-legitimizing these edits in ways that let admins deal with them with admin tools instead of letting them be resolved as a content dispute. Loki (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

very clearly is not a reliable source. If a person is called as such by and in reliable sources , then it can be treated as a content dispute. Otherwise, it's an extremely serious WP:BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If you accept "gender-critical campaigner" as a synonym for "anti-trans activist", https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Those seem to be more or less synonymous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"Gender-critical" is what anti-trans activists (or let's be clear, transphobes) prefer to be known as, so they are indeed synonymous. You'll rarely find RS using the latter, however, as given some of these groups' willingness to claim that it's libellous in some way, it's easier to use the sanitised version. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, there you go, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the source listed above, the inciting incident here is Rowling celebrating "TERF VE day", her words, and also saying explicitly that she'd donated to anti-trans activist group For Women Scotland. Loki (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, for posterity: USA Today says she has "anti-trans views" and MSNBC went even further and called her a "notorious transphobe" in article voice. (Yes, that's an article, not opinion. I've known this about Rowling for years and even I was surprised MSNBC was so blunt about it.) Loki (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan This specific spree seems to be coming from threads [1] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The top comment in that threads post is remarkably on point if in desperate need of copy editing "There are several problema with your edit. Even when she is, and also a piece of shit, by Wikipedia policies it is not relevant to the article, but you want it in the first page because of non enciclopedical reason. Also, your purpose is obviously not improving the page, but to make a statement, and you also invoqued users to edit the page. That's again policies as well. I really recommend you to read wikipedia policies, they are cristal clear and more or less objective." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There is new stuff happening in that endless slug fest[2][3][4][5][6] so this editing may be related to contemporary events (it could also be related to a forum based clique, the two are not mutually exclusive) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin help recreating history

The page Michael Grieves appears to have been deleted sometime after a Speedy Keep in 2022 and before a recreation in 2024, maybe a CSD. Can an admin please restore the full history; the lack of a complete history may have played a role in the recent creation of a second AfD because the first AfD info was not immediately available. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It was deleted on the same day as the closure of the afd as the article was created by another sock! If anything, I think you can treat the version before the first AfD and the first AfAD as non-existent, and evaluate this version independently. – robertsky (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason the result of the first AfD was Speedy Keep was because he flies through WP:NPROF both on citations and impact in his field. Maybe if that has been clearer in the history there would not have been a second AfD nomination. There may also have been less edit warring etc in the lead up to the second AfD nomination. If nothing else, for the future I think it would be good to have a better history, perhaps just a few statements (break all rules).

N.B., I have no skin in this, just standard NPP/AfD checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin closure requested (lab leak)

A lengthy discussion involving over 30 editors was archived on the lab leak talk page without a formal closure [7]. I’m seeking administrative input to help establish consensus and resolve the dispute on how to include the story in the article. I see a closure was already sort on the closure requests noticeboard [8]. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussions do not need to be "closed" prior to archiving, and this was not a RfC; rather it just got stale and the bot archived it (thankfully. on an over-stuffed Talk page). Your edit left duplicate copies in the archive and current Talk which is bad. I'd say this is another example of the kind of thing which has given rise to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#COVID-19 lab leak theory. Also is this a WP:LOGGEDOUT request? Bon courage (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

He's not saying it has to be closed, he's requesting it be closed because it ended up turning into a pseudo-RFC on inclusion because of all the tagging and the wide participation. Also, I'm not sure that citing a request that was declined is the best move here.

Alternatively, someone on the talk could just "eyeball it" and say inclusion/no inclusion, but I'm guessing someone would object to that as well. This is a remedy for that.

To be clear for closer, I believe we're talking about the thread "German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025." Just10A (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

He? Bon courage (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The best summary of that very long and meandering conversation is that it found no consensus to take any specific action. It's archived. Let it stay that way. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's not archived, it's currently on the talk page. Just10A (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Because I had to unarchive it. I really don't know why the MiszaBot config is 7 days, as if we are rushing things through. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's especially troublesome because editors frequently cite WP:NODEADLINE. Ymerazu (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Because the talk page has been at 100k since March 15th. If users stop replying to a discussion for a week, then generally a discussion should be archived on such a talk page. If the discussion is restored and no one responds, including when it was restored, then it should be archived. We can't keep every discussion on an active talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No, a vast majority of editors are for including the content in the article. The talk page MiszaBot configuration of 7 days and 50k is way shorter and lower than the default 30 days and 100k. We are not in any rush to create an encyclopedia. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

50k doesn't matter except for how much space the archive page is set for. 50k is low, but I assume there is a reason for it. 7 days for an active talk page that is having stale discussions makes sense. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No, there won't be a reason for a 50K archive size limit (beyond personal preference or [rarely] ignorance – someone might, for example, mistakenly believe that will trigger early archiving if the Talk: page itself gets longer than 50K). That article already has so many archives (~10 per year) that it really ought to be running a larger archive size than average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's why I was saying that the 50k part doesn't matter since the user I replied to seems to think so.

As for the archiving issue, I think that is part of the issue along with too much playing with the settings and not keeping it at a high value. Archive 34 was used from April to October 2024 just fine and ended up at 102k with 15 discussions. However, someone seems to have started tinkering with the settings in October or November as the next archive is only 47k and six discussions. (For the worst example, Archive 43 is just 21k.) If it was reverted to 100k and a few of the archives are condensed, then I think things would be improved. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You are demonstrating why there is a need for the discussion to be formerly closed. A majority of editors are *for* including the story in the article, with only a minority of editors opposing. Its the same for the next three discussions down the talk page. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a strict vote, but you are correct. Not just a majority, but the overwhelming, vast majority as well as general argument postures were in favor. If this was just assessed without a closure, it would probably be added. Some editors would object to that, which is why this method is preferable. Just10A (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote at all. A single !vote based on sound NPOV reasoning would counteract an infinity of !votes which were not. Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We're saying the same thing. "general argument posture" = legitimate reasoning expressed by community. I'm really not in the mood to argue semantics here. Let's stop being litigious, get an assessment, and go from there. Just10A (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

COVID 19 Lab Leak Edit Restrictions?

Related to this page and edits by IP editors - the page currently has a notice on it saying that it requires extended confirmed status for edits. Generally, if this is the case, IPs and new users are supposed to restrict themselves to formal edit requests. This is absolutely not the case with this page swamped by IPs and SPAs engaged in lengthy debates that absolutely are not derived from formal edit requests. Does the Lab Leak page have an Extended Confirmed edit restriction as part of its CTOP designation? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See this request for protection of the talk page. It’s been decided that restrictions to the talk page are uncalled for now. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what I was asking about though. Simonm223 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but the decision was clear about the alternatives to henceforth follow and it took into account the fact that COVID is CTOP, which was stated in the first paragraph of the request (All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID)) and several times throughout the discussion ([…] apply ECP given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID) […], […] idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request., etc.). In the decision, it was stated that In some ways, this talk-page looks like the talk-page of a controversial topic should ideally look: mostly friendly, hassle-free discussions and exchange on how to proceed., contrary to what you suggested. But, of course, any further clarifications or alternatives on how to proceed are welcome. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

No. The list of topics with ARBECR is here Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions. The current areas are Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. While it's theoretically possible either of these but particular the latter could apply to parts of the lab leak and related articles, it definitely would apply to anything here and would be very limited. Note in addition there are community authorised general sanctions extended confirmation required in WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:GS/AA, WP:GS/KURD. However GS/community ECR diverged from ARBECR when ARBCOM made it stricter and limited non EC editors to edit requests, and there's been a reluctance among the community to go that far. As I remarked in the protection discussion, while admins can in theory EC protect talk pages if disruption is really too bad, and of course they can EC protect articles, they cannot apply ARBECR where it does not already apply. This was requested in another CTOP area but was sorta declined. (See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion. Having read this again, it seems to have been a bit bogged down and it wasn't that clear a rejection as I thought, still it didn't come to be. Also I had incorrectly thought there was a general request to allow ARBECR as a page or subtopic level sanction, but that wasn't the case.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant would not apply to anything here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support WP:ARBECR applying to COVID-19 broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe just "COVID-19 origins"? COVID-19 would probably include many thousands of articles that aren't being disrupted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's just the origins topics which are the problem. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Generally, if this is the case, IPs and new users are supposed to restrict themselves to formal edit requests. I disagree with this. I think restrictions on what new users can say on talk pages only applies to WP:ARBECR topics such as Israel-Palestine.

I would support indefinite extended-confirmed protection for the talk pages Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and any other COVID-19 origins-related talk pages receiving significant disruption. This is more targeted than WP:ARBECR and I think would take care of the couple of talk pages that are being regularly disrupted. Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory has been on my watchlist for years and it is exhausting to keep up with that page. I get the impression that there are many WP:MEATPUPPETs that arrive in bursts depending on what DRASTIC, Alina Chan, etc. post on microblogging websites. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I drop by that article every now and again. I agree that it's wearing. I think that ECR for the talk page might be a bit much, but I wonder if a simple SEMI, perhaps as a long experiment for 6 to 12 months, would be informative. Would the POV pushing move to a different article? Would editors be less stressed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support 6-12 months of semi. Sounds like a good compromise. I don't think disruption would move much because this only affects a couple of very specific articles related to covid-19 origins. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you name the articles offhand? COVID-19 lab leak theory and Origin of SARS-CoV-2, presumably, but what else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Those are the two that come to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, these two are the problem ones. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• And now we have an editor flooding the page with LLM crap. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

MiszaBot config and limiting community participation

User:Simonm223 reverted my attempt to adjust the MiszaBot configuration to apply default archiving settings [9]. This contributes to the perception that some discussions - such as the recent one with 30 editors overwhelmingly supporting inclusion - are being prematurely closed to prevent the content being included in the page. It aligns with a broader pattern, including an ECP request from another involved editor [10], in what looks like an attempt to limit participation from the wider community and readership. This article needs more and wider community participation, not less. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Good revert; that Talk page is already unmanageable without having the bloat dial turned up. The COVID origins topic area has historically been plagued by SPAs, POV-warriors, socks, the CIR-compromised, and other types of disruptive editor (witness the long list of sanctioned users). When topic areas become too overburdened in this way – a recent example is Israel/Palestine – Wikipedia will, yes, restrict access rather than broaden it. In fact the whole page protection mechanism shows this dynamic as a general way of controlling disruption. I am beginning to thing "COVID origins" needs the same kind of ECP regime that Israel/Palestine has. Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Removing IPs from the discussion in question, we still have a majority of registered AC and XC editors who take a position you oppose, so it would seem you're as keen to restrict established editors as you are unregistered or logged out ones. There are four concurrent discussions on the CIA, BND, DIA and FAM statements on the topic, and in all cases you seem to oppose any inclusion, where a majority support inclusion in some form. It is clear who the POV warrior is here. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTAVOTE (and erroneously thinking it is, is one of the perennial problems in this topic area). If editors are editing logged out as a form of socking then that would of course be very bad. Bon courage (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It is forced to a vote when a minority of POV editors make it that way. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ guys. We don't need to litigate everything. This is adding to the exact issues both sides of describing instead of alleviating them. No, we don't necessarily need to change the archive settings; we can just manually revert it when appropriate, as in here. But this isn't the appropriate forum. Let's stick to getting a closer for the discussion (instead of wanting to suppress one, which seems a little bizarre) and take any other discussions to the appropriate forums, probably the talk page. Just10A (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think there needs to be some discussion here in context of the broader pattern noted. Besides for trying to prematurely archive discussions and close off talk pages, certain editors are hatting discussions they themselves are involved in. On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 talk page, at least three threads have been closed in this way, all by the same editor who requested ECP. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note User:Bon courage has just manually archived the discussion where with the open closure request, demonstrating again the need for the discussion to be formerly closed by an administrator. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I fixed it, but yeah this is just weird. If no one wants to close it after some time, sure let's remove it. But I have no idea why someone would want to try to actively suppress a neutral party coming in to close a discussion. Just10A (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Are editors again putting the same content in both the Talk page AND the archive? This will break things. Bon courage (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  If we want to fix that issue we can, but that's totally different from knowingly archiving it when it's being discussed. It's not a dichotomy. Just10A (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  And why have you copied different stuff to that under discussion? What is going on? Bon courage (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't do it, I'm just undid the edit. If you want to fix the technical issues without removing the discussed topic from the active talk page you're more than welcome to. But again, it's not a dichotomy, those are 2 separate issues. Just10A (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Editors own the edits they make, and one assumes very large (164k) edits to the Talk page of a WP:CTOP are made with extreme care. You have made a big mess, with multiple sections of the Talk page now duplicated in the archive. What are you doing? Bon courage (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  All the more reason for you not to archive the discussion. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion has never been out of the archive. But two editors (you and Just10A) are copying "the discussion", and several other archived discussions, back onto the Talk while leaving them in the archive, and edit-warring to keep it broken. This is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  A minor technical issue. Of much greater concern is the effort to suppress the outcome of the discussion. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  "What are you doing?" I undid an edit made by an editor who erroneously argued that the only way to fix an otherwise good edit with technical issues is to completely erase the edit instead of just fixing the smaller technical issues and leaving the rest. Which is fine. I can do it myself, but I imagine you are more aware of archiving technicalities than I am (since you are clearly vocalizing it, and that's not my primary editing expertise). If you refuse, I'm more than happy to try my best. But it's obviously not a justification to remove it wholesale when you can just fix the minor issues. It's not "all or nothing," that's just a false dichotomy.

  Now, for the last time, I really think being this litigious is not helping anything. Let's just get an assessment and go forward after that. We're not in a rush. Just10A (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to suspect it's the "German intelligence" thread that the IP is on about, rather than the "Expert Survey" one. But who knows? I'll leave this mess for somebody else ... Bon courage (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Great. Well, aside from the fact that refusing to assist with known technical issues without the quid pro quo of removing the whole discussion is pretty much a textbook example of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, I'll try to fix it myself. Apologies to anyone if I make mistakes, it's not my primary editing realm. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I fixed the issue, at least per WP:ARCHIVE. If we could get a close now, that’d be great. Just10A (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  I disagreed that it was fully fixed, but I just went through the archives and fixed a few of the issues I saw. I will say though that the settings being at 30 days is too much in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps its best for you to leave it to an administrator. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• 30 days archiving period for that talk page is excessive given the pace of discussion. 14 days is more appropriate. Also reducing the archive size down to 50k given that there are 46 archive pages is ill-advised. If anything the archive size needs increasing to 150k at minimum. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, except I'd suggest 200K for the archive size. Most articles shouldn't be generating 10 separate talk-page archives per year.

  Wikipedia's a complicated place, so just in case the processes are unclear to anyone looking at this, here's a few facts that might be useful:

  • If you want to request a closing summary of any discussion, including a discussion that has already been archived, please make those requests at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Anyone can make those requests.
  • There are technically no limits on the age of a discussion that is posted to Wikipedia:Closure requests. You could technically request a closing summary for a discussion that happened two decades ago, although AFAIK nobody has ever been silly enough to do that.
  • Wikipedia:Closure requests limits itself to closing discussions that are on the English Wikipedia. That is the only location restriction (e.g., they will not officially accept requests to summarize discussions that happened at Meta-Wiki or on Facebook). The discussion can be on any page at the English Wikipedia. If the discussion is 'archived' (meaning: copied out of the current discussions and into a subpage) by the time the closers (who are not necessarily admins; that's a different role) respond to the request, then the closer will simply un-archive it at that time. Closers are accustomed to unarchiving discussions and will not be surprised or concerned about this at all.
  • The archive size (e.g., |maxarchivesize = 150K) is about how big the archived subpage should get, before the bot creates a new archived subpage. It has absolutely no effect on the size of the ordinary Talk: page. For example, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) has a maxarchivesize of 300K (unusually large), but the current discussions sometimes exceed twice that, and they are frequently a third of that. The effect this has, especially on a busy talk page, is: How many separate archives will you have to click on, if you want to find a discussion that happened last year? How many discussions will usually be in each subpage? We try to keep this at a fairly "medium" size, because people working on smartphones and other low-powered devices find extremely large pages to be difficult to load and navigate, but having them be too small is not helpful to anyone.
  • The timer before bot archiving (e.g., |algo = old(14d)) is about how long the bot should leave the discussion on the talk page after discussion has →stopped. Please take careful note of that last word, "stopped". For example, if the bot's archiving timer is set to 14 days (as shown in this example), and you post a bump-type comment ("Would somebody answer me?") every 13 days or less, then that discussion will never be archived by the bot. To give a more realistic example, if the bot's archiving timer is set to 14 days, and discussion is busy for a couple of weeks, and then you have an occasional comment for another couple of weeks, and then it finally stops, then the bot will archive the discussion 14 days after the discussion stopped. The bot's timer does not care about when the discussion "started"; it only cares whether the discussion has stopped for longer than the archived time.
  • It is normal and expected to adjust archiving settings based on page activity. Most talk pages don't see much traffic, so they'll have settings that keep everything for a year or more, or they won't use bot archiving at all. But when traffic spikes, it's normal and expected to adjust the archiving settings. Did the page get big? Then please speed up archiving of the inactive(!) sections so the bot will clear out the older discussions on the page. Did the page get small again? Then please slow down archiving of inactive sections.

  I suspect that the procedural parts of the concern here are based on a misunderstanding of how the archiving bots work, so I hope this explanation will be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing thank you for making the first three points explicit. I spent time CSD'ing four archive pages for that talk page because editors had been messing around with the archives, moving discussions out of them and back to talk, in what appears to be a mistaken idea that WP:CR couldn't deal with any discussions which had been archived.

  I think we should be ultra clear that editors, especially inexperienced ones, should not be messing around with archives, unless they have a clear understanding of what they are doing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing the mess. I've added a bit to WP:CR's header about archived discussions.

  Also, for a moment of wiki-history, I added the billiard balls to the directions at the top of that page more than a decade ago. It makes me happy to see them still there. Much later, I learned that the uniform appearance of our policies and guidelines is one of the things that makes it difficult for newcomers to remember which page they were reading. I therefore recommend occasionally adding a whimsical or iconic image to such pages. It'll be easier for people to remember, or at least to give us a hint about the page they were reading, even if it's just "I think it might have had billiard balls instead of numbers?" (Computer sci folks who know about "the camel book" or "the llama book" will know how this works in the real world.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Austin Metcalf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The name of the minor accused of the Killing of Austin Metcalf keeps getting added to multiple locations on Wikpedia. It has been reported at WP:BLPN and WP:AFD, but keeps getting added. Is there a way in which we can escalate this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation to name him, as the sources are not suppressing his name (which, I will admit, is odd). Whether or not there should be a redirect from the suspect to the victim is a matter for RFD. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac:, I understand your point. However, this same issue arose prior to the conviction of Gerson Fuentes as well as another individual whose name was posted in media who the Wikipedia community did not want posted in articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess I was thinking you were asking for administrative intervention, not just extra eyes on the situation. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There are a multitude of people asking that the name be removed, in addition to me asking for PERMANENT deletion of the information. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, consider this (at least for me) a formal decline of your second request; it does not meet the OS criteria, nor (because the name has been published) does it meet RD2. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Not that odd, given that he's black and the victim was white. That's how our media works these days. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

When did English Wikipedia turn into a newspaper? Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In theory, the core business of a newspaper is gathering unpublished information, rather than summarizing other publications' comments. Material that is verifiable in a prior publication is therefore unlikely to be an example of 'Wikipedia turning into a newspaper'.

WP:NOTNEWS begins this way: "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." It also bans "Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and articles "written in news style" Since "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", we could attempt to make the case that this is one of the many that don't qualify, but IMO that case will be easier to make a couple of years from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a previous consensus to not name the suspect? If so, some editors may be simply unaware of it and you might need to make it more visible (e.g. on the talk page or in an edit note). If not, it's probably a good idea to get a RfC started. Not an unusual thing for crime-related articles, either; see Gilgo Beach serial killings, Moscow murders, and the killing of Brian Thompson as examples. wizzito | say hello! 20:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion on the talk page where one editor suggested it should be included if policy allows, one editor replied with a reasoned argument for inclusion, a third editor agreed with inclusion without leaving a detailed rationale. One of the second two editors (I don't remember which) added the name to the article. The redirect from the accused name was nominated for deletion at RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Karmelo Anthony), where I recommended keeping as it was prominently mentioned in the article, apparently with consensus as there was no opposition in the talk page thread. Since that time further comments for and against inclusion been left on the talk page and discussions have also been initiated by those who desire exclusion here and at WP:BLPN and a request has also been made for protection at WP:RFPP (the latter due to the name being added and removed from the article multiple times). As far as I can see whether to include or exclude the name is an entirely editorial matter (that I don't have a strong opinion about) balancing the prominent mentions of the name in multiple reliable sources with the accused being a minor (17 years old) who has not been convicted of a crime (I believe he has been charged, but the article isn't completely clear on that). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• While there are news outlets naming the child suspected of this killing, we can choose to have higher standards. I think we should.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The suspect is 17, which makes them a minor but not a child. I believe they were charged as an adult. Also, the discussion about whether to include or exclude is happening on the article talk page rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Izno, a Wikipedia administrator, keeps removing the Planned Launch section from the Nintendo eShop article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Izno keeps removing the Planned section, even though it is supported by reliable sources. Editors have provided sources and links to support the Planned Launch section, and the map has also been updated. Despite this, he continues to remove or revert the edits. See the links that he reverted: Edit 1, Edit 2, Edit 3. Nightmare0001 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute in which no administrative tools have been used. The fact Izno is an administrator is irrelevant. AN is not an appropriate venue for this. (Also I see a lot of primary sources in the reverted content.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked this user as a fairly obvious sock. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock, no need to run by me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Izno is an administrator is not totally irrelevant if this is indeed a content dispute, seeing as I used rollback, which is not for content disputes. But in this case, it's not relevant because this isn't a content dispute but instead that the user I reverted is likely to be a sock of Yukitanooki, as DG has also identified with this editor. Izno (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Permission removal (Three Sixty)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove my PCR and rollback flags. Thanks. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 01:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive user

…on List of film auteurs page. @Techn0driv33 keeps adding particular film directors to the list while having no reliable sources and deleting sources for previously added directors. Would someone with film theory knowledge look into it please. AnotherTimeline (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@AnotherTimeline, please notify Techn0driv33 about this discussion. You can follow the instructions in the pink box at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a source but you would not read it in the slightest while offering 0 analysis. You just keep on going how Ryan Coogler is 100% not an auteur and is a commercial director without offering the slightest bit of analysis then when I call you out for using your own opinions on him to justify that hes not an auteur you keep refuting and just saying I have no film knowledge and its even more egregious looking at the other names on the auteur page like Adam Sandler Techn0driv33 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

it would be a different thing if you pointed out why the article fails in describing Coogler as an auteur instead of just going on constantly about how your are 100% correct and have all this film knowledge while i have none Techn0driv33 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(nac) @Techn0driv33: and @AnotherTimeline: This is apparently a content dispute, and as such it should be discussed at the article Talk page, not here. If you are unable to reach a consensus there, try resolving the dispute at WP:DRN. Good luck. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC) I think I had a case of the yips. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Think you meant @AnotherTimeline:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

"Request for investigation: Suspicious activity on Natalac page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting suspicious activity by user MusicLover123, and numerous other accounts who has been making consistent edits to pages related to Southern hip-hop artists, including Natalac. These edits often remove or downplay Natalac's contributions and seem to be biased.

I suspect that MusicLover123 & others may be operating multiple accounts (potential sockpuppetry) and have found similarities between their editing style and another user, HipHopFan90.

I kindly request that an administrator review this situation and take necessary actions to ensure Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and sockpuppetry are upheld.

Evidence:

- Natalac's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalac - MusicLover123's amungst others user contributions: - Relevant edits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Pgeezy,_Styles_P,_and_Natalac.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Pgeezy,_Styles_P,_and_Natalac_(cropped).JPG https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebbelz_Da_Model

it's unusual for a public figure with a significant career to not have a stable Wikipedia page. This could indicate that someone or other is intentionally targeting Natalac's page, possibly due to personal motivations or biases.

Thank you for your attention to this matter." Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

But is Natalac "a public figure with a significant career"? The English Wikipedia article about him was deleted last month, and we can't do anything here about Commons or the Portuguese Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

yes, looking at the history of Natalac he has a significant career than spans 30 years with numerous collaborations on his own record label with grammy award winning and notable musicians accross america

https://jacksonvillefreepress.com/30-years-in-local-rapper-natalac-continues-to-rock-the-industry/#:~:text=With%20more%20than%2030%20years,stage%20with%20music%20industry%20legends. picture here at natalac Records with label business Benzino and Styles p.

https://fox59.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/774912122/natalac-30-years-representing-jacksonville-releases-the-return-of-goldie/ Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue notability. If you have issues around conduct on commons or Portuguese Wikipedia then you need to raise them there. You will find no answers here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

i dont have any issues with Portuguese Wikipedia, not augue i dont do that, my reason for using that was portuguese is the numerous entertainers that work with Natalac even in different countries and different languages.... For Natalac not to be significant Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

In short im asking for an investigation into Suspicious activity on Natalac page seems suspicious that Natalac's Wikipedia page has been repeatedly vandalized and deleted, despite his apparent success and widespread recognition in the music industry. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to "investigate" and there is no vandalism, The article was first deleted five years ago for lack of notability. A variety of other article names have since been deleted for lack of notability or for promotion, or because they're redirects to nowhere. AN is not a place to argue notability. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Review

Good day! I’d like to request a review into two specific users — Careybull and 71.229.251.189 — who have been making salacious edits to both the Peebles Corporation and R. Donahue Peebles pages. Upon reviewing each user's contributions, I noticed that they have only edited Peebles-related pages. For instance, if you check the Peebles Corporation article, you’ll find edits from 71.229.251.189 that include improperly cited references, altered context while still relying on the same source (rather than supporting the changes with a new one), and several unsourced updates. Meanwhile, Careybull’s edits appear to lean more toward the whitewashing of referenced information.

It appears that both users may be using the platform with the intent to manipulate or distort Peebles’ credibility. If you could look into this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said on the Teahouse, you must notify anyone you discuss here(see instructions at the top) 331dot (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just notified 71.229.251.189 and am about to notify the other user. Thanks. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Notified both editors. Thanks Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for neutral administrator review-Draft: Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear administrators,

I kindly request a neutral review of my draft article Draft:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss.

The draft has been reviewed by a user who is not an administrator, and I believe their dismissal of reliable, third-party sources may reflect a subjective judgment. I respectfully request that an experienced administrator evaluate the article based on Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines.

The article includes:

- A published monograph officially registered with ISBN [978-9984-322-97-5] in the National Library of Latvia (https://dom.lndb.lv/) - Public confirmation of publication by the independent publisher “Sava Grāmata” - Cultural recognition from H.R.H. Princess Cleopatra VIII Generosa Cardamone, publicly posted on an official government-like website (https://www.principatocardamone.com/slow-art) - Verified authorship of an international art movement (Slow Art), with multilingual documentation and media references

I remain open to improvements, additional sources, and structural editing if needed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You have already received a "neutral review" but you appear to not like it, there is NOTHING in your draft (sourced to Facebook) that suggests you are notable in Wikipedia terms. Courtesy link User:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss/Draft Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblocks backlog

Hi all, CAT:RFU has been slowly creeping back up for a while, but it really ballooned after the most recent push at SPI and now we're back over 100 open requests. Help much appreciated! -- asilvering (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The last drive was helpful, the backlog went to below 15(the point at which the backlog notice disappears) for a bit. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Bashiiry and vandalising 'Ughaz Roble I' page

I have warned User:Bashiiry over 4 times from vandalising the page and explained to him why he was wrong(his statements contradict the sources provided on the article).

In the talk page, other editors have raised this issue where the Ughaz is known to be the chieftan of the Issa clan. Instead of constructively engaging in the talk page, he has spent his time smearing the article with his own tribe/clan and partook in degrading terms in the talk page, even calling someone "a son of a whore"(ina dhiloy).[11] Replayerr (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hhh when they insulting me its ok but when I reply or respond isn’t feel good hypocrite Bashiiry (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Gimmetrow

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow for Gimmetrow to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Politically slanted article in the midst of an election Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am asking for administrative action on the article Canadian economic crisis (2022–present). It seems clear that the article is biased and was created by someone with limited knowledge of Canada. Given that there is currently a federal election underway in Canada, I suggest that the article be deleted, or that it at least be put out of public view until such time as it has been edited for neutrality. Humpster (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion on granting move-subpages to template editor user group

Hi fellow admins,

I had opened the topic for discussion at WP:VPI about 4 days ago and it is now moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Grant move-subpages to template editor user group. The proposal will effectively allow template editors the ability to move subpages alongside the main page for their convenience in moving Templates with subpages. Many Templates now have subpages for development and experimentation purposes, /sandbox, /testcases, /docs.

With this change, there might be changes to the overall admin workload, i.e. perms granting or dealing with new types of reports relating to TE moving subpages unintentionally (I hope it is unintentional).

If you have any inputs, do share your thoughts at the discussion linked above. – robertsky (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed on collateral damage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can I get some more experienced admins in the areas of proxy blocking to look at User talk:Kruft. I can drop the current hard block down to a soft block, or grant IPBE, and tell Kruft to just edit logged in, but I don't want to do that without understanding why it was done in the first place. The blocking administrator isn't very active nowadays. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I've unblocked the range. It's possible there were some dodgy IP there a few years ago, but it's probably changed hands and there's also (other) collateral. I don't think the /19 block stands today. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive User - repeated incessant AfDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon I am very concerned that the user @Chetsford is nominating articles for deletion in bad faith, likely with an intent to be disruptive. While I am not well read on the UFO topic, it appears he is attempting to have several BLPs of notable people in the UFO community deleted. So much so that Jimmy Wales himself got involved with one of the AfD's to vote Keep. - One that I actually voted Weak Delete on prior to Jimmy entering, with a warning that it sounded like the nominator (chetsford) had an agenda with the language he used to describe the deceased subject of the BLP.

Please review his recent nominations when you can, thank you. Brenae wafato (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

For concision, I'll address the forthcoming flood of these reports in the section below. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales himself! We can be sure then that this has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Incessant - two. Two AfDs. Hardly incessant. And The guy went on Joe Rogan's podcast for christ's sake is a sure sign of notability. For sure. For sure. (Not.) Brenae wafato, I'd suggest you consider that what you accuse Chetsford of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is, in fact, mirrored in your case (WP:ILIKEIT) and you should walk away here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A minor indulgence of preemptive disclosure

I apologize as this isn't precisely appropriate for AN, but its transient nature also doesn't precisely make it correct for userspace either. In any case, in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, and out of a preponderance of a caution, I feel it appropriate to register a note that I have previously used administrator tools related to discussions involving UFO topics and to establish a clear waypoint of affirmation that I am acting only as an editor in relation to the below described AfD.

• Background: I recently AfDed Harald Malmgren. This AfD seems, unfortunately, to have had the effect of winding up UFO enthusiasts in a way we haven't seen recently, heightened slightly by a decision of a member of the WMF board of trustees to join the discussion. I have variously been accused (on, but mostly off-WP on Reddit and X) of being a CIA plant, orchestrating crimes against humanity, canvassing !votes, being a communist, being affiliated with the "Guerilla Skeptics" (an off-WP coordination group), operating outside the Akashic Consciousness Field, and being an extraterrestrial trying to stop UFO disclosure; and, an (admittedly, impressively organized) group has formed to advocate for my banning, doxing, and desysoping.
• Disclosure: With that in mind, I am -- in a spirit of full transparency and to mitigate any future questions -- preemptively disclosing that I am not affiliated with the "Guerilla Skeptics" and clarify I have not used any admin tools related to a UFO topic in which I was involved.

Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not a UFO enthusiast and I saw your AfD last night before any of those NEWACCs and anons showed up. And I agreed with your nomination, with the caveat that it sounded like you had an agenda against the BLP - which it is rapidly becoming clear to me that you do. I never claimed you were part of any group, either, however I am concerned after having seen your other AfDs that you are nominating articles regarding a subject you just don't like. Brenae wafato (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"I am concerned after having seen your other AfDs that you are nominating articles regarding a subject you just don't like." I've nominated 113 articles for deletion and participated in AfD discussions on 750 articles. Aside from the two you cited, are there others that relate to UFOs? It might be helpful if you could list them. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Harald Malmgren, Pippa Malmgren, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon where your AfD succeeded, so at least three. You were also behind the WP:UFONATION policy where NewsNation is a WP:N media source for apparently everything except UFOs. ArdentMaverick (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford: While it's true that only two of your AfDs are UFO related (Harald Malmgren and Christopher Mellon), your broader editing history suggests a pattern of UFO skepticism that could be perceived as bad-faith engagement. For example:

Edits to David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Article

You made two direct edits to the article:

1. #1268602176: You added a sentence downplaying the validity of the whistleblower testimony by exclusively citing the opinion of three well known UFO skeptics (Adam Frank, Seth Shostak, Sean M. Carroll)

2. #1268495188: You inserted a reference to an article you created, Psychological perspectives on UFO belief, which implicitly insinuates that the UFO claims made by Grusch during his congressional testimony could have been the result of a mental health condition resulting from his military-related PTSD. Apart from this, your article also demonstrates a bias as it frames UFO interest primarily through a pathological lens (e.g., linking it to "mental health disorders").

Contributions to Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Talk page

Your participation in discussions about David Grusch’s claims reveals a pattern of attempting to discredit reliable UFO sources while promoting skeptic viewpoints:

- You encouraged editors to dismiss NewsNation’s reporting because it has a "sketchy history when it comes to sensationalism and UFO reporting". Dismissing UFO coverage from a reliable and mainstream source because you disagree with how it covers the topic is content bias. You initiated an RSN discussion that resulted in NewsNation being flagged as "unreliable for UFO topics" in which you disproportionatly quote professional skeptics (e.g., Mick West) while ignoring the various credentialed goverment officials who have and keep speaking publically about UFOs.

Overall I agree with @Brenae wafato's concerns. Your two most recent articles nominated for deletion appear to have been done in bad faith. This is quite evident, especially after reviewing your past contributions, which show a pattern of overweighing UFO-skeptic perspectives, using procedural tools (RSN) to suppress disfavored content, and frequently using language that mocks UFO disclosure advocates. Peer-reviewed skeptic (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

LOL. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Further confirmation that "bad faith" is one of the most misunderstood terms on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence presented by multiple editors, there appears to be a pattern of problematic behavior.

Chetsford's pattern extends beyond the "two AfDs" they claim, they've engaged in a systematic campaign against UFO-related content across multiple articles and discussions.

Their creation of the WP:UFONATION policy specifically to exclude reliable sources when covering UFO topics demonstrates procedural gaming rather than good-faith editing, also, the nomination language used in the Malmgren AfD ("whacky claims about marauding space aliens") reveals explicit bias that contravenes Wikipedia's commitment to neutral point of view.

The very fact that Jimbo Wales himself intervened in one of these deletion discussions shows the significance of these actions. OliverWX (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that both @OliverWX and @Peer-reviewed skeptic familiarize themselves with both WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS before making any further edits. -- asilvering (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for closing

To avoid the further deluge of the project, I've withdrawn the nomination of the AfD that is at the heart of this thread. [12] If someone would be so kind as to close the AfD, I'm sure many would be appreciative. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hate comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bringing this hate comment [13] to admins attention. The IP is clearly not here to build encyclopedia but for certain POV agendas. Hionsa (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gimmetrow recall petition certified

The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow for Gimmetrow to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator recall. 28bytes (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Referencing

Good day, everyone. As a new editor who contributes to and expands articles, I’d like to ask:

• How can I quickly archive sources or references in an article?
• Also, is there an automatic or fast way to identify and fix duplicate references? Are there any tools that can help with this?

Thank you in advance! Arc Rev (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arc Rev, I don't fully understand your first question. You should ask these questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE, it is designed as a question and answer forum, and people there will be able to help you. Welcome to Wikipedia! CMD (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

CMD, to be fair, the Teahouse is semi-protected because we still haven't figured out how to deal with the TH/HD troll.

@Arc Rev

Re #1, Help:Using the Wayback Machine is where I first thought to look, but you'd want to look at User:InternetArchiveBot and the tools on the userpage. JayCubby 04:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know the troll had a new name. Can we make the "Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!" stand out more? Checking in incognito, it somewhat fades under the very prominent "Ask a question" banner. CMD (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Re question #2, the user script Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences will help you identify duplicate references, and NAMEDREFS are the preferred method for citing the same source multiple times in the same article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump's Justice Department has launched an attack on Wikipedia and the WMF

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 9#WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney

 – a more appropriate venue– robertsky (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II

The Arbitration Committee has reviewed a dossier of "Tech4Palestine" Discord server related evidence and has determined that, as of this time, the concerns raised have been adequately addressed. The evidence has been retained by the Committee to be used, if necessary, to corroborate additional evidence received. The editors who were brought up in the report are:

• Samisawtak (talk · contribs) - topic banned by ArbCom
• Ïvana (talk · contribs) - banned by ArbCom
• Tashmetu (talk · contribs) - EC revoked, warned for violating ECR
• Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) - Result of below
• ZionistHater (talk · contribs) - Blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Drmies
• Discourseofcourse (talk · contribs) - Blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Bbb23
• Ummahrican (talk · contribs) - 2 edits 10 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Ronnie_larko (talk · contribs) - 218 edits, last edit 4 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Sarachicad (talk · contribs) - 32 edits, last edit 10 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• WamelSlice (talk · contribs) - 8 edits, last edit 8 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Rw29014life (talk · contribs) - 12 edits, last edit 11 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• HadyaWaqfi (talk · contribs) - 1 deleted edit 8 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• ToTell3Truth (talk · contribs) - 1 edit 11 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Shushugah (talk · contribs) - No evidence of misbehavior
• Baderdean (talk · contribs) - Edits fr.wiki, ArbCom has no jurisdiction

The Committee has been provided additional evidence of off-wiki coordination independent of the Tech4Palestine Discord server. As a result the committee has passed the following motions:

For violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia.

Support: Aoidh, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, ToBeFree, Theleekycauldron

Oppose:

Abstain:

For violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, GeoColdWater (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia.

Support: Aoidh, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, ToBeFree, Theleekycauldron

Oppose:

Abstain:

The committee encourages the community to continue to provide any private evidence of off-wiki coordination to the committee via email.

For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II

Edit to the protection policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please make the alt texts more descriptive. Halovik (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The best place to bring this up would be on the talk page of the relevant policy. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not confirmed or autoconfirmed. Halovik (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off-wiki harassment; help needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the last year or two, some "twitterati" has been pretty obsessed with my editing, calling for my ban from wikipedia.

I know of course that editors here cannot help me with off-wiki harassment, but I wonder if you can help me with this latest x-post What they have done, is to take the diffs between the 07:16, 21 March 2025 edit and my 22:05, 24 April 2025 on the Netiv HaAsara massacre; making it appear that I did a lot of edits that another editor did.(!)

It looks like screenshot. My question is, how do they get it? I get this when I take the diff between the two versions? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Huldra: If you view the diff in the Visual rather than Wikitext mode (see option at top right of the page), you get something like the screenshot on X. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare:; ah, I see. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mandiraj

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Keeps vandalizing pages related to Pakistan with cheap insults (i.e "Terrorist Army") or claiming the motto of the Pakistani Army is "Terrorism in the name of god" - Indefinite block necessary. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Diffs? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you even look at Mandiraj's contributions before demanding diffs? I've just checked a brief selection and pretty much all of them are either blatant vandalism or a serious BLP violations: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I have indeffed them. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban exemption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know this is very early, and I know this will most likely be declined, but I have no choice but to post here. This falls under WP:BANEXEMPT #2.

I was given a conditional unblock here, that states that I am topic banned from the projectspace forever, with exemptions. I have violated the topic ban once (see my talk page there), and now I am at risk of violating again today. So there is an NPP backlog next month and I want to participate in the backlog. And so I posted a prompt telling any user to put my talk page onto the signup page. This constitutes proxying, which is often not allowed. So I would like to have a very temporary exemption to my ban—that is to join the backlog drive. This is one time by the way; probably I may do so again when there is another backlog. Please reconsider this. ToadetteEdit (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban was put in place to keep Toadette able to continue contributing to English Wikipedia and to allow English Wikipedia to keep an editor who has done some very good work for the project. But Toadette has now, on multiple occasions, pushed the lines of that topic ban against the protests and warnings of multiple administrators. Given the amount of time this is using, and the very real possibility that this is likely to continue, I think either the topic ban needs to be expanded to remove the exceptions, thus eliminating any ambiguity, or this needs to become a more general block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I put forward on their Talk. You are not "at risk" of violating it, as if it's something passive that happens to you. You are choosing to violate it just like you did with the talk page edits about the RfAs. You are blocked from project space and a desire for barn stars is not a reason to lift the ban. I'm not at the point that I'm advocating for a site ban, but I think the a p-block entirely from project space would be the clarity TE needs to understand they are not welcome to edit there and should focus on articles. Star Mississippi 23:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a compelling reason to grant exemption. Exemption would not benefit project, only the applicant. Support pblock from project space to prevent further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Why a more general block. I occasionally edit articles; I currently have a good article nomination that hasn't yet been touched. I am also in worry if such exceptions be removed or not, because I sometimes initiated AfDs, and participated in some of them. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeing things like I have no choice but to post here and I am sorry, but I am doing this. It's probably not the best choice out there, but let's see how it goes. are extremely concerning. You do a lot of very good things on Wikipedia, but you also have displayed issues with impulse control. You are not without choices. You chose to discuss a topic from which you are explicity banned. You chose to ask someone to sign you up for something that you're not eligible to participate in. You chose to ignore Star Mississippi and Floquenbeam, after they bent over backwards to see your actions in the best possible light, and open up a whole discussion here because there is something you wanted to do that you are not currently allowed to.

And no, you're not "topic banned from the projectspace forever, with exemptions," you're topic-banned for six months with appeal and successful appeals happen all the time. If the eventual result is that you end up never being allowed in projectspace again, it can only be as the result of the choices that you made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

About the first choice, it was just a misunderstanding of my conditional unblock, and I wasn't aware of that until the first warning came. The second, I doubt the eligibility of the drive. This means that I could not participate in any drive, anywhere on the site??? About the third, I have nothing to say about it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding every time you come into contact with something that you want to do but that you are not currently allowed to do. A clearer topic ban, with no specially carved-out exceptions, would make the topic ban easier to understand and easier to navigate. There will always be other backlog drives to contribute to once the topic ban has been lifted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit I am also in worry if such exceptions be removed or not, because I sometimes initiated AfDs, and participated in some of them. What does that mean? You are explicitly allowed to participate in deletion discussions as part of your unblock although you are not allowed to close them. The fact that you still don't understand that is further proof of why you shouldn't be appealing your sanctions and why you may need more concrete sanctions to make it clear to you what you can and can't do. Star Mississippi 23:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yes, I can not conduct closures after I disabled the scripts during the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban. And for the abovementioned quote, I am still concerned because I sometimes patrol pages, sometimes while playing the Wikidata game, and in some occasions the page does not meet notability guidelines so it should be deleted. PRODs are often unreliable, since one can remove it and it can not be reinstalled. And I also participate in random XfDs, especially after clicking on a link or something. So to be concise, the quote means that removing the exceptions could hinder my existing activity in the areas in question. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per the unblock conditions: These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed (emphasis added). Six months have not passed, and thus the topic ban may not be loosened. Oppose any additional block/ban. TE's comments regarding the LaundryPizza RfA was strike one. The attempted proxying was a minor violation of the TBAN and I think TE is sincere about wanting to participate in the backlog drive. TE, you need to learn to pick your battles. I suggest withdrawing this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Seriously? This has become a consistent pattern of less-than-optimal conduct on the part of the editor in question. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re This has become a consistent pattern of less-than-optimal conduct on the part of the editor in question. How is the pattern which I am exhibiting consistent. I know that the RfAs and the talk page discussions are evidences of such pattern. Are there any more evidence regarding this?? ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's your constant attempts to skirt the conditions of your unblocking. You seem unable or unwilling to abide by those conditions, and constantly ignore advice to do so as evidenced on your own talk page. Just abide by your restrictions and focus on editing articles as many have suggested in the past. It can't be more clear than that. Intothatdarkness 15:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. All ban appeals fall under WP:BANEXEMPT #2, and that does not mean that one does not have a choice regarding when to appeal (to then say that appealing "very early" was not a choice and had to be done). —Alalch E. 00:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Every time someone makes a reply it seems to be met with more questions. This is typical sealioning and falls foul of WP:SATISFY. Please close this, someone who knows how, to avoid wasting more time. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I couldn't since it will violate my topic ban. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you withdraw your request, it will probably be easier for someone to close this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

71.33.161.17 global vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

71.33.161.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — please block this IP globally. First this IP attacks administrators on their English Wikipedia talk page, and then attacks me on my Wikimedia Commons talk page. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See this — https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Seal_F1&diff=prev&oldid=1025512484 — The Seal F1 (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia admins can't assist with conduct on other projects. Please raise the issue locally. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but i dont know if there's identical page on Wikimedia Commons? The Seal F1 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See this page for the Commons noticeboards. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

URGENT!!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Urgent. In the protection policy, make the alt texts more descriptive. Halovik (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You already posted this. Please stop. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

NEVER!!! Halovik (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked OP as WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tree Fu Tom and other animated UK children's progammes

This is odd, there is a Sky Broadband customer who keeps editing the cast lists of UK children's programmes.

These include Tree Fu Tom, Charlie and Lola (TV series) and Kerwhizz. It's not a case of joke edits putting his mates in instead of the real actors, or substituting a regional cast for the original, they seem to be replacing the real actors with genuine voice actors from other programmes.

The user seems to keep refreshing their IP every day or so, maybe they're doing it from a cafe or switching their router off.

V strange, don't know what can be done. Rankersbo (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There are several IP vandals/trolls who focus on children's TV/film programming, most often they create fictional series or movies and then cast their favorite voice actors. They can be a little obsessive, I remember one incident where an editor created a fake series and listed 60 episodes complete with titles that extended several years into the future. They frequently create these articles on main space Talk pages. As far as I know, this activity has been going on for at least a few years now and comes and goes. The best remedy is to protect the page titles against creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

IP removing "Middle East" from articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2A00:23C5:EDA9:4D01:FC44:58F7:2F96:47A8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Removing "Middle East" from articles, obvious vandalism Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

On sampling a few of the edits I don't see any obvious vandalism, but simply removal of "Middle East" when "Asia" or "West Asia" is already specified, so just removal of redundancy, Could you link to some edits which are vandalism? Of course some edit summaries would help. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

[21], [22], [23], [24] but yes a lot of them happen to be removing "Middle East" when "Asia" is already mentioned Kowal2701 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

All of those are the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, sorry I’m in the wrong here, I’ll apologise to the IP Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I looked through a load of their edits and they're all legitimate, the Middle East isn't a continent on its own it's part of others. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure requests of Fringe theories noticeboard discussions on trans topics

Wikipedia:Closure requests#WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities
Wikipedia:Closure requests#WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard#RFC about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and FRINGE
These have both sat here for two and a half months now. Note that this is a quite contentious subject area. Might need panel closes. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sandstein has done the first one! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Editor review for biography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello everyone. I'm new as a Wikipedia editor, but I'm pretty good in biography of Josef Mengele. Also I speak Ukrainian. On his biography page in Ukrainian language there's really few info so I write it in big pieces. Can someone please approve them so they're are visible for Wikipedia users? I'm still writing. Thank you in advance. PangeaBlick (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Different language version of Wikipedia operate separately, so English Wikipedia can't help you with the Ukrainian version of the article. You may want to try posting to uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous user making disruptive edits

I’ve come across a user making disruptive edits on the page Annie (musical) and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

User: Special:Contributions/2600:1009:B008:82:C18E:DB15:5265:6BFD

As of now, this user hasn’t received any warnings. However, I thought it would be best to just go here. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war at Navin Ramgoolam

Unsure if this is the right board to bring it to, but ANI was where this was initially brought, so I'm bringing it here again.

Since at least November, @BerwickKent and @Nikhilrealm have been in a constant edit war over content at Navin Ramgoolam with very little communication and frequently going far past 3RR. After this was previously brought to ANI, the edit war seemed to die down. However, it looks like it's kept going but in slow motion with gaps of months in between reverting each other now.[25][26] Ramgoolam's article fell off of my watchlist, so by the time I caught it and reported to ANEW, the report was closed as stale. However BerwickKent has just reinstated their preferred version with no attempt to continue the talk page discussion with Nikhilrealm that's been quiet since February. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I could have sworn I was on ANI when I wrote this, apologies if this isn't an appropriate noticeboard or if I should have just gone to ANEW again. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I'm keen to resolve this matter as I have always provided references for material that I have edited on Wikipedia. So why do you insinuate that "BerwickKent has just reinstated his preferred version with no attempt to continue the talk page discussion with Nikhilrealm" ?

2. Can you please advise how you've concluded that I'm a "he"? BerwickKent (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

1. You did not engage on the talk page before reinstating your edits over "vandalism" and as of writing, still have not.

2. A thoughtless mistake on my part, I apologize. I've edited my original message. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 00:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

My salting of Tresean Gore, and my declining of a request to unprotect the page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Tresean Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the 2023 AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tresean Gore, the deleted article was recreated with substantially the same content, and I therefore deleted and salted the title. The editor who recreated the article post-deletion has requested that I unprotect the page. I have declined to do so, and instead requested that they first create a draft and have it pass WP:AFC review. As this editor has suggested that I am "gaming system with permission", I am choosing to step away from the matter, and bringing it here for administrative review of my actions. BD2412 T 04:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I didnt tell that you are gaming with system i told you that im gaming with system because im doing it, its o fun DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood your intent, which is still not good. My view of the matter is unchanged. BD2412 T 04:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You know what type of playing with system im talking about right? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

im gaming with system because im doing it, its [so] fun So you are saying you're not here to improve the encyclopedia? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Its more like this one:Wikipedia:PGAMING DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen this alternative go through but it seems like the vote at AfD for draftify was a good idea. I don't love the salting because the subject clearly could become notable rather quickly; however, the article does not belong in the mainspace at this time. Czarking0 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Didnt want it draftify just unprotected DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0: It was draftified before and moved back to mainspace without any meaningful improvement. I don't know if that it why draftification was declined by the closing admin of that discussion, but the salting was due to post-deletion recreation

@DarkHorseMayhem: Why do you want it unprotected? As I noted on my talk page, nothing prevents you from creating a new draft. BD2412 T 04:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I told you multiple times DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@DarkHorseMayhem: You basically stated that you want it unprotected because you feel bad that it was protected due to your actions, but that tells me nothing about your intentions with respect to the title. Do you intend to recreate an article at that title? BD2412 T 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No man i told you i dont want to recreate at this moment i just wanted unprotected for future so other MMA page editors who are more experienced then my who edit that part of can move page freely without contacting you if they chose so. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

They don't need to contact me. Any admin can remove the protection. There is no ownership of the right to do this. BD2412 T 16:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Point is protection is no longer necessary cause i will not be moving page just randomly to mainspace like before DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I've given DHM a final warning for "gaming the system" (a review of their edits shows what they mean). Since the reason BD2412 brought this here is the (reasonable) impression that they were being accused of gaming the system, I think this can be closed. Salting was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You can only take my extend confirmed right i which i dont care for it i dont vandalize anything and you know it DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a playground. I can, and will, block you sitewide idefinitely. Stop. Fucking. Around. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Im not vandalizing anything DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Jeez, To editor Floquenbeam:. Don't mince words. Tell us what you really think. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if we're dealing with a case of WP:CIR or a really dedicated troll here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin eyeballs requested for a consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:MCQ regarding the use of a website as a reference and if that website violates COPYVIO. A consensus needs to be reached, hence the request for eyeballs. (I will be posting this on ANI too for the same reason, admin eyeballs and not forum shopping) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for closure of AfD: Dutch Caribbean

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, the AfD discussion for the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean has been open for over 7 days and appears to have reached consensus in favor of deletion. No substantial policy-based arguments were presented to keep the article.

Would an uninvolved admin be willing to review and close the discussion?

Thank you in advance. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lorenzo Pace restore (G5 deletion) by editor who has not edited in the last 100 days.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to request that Lorenzo Pace either be restored or userfied to someplace like User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Lorenzo Pace, then I realized that the editor last edited on January 15 and has 6 edits in the last year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, are you asking administrators to do something, or just letting people know about this? Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger Looks like it was deleted per WP:DENY, so I don't see why it would be a problem for you to take ownership of it. With cited sources from The History Makers, NYTimes, and this write-up from Illinois State news to flesh it out, you'd have no problem crafting an article either. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger:, I have restored the old version to User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Lorenzo Pace, but would suggest a thorough source check and going over otherwise before moving it to another space. BD2412 T 02:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thx. I'll have a look.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request removal of Extended Confirmed right.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like this right to be removed from me i don't need this right on me DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Firefangledfeathers, I wasn't aware that you could un-EC a user. Do you know if it gets automatically readded at some point when the user keeps editing? (Assuming that the editor does keep editing, which would seem to be counterindicated by DarkHorseMayhem's block log.) And aside from requests like this one, is there any process for un-ECing an account? If someone abuses this right, it seems to me that some sort of blocking is a better option. Nyttend (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

EC is a user right that can be granted or removed using the ordinary processes (the "Change user groups" link in the menu); it not only does not get automatically readded, it's standard procedure to "add and remove" EC from an editor caught WP:PGAMING so that it won't be automatically conferred when the 30 days come up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think The Bushranger has the right answers here. Did that answer all your questions, Nyttend? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Bushranger is correct per my understanding as well. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, everything makes sense. I'm just surprised that someone gaming the system would be added-and-removed, since such a situation is clearly disruptive. Maybe the point is that the person might not notice and might continue editing with the same account instead of creating socks, as the blocked editor might? Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that usually removing the motivation for the gaming (disabling automatic EC granting) removes the motivation for the gaming, and thus the gaming/disruption ends. There was one case on ANI (still on it right now, in fact) where a "caught" editor promised not to resume, resumed regardless, and was indef'd. But IMHO if a situation can be resolved with sanctions other than a block, which the "grant and remove to disable auto-EC" does in the majority of cases like this, that's better for everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Nyanda*

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone explain to me (like I was 3YO) what is happening with this user / these users?

1. Nyandal (lower case L at the end)
2. NyandaI (upper case I, that's 'eye', at the end)
3. Nyandar

My working assumption, FWIW, is that the final characters in #1 and #2 are visually confusingly similar on purpose.

Of these, #1 is G.locked and hasn't edited for two months. I had a convo with them back in Feb at User_talk:Nyandal#Account_pair about accounts #1 and #2, but I think they were pulling the wool over my eyes. In any case, I'm none the wiser.

And #3 doesn't actually exist anymore, since it has been renamed (see User talk:Nyandar) and is now #2... I think.

At the AfC help desk we now have #2 presenting with a question regarding Draft:Timoth Mayala, which they say is theirs ("this is my first time to make a submission"), but which was created by #1 before they got locked. And just to confuse things a bit more, that draft is actually blank, because the content was moved to User:Nyandal/boxsand, and subsequently deleted.

I have a distinct feeling of being played, and evidently I'm too thick to figure out how. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both the two accounts that actually exist here (#1 and #2 - #3 was renamed to #2) are now globally locked, so I don't think we've got an issue here. I've deleted Draft:Timoth Mayala anyway, because it doesn't have any reason to exist now. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think NyandaI (#2) is locked? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ach, you're right. That'll teach me to click on a diff on someone's talkpage only to find it was the other account that made it. Anyway, it's a self-professed alternate account of a glocked account [27], so I've just indeffed it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Could you please undo this block? There was abusive impersonation involved here, with NyandaI as the victim. The account using a lowercase "l" was impersonating the one with an uppercase "I", which is why the lowercase "l" account was locked, while the uppercase "I" account was not. See also this thread, which has already cost me a great deal of work. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sake. Many apologies. Well, that's the first time I've seen a user with 100+ edits and "normal" account name (Nyandal) being the impersonator of someone with a dubious-looking name (NyandaI) with only a few edits. But, yeah, done. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someonefighter banned

For repeated attempts at off-wiki canvassing and coordination in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict topic area, Someonefighter (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately, and every six months thereafter.

Support: Aoidh, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Sdrqaz, Theleekycauldron

Oppose:

Abstain:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Someonefighter banned

Long term label vandal

This edit introduced incorrect record labels into Rascal Flatts. The IP made other edits back in March, and I've seen several other pages get vandalized with incorrect (and often anachronistic) record label attributions. Here is another one I reverted that went unnoticed for five days. I don't know if this is an existing documented vandal, but some of their edits have gone unnoticed for days or even months, and there doesn't seem to be a common link among the IP addresses so I don't think a range block would help. What should be done to make other editors more aware of this vandal and thwart their edits? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Noleander

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1.1 (Noleander topic-banned) of Noleander is rescinded.

​For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Noleander

Ostrich258

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please revoke TPA for Ostrich258 and revdel the racist edits 2600:100C:B0A7:4D78:89FA:305:A8AF:4839 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. He's been spamming the N-bomb, which is... pretty disturbing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been monitoring this Conroe, Texas-based vandal since the summer of 2024 and he does this about every month or so. I’ve also been monitoring the Africa page since 7/24/24, when Hydrogen88, one of his many sock puppets, added 1.8 million bytes to the page. This is the so-called vandal “Saturnium119”. This is his 30th sockpuppet. I know the LTA’s m.o. and made a Google Doc for myself that includes the LTA’s m.o., targeted pages, confirmed socks, etc. Should we make an LTA case? 2600:100C:B0A7:4D78:89FA:305:A8AF:4839 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Done by Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2600:100C:B0A7:4D78:89FA:305:A8AF:4839 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block and hide revision request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Long term cross wiki abuse and harassment targeting mainly me, and also other no-wiki sysops. Special:Contributions/77.18.61.247 1000mm (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The user has been blocked. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 21:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the user was blocked just right after I posted. 1000mm (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Untagged sock

I am not sure when should socks be tagged, or who is competent to tag them, but AstroNerdh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked but untagged. I don't know if this is deliberate, but I would suggest tagging. Janhrach (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not something that you should bring here. If you have this sort of question, you should go to the blocking admin, in this case, Kuru, who did note the master in the block, even though they didn't tag the user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exploreaniii.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Delte me - This is an Extremely Urgent Request...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I’m requesting deletion of my own user page (User:TenthEagle), but I cannot edit it myself due to [protection/block/etc.]. Please delete it under criterion U1. THe test on my talk page is have an extremely negative effect on my work life

I should point out that the block was for a false copywright infringemen & despite repeated requests ,nobody will unblock met

Thank you. 2A04:4A43:8D6F:F7AD:2472:215D:A6D2:40D5 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Your account still has talkpage access, and you've used it only a few days ago. Please make this request on your user talkpage, while logged in. Feel free to ping me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

zzuuzz done dood it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Hamek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Battle of Hamek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I said on the WP:MILHIST page:

"This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this?"

I was told to come here about this, my apologies if I should go somewhere else. Page created by User:Gueevkobani. Setergh (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not for discussing article contents. If you think the article is not sufficiently verifiable (WP:V) through reliable sources (WP:RS), you can propose deletion of the article at WP:AFD. Sandstein 09:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Setergh (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! A matter related to the photo for the current DYK set is in need of another administrator's eyes. Thanks, ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for File:Filodes fulvidorsalis lachryphagy.png to be restored to the DYK set. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yuri Gagarin vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently, a lot of editors have been dealing with a vandal who rapidly copy and pastes various things on articles, often on obscure topics, usually using proxies. Drmies asked me to post this on AN here, so here I'll go:

This is a vandal from Russia who targets basically every article linked to Yuri Gagarin. Yes, literally just that. They have access to a large number of proxies, but some of the earliest IPs weren't. Basically, their MO is to spam as much material into linked articles from Gagarin's article as quickly as possible, possibly to get them protected. Their first edits were adding random, mindless keyspam to articles, then moved on to "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic," then some Japanese and Korean spam, but they have now started copy-and-pasting MAB's threats, probably just to create as much as a mess as possible as they require revdel. Note that this editor isn't MAB, just an impersonator. They seem to be moving downwards from the top of Gagarin's article, if you take a look at the links.

So far, protection has been the most successful strategy, but they sometimes return to articles. Using rollback is helpful, especially the rollback right as their edits are extremely rapid. I'm not sure what their mission is, but whatever their case, this is still something to be aware of.

Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 19:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ha, it is happening again, Cutlass. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • They're very persistent, that's for sure. Cutlass^Ciera 01:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
    • OK, a bit of an update: This is probably Salebot1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), just taking on a new form. The first account to start this behavior was Shahdara Asseel birds3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which was reported to SRG as a Salebot1 sock (evidently so as by filter logs). Cutlass^Ciera 01:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
      • I just want to know why we can't have a fucking edit filter catching this. How hard can it be? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

        @Daniel Quinlan: perhaps you can help. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review request at Talk:Qaboos_bin_Said#RfC on sexuality

There's no problem with a closure review here, but it would be better with an opening statement written by a human. I note that Itshrabkhan's contribution to the original RfC was also AI-generated. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Itshrabkhan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The AI has done a fantastic job writing a report here, Itshrabkhan. Would you like to have a go doing it yourself now? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear others' opinions on this closure. This close was previously discussed on my talk page here. Personally, I am not actually certain that this request was written by AI, it seems like a more formal extension of this editor's style. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Happy to be disproven, but I put the text through several different detectors, all of which came back at 100%. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! In any case I'm sure Itshrabkhan can rephrase and reformat it as necessary to relaunch a discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It is actually AI-generated content and I don't see any problem with that unless I'm missing something, and I'm happy to know why. Nevertheless, I'll recreate the opening statement. Itshrabkhan (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Not withstanding the AI, I'm concerned about the exhibit of WP:PREC and WP:SPA behaviour. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Rewritten request

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

Closer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Itshrabkhan‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [[28]]

Reasoning: This is a request to review the consensus of the RFC in Sultan Qaboos bin Said's talk page. An RFC of whether to include rumours about Qaboos sexuality in the article. I believe that the outcome of the RFC needs a review because it was a single mind consensus whereas it should be how the voting ended.

The exclusion was based on a solid arguments and wiki-policies. For instance, sources stated that “Qaboos was widely believed by Omanis and Gulf Arabs to be homosexual” where in fact believed by only (3) Omanis and by saying “everyone knows about that” as the same sources stated, claims are claims and amount nothing than gossips or rumours.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to include allegations unless there are sources stating facts rather than just claims, and that this is an issue of any significance in the country which I don’t think it is. It is essentially dishonest to act as asserting the existence of rumour is somehow distinct from asserting the truth of that rumour.

In sources context, one of the sources quotes from a source that has been previously removed as unreliable, other is based solely on claims from only three individuals, which doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:UNDUE, another one is explicitly states that these are rumours, and the last one appears to recycle the same claims from these sources.

Arbitration motion regarding procedures relating to requests for amendment

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In line with updates to procedural documentation made in November 2024, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Format of requests for amendment is amended by motion with the following change:

(d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than 1000 500 words.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding procedures relating to requests for amendment

Help request

Copied from WP:HD.

I need some help regarding my account. Recently, I tried updating my Android software through a third-party app[Odin], but the process failed midway and my phone got stuck. I took it to a local mobile repair centre, and they fixed the issue but unfortunately, all the data on my phone was lost in the process.

One of the things I lost was access to Oxiyam.Primal. I had enabled Two-Factor Authentication in this account and saved the backup codes as screenshots and in a text file stored offline on the phone. Now all of that is gone. I also had 2FA enabled on other Gmail and Outlook accounts linked to it, which are now inaccessible too. Chronos.Zx (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried recovering my mobile photos [by this ] to find the screenshots of the codes, but over 20,000 pictures were recovered, making it nearly impossible to locate the right ones.
As a result, I’ve lost access to Oxiyam.Primal. I’d like to request that my user-right rollbacker/PCR be transferred to my this account: Chronos.Zx andd If possible, could Oxiyam.Primal also be redirected to Chronos.Zx, as I'm unable to reply there?
This edit technically confirms this is my account[29]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've copied this over from WP:HD. I'm not familiar with this editor, so bringing this here for more eyes. My feeling is that if the request is genuine, we should grant the permissions, at the same time removing them from the account that has been lost access to. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots, for bringing this here.

I was just about to post it on AN myself, as the Help Desk seems much less active these days. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, given the userpage edit linked above. Chronos.Zx, I have given you the two user rights you've requested and redirected Oxiyam.Primal's userpage to yours. ✗plicit 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Explicit. I don't need extended-confirmed right, I’ll regain it within a few days, as I’m planning to resume work on my pending article about the Anthacus plant species. Have a nice day. Regards Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx, on the password recovery: There is software to perform OCR on a set of images and search through that text. I can give some specifics if you're interested. JayCubby 14:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m familiar with OCR. By the way, what’s the name of the software you’re referring to? Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx -- I've anecdotally heard MemeScanner works well for this exact purpose (searching large volumes of images for text). I wouldn't trust it with passwords but for the fact it works offline. Files by Google can do the same, but I haven't had phenomenal results (I use FbG, and have just seen MemeScanner recommended in a bunch of odd places). Google Photos is worth a shot as well. JayCubby 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for protection of Yazidi genocide (1915)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, The article Yazidi genocide (1915) was recently nominated for deletion twice by the same person, less than an hour apart. The first nomination was closed as “keep,” but the second one over the same reason which we have now removed.

Can I request temporary protection for the article to stop more repeated deletion attempts and so the page can be improved without any distruption?

Thanks! DataNomad (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA demands that you provide evidence for your claims — if you don't, you're making personal attacks against the person in question. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataNomad nominated for deletion twice, where? Also, you got to respond to replies be it here or elsewhere (i.e. at RM/TR) rather than opening new discussions and not responding to queries if you want admins or other editors who are empowered to assist you with your requests. – robertsky (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

A rough chronology:

• Yazidi genocide (1915) was created last week by OP.
• An IP editor quickly tagged the article for AfD, which I ended up reverting as an incomplete nomination.
• The IP immediately reapplied the tag. Much discussion has ensued on the article talk page.
• Eventually the talk page was copypasted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yazidi genocide (1915). This has since been deleted (and the AfD tag removed from the article) by DatGuy as a malformed nomination.

My only involvement aside from the above was to apply CTOPS (Kurds/Kurdistan) notices to the article talk page and to OP's user talk page. I have no strong opinions otherwise on the article, but it can definitely use some more eyes upon it. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Another user has since moved the article to Draft:Yazidi genocide (1915). --Finngall ^talk 20:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

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

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to have some of my topic ban exemptions removed, in order to recover from the ANI flu after reading the endless discussions in the last few years. Here are my conditions:

1. The standard exceptions to bans. Remove this.
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process. Remove this as well.
3. Deletion discussions or deletion reviews. Only limit this to XfDs only.
4. Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA. I might need this just in case, but this should be marked as uncontroversial; controversial requests is banned.
5. The last one should also be removed, since I will maintain to be a neutral party, and I want to keep community interaction minimal.

To be honest, applying for an unblock was a bad choice. Instead of expecting a "welcome back" response, I got banned... And I got warnings for using user talk pages to comment about RfAs. And I also lack the required judgment since I am just a teen and so I am doing so just to focus away from thinking about meta discussions and just focus on improving content, and review a few drafts. I apologize if I have been disruptive. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

For those wondering what the numbered items are referring to and for the rest of the restrictions not mentioned above, here are the unblock conditions from 21 February 2025:

1. An indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: spaces, broadly construed, with the following exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed:
   1. The standard exceptions to bans.
   2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process.
   3. Deletion discussions or deletion reviews.
   4. Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA.
   5. Participating in, but not starting, a discussion where they are directly involved in a discrete and preexisting dispute (e.g., an editing conflict that is brought to WP:RSN), or are a named party to a dispute (e.g., at WP:DRN).
2. An indefinite topic ban from requesting additional permissions, broadly construed, regardless of namespace.

For the avoidance of doubt, this conditional unblock does not affect ToadetteEdit's current topic ban from closing discussions (in any namespace).

These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Note to others, as I initially misread this request. This is not a ban appeal. @ToadetteEdit is requesting to increase the restrictions by removing some of the exceptions to the ban from the namespaces Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider this a voluntary editing restriction on top of your TBAN? Responses:

1. I don't think it's prudent to remove the standard exceptions.
2. Fine.
3. Fine.
4. I don't think it's workable to distinguish between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" reports. I'd be fine either eliminating this exception or keeping it. Up to you.
5. I don't think we can remove this. If you make an edit that someone contests, you have to be able to respond.

You didn't get a warm welcome back because of the extent of your disruption and the wariness editors had about unblocking you. I'm glad you're now recognizing the harm you've done and want to avoid doing further harm. I hope you can continue to be productive and eventually regain the trust of the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be a voluntary request for a restriction, so that I could be able to learn how to focus on content work and not focus on the meta discussions. I admit that I had been disruptive in the past, as evidenced by the block from ANI two years ago. And so I didn't see a "welcome back" message but a restriction that I did not expect. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Meh. Why ask for an increase in restrictions, when you can just try to.. not? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The reason is that some of the restirctions reslly do not have any benefit for me. Like I would not make use of the advantages. As said in the previous failed request, some users proposed removing the exceptions, which were too broad, and so I wish to have some of my exceptions removed, with the most important exceptions remain. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit, don't waste our time. If you don't want to edit in those areas then just don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not honestly not wasting any time; I apologize if I did so. I just want to have some exceptions removed as useless. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are not going to use those exceptions, then just don't use them. Why do you need multiple admins to comment on this thread for something that you yourself can manage? You are already restricted more than the average editor, so there's no principle of least privilege at play. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

And if you can't remain constructive with those exceptions, to me that says you need to be indeffed, and we shouldn't simply take these exceptions away from you as a response. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this position. So far we've sadly seen lots of talk from this user, followed by potential (or actual) violations of the block and a series of ill-advised actions. The best course of action in my view is to actually PROVE you can function productively in the Wikipedia environment without the need for topic bans and the like. If you can't do that...indeff might be the only way forward. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I am actually proving myself that I can overcome the ban through regular editing and content creation. Unfortunately, since I am on mobile and there is not enough time, I could not edit that regularly. I am depressed by why I could not attend the backlog drive just because of the ban. My apologies if I am talking too much in the recent months, but I am trying to convince the community to do so. And in regards to the CIR issue below, I am trying my best not to have another indef which will impact my history in the future. For not, I am very stressed about the ban; I currently feel that the community has rejected my help and just want to kick me out of the encyclopedia—which I am making useful contributions on—like trash. As a teen, I do not have a developed brain like the adults here so I often tend to move quickly and that resulted in the ban being implemented. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The thing is you don't seem to wish to learn from your mistakes. You just keep offering excuse after excuse and taking up the community's time with endless requests to modify things you have created through your own behavior. There are many teens on Wikipedia who contribute content, and do so quietly and competently. But you don't seem willing to stick with content creation and instead keep pushing into areas you admit you may not be ready to work with. That causes disruption. Many people have tried to work with you, and frankly you've been shown a great deal of patience and accommodation. Intothatdarkness 11:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest either leaving the topic ban as it is currently in place or turning it into a normal WP:INDEF. It's unfair for volunteer administrators and the community as a whole to have to administer a constantly shifting set of very bespoke restrictions to accommodate one single editor, no matter who they are. If exceptions are added and removed like they're Lego bricks, they'll just be another discussion like this every few weeks. The current topic ban, as currently constructed should be considered the WP:LASTCHANCE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In my experience as a former teenager with impulse problems, I don't feel like what you're suggesting will help, honestly. You don't need to use the exceptions even if you have them. Making a personal oath to not use them is easier, less annoying if you do end up needing them, and doesn't provide the same forbidden fruit itch that the restrictions do.
If you don't feel like you need to edit in those ways, you don't need to. Respectfully, showing remorse by requesting a tight leash causes frustration for all parties and doesn't really do much in the ways of positive outcomes. I think showing you can edit constructively even with the exceptions in place would cause less frustration for everyone, and show more capability on your part. -- a lad insane (channel two) 07:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• query can someone please explain why this editor is allowed to be a mentor when they seem to have trouble editing themselves? Thank you 47.180.76.112 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've wondered this as well. Intothatdarkness 21:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  +2. CIR issues never-ending and I still see no major signs of change (well, other than leaving Meta-Wiki altogether). --SHB2000 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  CIR issues???! How is such issue never ending. Now you claim that I have competency issue while I continue to improve the mainspace. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Note that there is no set rules to become a mentor, let alone the minimum edit count and age. But I doubt whether users who are not in good standing are not allowed for mentorship. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this request shows the opposite of what you think it does. Sanctions are lifted when people demonstrate that they can use their judgement and self-awareness to avoid topics or areas they know they're less productive in, and that they no longer need to be restricted by the community. Asking for additional sanctions would indicate to me that you aren't confident you can abide by the restriction; i.e. you aren't sure you can use your judgement—the opposite of what we want for eventually lifting sanctions. If you don't want to edit in those areas, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to have the ability to taken away from you. Giraffer (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term abuse and harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Long term harassment towards mainly me, but also other no-wiki sysops are targeted.

Constantly changing IP addresses. Please block IP (IP range), delete the harassment @ User talk:2A02:2121:347:9ACE:DDA:E4F7:F230:D6E6 and hide other revisions. Thanks! 1000mm (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello there. Need to revoke TPA. Thanks! –HirowoWiki (📝) 16:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

As said, long term harassment from this kid. Never stops. Long term ban for the constant changing IP/IP range is the only thing that works. 1000mm (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Finally, we're done here. TPA revoked. –HirowoWiki (📝) 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel / Palestine CTOP AfD

Hi all, recently an AfD was started here regarding a Palestinian filmmaker who is tied up with conflict with the Palestinian Authority. It's quite obviously within the Israel / Palestine CTOP but it's attracting a lot of attention from non Extended-Confirmed accounts. I've gone and notified everyone who has commented on the AfD and who did not appear to be aware but I'm wondering if some other notice should be posted on the AfD itself. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:PIA#General sanctions upon related content, {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice|relatedcontent=yes}} on the talk page and {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes}} in the editnotice, I guess. Either that or just ECP the whole thing if it counts as within the conflict area. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

An ECP of the page is probably wise. It's getting a fair bit of attention from new users and I've already had to do some explaining regarding the CTOP notices I sent out to the non extended-confirmed participants. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In such cases, are the non-EC users' !votes stricken as they arrive, or do we rely on the closer to spot them and disregard? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd revert them and strike the ones that an extendedconfirmed editor has already responded to. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've struck through the !votes and comments on that AfD by non-ECR editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous user being extremely disruptive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.2.164, is being extremely disruptive.

They continuously make edit, claiming something when it’s not true, and then gets upset when edits get reverted.

They’re also attacking me.

They don’t appear to be stopping anytime soon.

If I was in charge, I would block them for disruptive behaviour and edits (but of course I can’t and never will). Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The removal of unsourced biographical information is not disruptive. WP:ALLMUSIC is not considered a good source for birthdates.

Where was the user attacking you? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In the revisions of the edits Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you point out which diff? Because I don't really see any edits of the IP suggesting an "attack". This one probably just shows frustration of being reverted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This subject is currently on both this board and AN/I. Agree there doesn't seem to be any attacks. IP and OP have been reverting a lot, but seem to have stopped. Don't think admin intervention is required at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Dipper Dalmatian has since been given a indef for incivility, so we can probably consider this closed (and 122's issue was solved too by someone sourcing what they asked for, even as DD tried to inexplicably shut down discussion of it). Nathannah • 📮 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2025 India–Pakistan strikes and related articles

I have just protected the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes article to be movable by admins only, after a series of good faith but undiscussed moves. I have previously full protected Operation Sindoor after a CFORK was being repeatedly recreated at that title. But there are a plethora of related articles/titles that need to be a kept an eye on including:

• 2025 Pahalgam attack
• 2025 India–Pakistan standoff
• 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
• 2025 Indian missile strikes
• 2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan
• 2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir
• 2025 Indian missile strikes on Pakistan
• 2025 Indian strikes on Pakistan
• 2025 India-Pakistan strikes
• Operation Sindoor 2025
• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict

etc. Can more admins add these pages to their watchlists and NPPers keep an eye out for creation of content/POV forks? Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Even before the Pahalgam attack and the start of the war, it already seemed like we were experiencing a serious flare-up in IPA problems on wikipedia. I second the call for all hands on deck. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to create Katelyn Clampett (article currently protected from creation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello administrators! I would like to request that the protection from creation be lifted from Katelyn Clampett, which appears to have been implemented in 2009 after the article was deleted for not passing notability standards. I believe that the subject meets WP:GNG in 2025 given the amount of sources I was able to find referencing or focusing on her music career ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why that shouldn't be done after all this time. I haven't checked for notability, so please make sure that you've addressed the reasons for deletion given at the previous AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed protection from the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics

Please be advised of a proposal for community sanctions at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Safaraji is trolling after spamming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Draft:1receipt is recently spamming for draft repeatedly. JustAces (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

What's your interest in this user, especially where your account is less than 2 weeks old, and what diffs do you have to support your claim? 331dot (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sfrarji was indeffed anyways for spam and well on their way to it anyways, didn't need to be taken here...@JustAces:, please remove that awful obstructive "WrugTub" text from your talk page; it's blocking navigation of it. Nathannah • 📮 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed it as I received no acknoweldgement from JustAces. Nathannah • 📮 02:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The Hindu" page Criticism and Misinformation both the section Vandalized by User:SpacemanSpiff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• In the page of 'The Hindu' user @SpacemanSpiff is censoring information by trying to omitting or removing the "Criticism" and "Misinformation" section content which has proper citation and multiple official sources.
• @SpacemanSpiff is threatening to block me after the guy vandalizing the page each time, the guy has some relation/lives in the place where the controversy is.
• I have added in Talk page of "The Hindu" regarding the same but no response from wiki community.

Username 111223 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspicious behavior by dormant admin account

Noticed a suspicious edit by an admin account that had previously been dormant for a significant time.

The account belonging to the admin Night Gyr appears to have vandalized an article about Mormons, removing information showing that the Mormon leadership had opposed a massacre of emigrants passing through their territory, and had specifically sent orders to allow the victims to pass unharmed.

The new state of the article makes it appear as if the killings were a direct action of the Mormon church, when in fact the leadership had opposed violence and sided with the victims against the militia.

What makes this behavior suspicious is that Night Gyr has no previous posts on these subjects, and no posts about religious topics whatsoever except to attempt to remove pages about Hindu history.

It’s bizarre that their account suddenly became active after an extended absence, specifically to vandalize this article, and no other actions.

Would someone please contact them to verify the security of their account, or to discuss why they so felt the need to return to vandalize the page and then disappear again?

Thanks 2600:1011:B178:5D32:B4B9:80F2:26D8:DBC9 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Your edits were likely reverted because you added information based on primary sources, which are not reliable for the purposes you are using them for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It's neither suspicious nor vandalism, and involved no use of administrative tools. An edit summary would have been helpful from Night Gyr, though. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You made an edit based on primary, possibly biased, sources. Night Gyr reverted that edit. That's not anything suspicious unless you're here to push a POV. Also note this is not vandalism; note that calling things that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not dormant, just editing less than I used to. Acroterion is correct that I could have done better to provide an edit summary. Interesting here that an IP address is responding to the removal of content added by another IP address. Have you considered registering an account and getting to know the way things are done here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Night Gyr: Welcome back comrade. jp×g🗯️ 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

AfD Backlog

There is a backlog of AfDs overdue for closing. By my count, 44 discussions over four days' logs; this is the most I've ever seen, and it has been growing for several days now. The denizens of AfD would really appreciate if some admins could pitch in to help resolve this. Toadspike [Talk] 05:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Backlog is mostly cleared now. – robertsky (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Someonefighter

As a result of an appeal, Someonefighter (talk · contribs)'s site ban is vacated and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed). The topic ban can be appealed in six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Someonefighter

Long term abuse and harassment, again

Long term harassment towards mainly me, but also other no-wiki sysops are sometimes targeted. Banned for all eternity @ no-wiki, where he posted nonsense about «Guds lapskaus» (English: God’s stew), here @ en-wiki he just ranomdly vandalizes writing God’s stew or Norwegian stew.

Constantly changing IP addresses. Please block IP and delete User talk:77.18.56.182, use Google translate to understand what he writes in Norwegian. Other edits should be reverted and possibly hidden. This user also needs TPA revoked immediately, see WP:AN#Long term abuse and harassment.

On top of that, please hide the revisions he made last time @ User talk:2A02:2121:348:77A2:FDEA:34CB:3E6D:423F.

Thanks! 1000mm (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The two other no-wiki sysops are harassed as well.

• User:Znuddel in this Special:Diff/1289612977
• User:Anne-Sophie Ofrim in this Special:Diff/1289613161

1000mm (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

LeBron James

Lebron James’ wiki has been defaced by vandals with racist slurs. GaelicSoxFan (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@GaelicSoxFan the defacement was live only for 3 minutes, and some 5 hours ago. If you are seeing it from somewhere else, it could have been a screenshot during those 3 minutes. If it is on here still, it could have been a cache somewhere between you and your internet service provider. – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

URGENT: Racial slurs appearing when one hovers over Africa

Resolved

I have no idea the technical reason why this is happening, but it's imperative that someone figures it out immediately. You're see what I mean if you hover your cursor over the Wikilink Africa.

An extremely persistent sockmaster has been running wild on this and a few other articles, mostly related to Black people, in recent days, making massive edits which are just repetitions of the n-word in all caps like this. For some reason, despite the fact that the edits have been reverted and revision-deleted, the hover-over continues to display this grossly insulting content. The situation was brought to my attention here. Would someone with the technical understanding to fix this please do so? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: The same racial slurs also appear when one hovers over LeBron James. We should probably do a systematic check of all the pages edited by this sockmaster (for starters, see the Africa article's contrib history going back to 13 November 2024) to check for further instances of this glitch. Generalrelative (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Fyi, purging doesn't seem to fix the issue. This may be an issue with Page Previews. The issue doesn't occur when you have WP:Popups enabled. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it was appearing for my popups for Africa before I purged it, although my recall could be off. CMD (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Whoever fixed the issue for Africa, thanks! Could you also do the same for LeBron James? Generalrelative (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

LeBron James's page preview seems OK now. I was looking at some old talk page discussions on MediaWiki about Page Previews, and a similar problem in the past was resolved by making a dummy/null edit and re-purging the page. I did those steps here, though I'm not sure if that's what ultimately fixed it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it's fixed now. Thanks. I went through the contrib history of Africa and looked at all the pages edited by the socks who had done this. I didn't see any more articles with the hover-over problem, so it looks like the issue has been resolved. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Generalrelative and @CMD, I just noticed the work you put in to trying to resolve the issue at Talk:Africa. Thanks for all you did, and thanks to the IP editors that brought this issue up. (Also, CMD -- I think you're right about the purging fixing the issue for Navigation Pop-ups. That extension probably just works differently than Page Preview for some reason.) On another note, it's a bit worrying that this issue apparently persisted for several hours, but I suppose that's an issue for another discussion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There was brief discussion of the technical issues involved here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Preview vandalism problems. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, helpful phab link. "purge and then make non-zero dummy edits or real edits to the WP:LEDE between manual purges. And give it time." Well, unfortunately I did the first and last steps, but missed the steps in between. CMD (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I came across Wikipedia:Help desk#How can I fix vandalism in a page preview (*not* the actual page) which seems to have been resolved, but is it related to the issues here? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the same problem. Maybe someone can confirm whether action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 will work for page previews (and perhaps why its use must be responsible). CMD (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the "responsible" part probably just means don't do it unnecessarily on pages (templates realistically) with lots of transclusions as you'll continually set up long queues. For beans reasons I won't give any examples, there might already be protections anyway but I can easily see it creating issues for admins if editors keep doing it with such pages. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this sort of thing what has also been happening at Talk:Battle of Helena? Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that Zhao Xintong that's linked on the main page had content in the page preview that was reverted 6 hours ago. I did a normal action=purge, one with forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 and another with forcelinkupdate=true using the API via Special:ApiSandbox. The first two didn't seem to do anything, but on the third, the preview was updated. forcerecursivelinkupdate should do the same thing as forcelinkupdate in updating link tables and other secondary data updates, so it might have just taken a few seconds, idk. Trim02 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Generalrelative:, @Aoi:, @Hog Farm:, @Acroterion:? Should we make an LTA case because the vandalism on Africa goes back to 8/3/23. The vandal is called “Saturnium119” 2600:100C:B0A7:AC00:E40E:A922:A414:6792 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality concern and template removal without discussion – FufuFafa

Hello, I am concerned about the neutrality of the article FufuFafa. I previously added the {{NPOV}} tag to indicate that the article may violate Wikipedia’s Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The article presents politically sensitive claims in a seemingly factual tone without proper context or strong reliable sources.

The subject of the article, a public figure, has explicitly denied the claims, yet the article currently implies their truth without clear attribution or balance. Despite this, the neutrality tag was removed without discussion or effort to address the issues.

I request that administrators review the article to evaluate its compliance with BLP and NPOV policies. Page protection might also be necessary if the neutrality concerns persist.

Thank you for your attention. 2001:448A:10E8:3453:FC6E:758E:AAFF:29F (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As per the explanation in the removal of the tag, "revert drive-by tag; no explanation of what changes are requested". Please use the article talk page to discuss changes. I also suggest you ditch the AI and use your own words. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added it to the discus page to not remove it. Please check. Naruminato (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to split and restore page history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• United Peoples' Party (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United People's Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone moved United Peoples' Party (Bangladesh) and turned it into a new article. Please split the edit history, restore this version and move it back to the original title. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request by Sandbh on behalf of Eric Scerri (User:Scerri)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’m submitting this request on behalf of Dr. Eric Scerri User:Scerri, whose account has been blocked since 2008, on the following grounds: "Spam / advertising-only account".

He is a widely recognized authority in the history and philosophy of chemistry and the periodic table.

He made 13 edits in 2005; 12 in 2006; and 21 in 2008. These edits were to correct his own biographical details; add resources, external links, and references to his own work; some typo fixes; and the deletion of some new age content in the [[History of the Periodic Table]] article.

He recently submitted an unblock request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scerri but, not being sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia unblock procedure, his request was denied on procedural grounds.

A subsequent unblock request posted by him to his talk page failed to gain traction.

I posted another unblock request on behalf of User: Scerri to the same talk page, including some history and discussion of Dr Scerri’s circumstances, and WP policy. This request attracted some interest, including a suggestion for an admin to weigh in. On March 30th 2025, @DMacks: indicated he would consider an unblock if it included a restriction against self-citing without prior discussion in which Scerri participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned. I've heard no further from DMacks.

Dr Scerri is happy to accept the restrictions proposed by DMacks i.e. no self-citing without prior discussion in which they participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this unblock request.

Conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

IMO any unblock should also require that they only use the talk page to propose changes to their bio on the talk page via edit requests etc rather than directly editing it whatever they are citing. Maybe also to Foundations of Chemistry. WP:BANEX would apply of course. While I'm a strong believer that COI doesn't forbid editing in the general case, once an editor has shown they don't know when their COI edits are okay and when they aren't, things change a bit. While it does seem that the main concern with Scerri's editing is their tendency to add citations to their own work, it just doesn't seem a good idea to say general editing of their bio is okay when an editor has trouble recognising COI problems. Also I'm slightly concerned as worded the proposal seems to suggest that if Scerri is told on RSN that a source they are citing is reliable, they're going to think they can then use it all over even when they are just adding it to stuff already supported by citations. But I guess most RSN discussions of specific sources do make clear context matters and more importantly provided Scerri always makes clear what and why they are asking, this probably shouldn't be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Ditto what Nil Einne said. Restrictions are required for me to support, along the lines that Nil Einne already laid out. I would further suggest he should be able to appeal the restrictions here after ~500 edits or 1 year, whichever comes last. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Scerri needs to say in their own words and from their own account that they agree to the terms. While you may advise them, Sandbh, and that is truly helpful, you cannot speak entirely on their behalf as we don't know whether they in fact agree. While i'm not yet sure how I feel about unblocking at all, I think any successful unblock would need to be contingent on them avoiding self citing but also using edit requests in areas where they have a vested interest. I'd be curious to hear from the editor why they all of a sudden want to edit again after 17 years. Star Mississippi 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. In reviewing this unblock request, the following logged-out statement by User:Scerri, recently made here on their Talk page, should be considered: I recognize the general preference for using talk pages or formal edit requests in autobiographical articles, but I must be candid: given my professional commitments, I simply do not have the time to engage in back-and-forths on talk pages or through formal edit request channels. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This was my main reason for declining their request. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, Star Mississippi, JoJo Anthrax, and 331dot: Thank you for your comments. I will ask Dr Scerri if he could post here, and say in his own words and from his own account that he agrees to the unblock terms, plus anything else he would like to add. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

He's blocked, so he can't post here, but he can post on his user talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll ask him to post on his user talk page, and will let editors here know when he has done that. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Having not heard anymore from Dr Scerri, I've just now emailed him to ascertain his position. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've heard from Dr Scerri, and he intends to post to the User: Scerri talk page. I'll post an alert here. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Dr Scerri has posted his unblock request to his talk page. Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

[...] while I have occasionally made factual updates via IP edits over the years — mainly to keep my publication details current [...] My reading of this is edits made post-2008. If so, I don't think Scerri realized that they were evading their block by making edits as an IP user. Assuming my assumption is correct, a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable. (Hopefully I am misunderstanding the situation.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I also read this as (non-malicious) block evading. Overall this seems like someone that wants to make good faith contributions to the community. a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable - agree. It also seems like Scerri is interested in writing an encyclopedia but not really in learning about our community norms. With that in mind I would like to see that his account is restricted though I do not have the experience to suggest the best restrictions. Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A one account restriction is unnecessary. It is not an absolute requirement and here it is obviously not going to change anything. —Alalch E. 23:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would support based on their answer Sandbh linked above. They answer the questions I raised to my satisfaction and in their own voice. Star Mississippi 23:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1 —Alalch E. 10:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. A brief personal reflection, if I may. I’ve occasionally made Wikipedia edits as an IP editor—typically while using a public computer (such as at my local Apple store), when I’ve spotted a mistake on a page and didn’t want to log in for account security reasons. There have also been times when I’ve made trivial corrections, such as fixing typos or formatting, without bothering to log in.

These kinds of edits strike me as practical, harmless, and entirely within the norms of good-faith contribution. I mention this to emphasize that IP editing isn’t inherently suspicious or evasive—context matters.

As for the unblock request: I think WP:ROPE is worth bearing in mind. The principle is that if an editor has been blocked but is willing to return in good faith, we don’t need to burden them with excessive preconditions. If issues arise again, the community has ample tools to respond. But if no problems occur, then we’ve welcomed back a constructive contributor—which is what we want.

Dr Scerri has acknowledged past issues, stated a willingness to work within Wikipedia’s norms, and clarified his intent to use the talk page and edit request systems for any COI-related material. That seems sufficient. Adding a restriction like “no IP editing” could be seen as both unnecessary and overreaching, especially given that such behavior is already subject to routine scrutiny like it is for any editor.

Noting my own COI (set out below), I support the proposed unblock as is.

My conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this WP:ROPE I think that holds good sway here. As for the IP editing. I have also done what you described but doing it specifically because you actual account is blocked is a another matter. Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response.

I agree entirely that IP editing to bypass a block is a different matter entirely—one that rightly raises serious concern. My intent in mentioning IP editing was not to excuse evasion, but to suggest that occasional IP edits, post-unblock and with no evasive intent, may not need to be preemptively restricted. If problematic patterns were to emerge, we already have mechanisms to deal with that, hence the relevance of WP:ROPE.

My broader point was that we shouldn’t presume all IP edits are suspect—particularly if they’re isolated, minor, and in good faith. Of course, if Dr Scerri were unblocked and later engaged in problematic IP editing, I would fully support appropriate action. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am probably not the only editor who has added that page to their Watchlist, so perhaps you could tell the Doctor that IP edits to that page are unlikely to be missed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, JoJo Anthrax. That’s a fair and helpful point—and I trust Dr Scerri will appreciate the level of attention and the importance of maintaining full transparency going forward. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock as per 'Star Mississippi'. User:Scerri was blocked in 2008 it's been seventeen years such a long period. I think with a second chance, we can allow him to demonstrate his ability to edit constructively. IAmAtHome (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I think 17 years is enough time to learn a lesson and come back in good faith. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unconditionally, and I feel that any block that's more than ten years old should be automatically rescinded.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unconditionally, and immediately. Christ, seventeen years and he actually went through all this pain to ask for an official unblock? Isn't this supposed to be what we want people to do? We should encourage them to do it, not punish them. jp×g🗯️ 05:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The User "Skitash" is manipulating the reality!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1- In the page of Persian Gulf, although I kindly informed the user @Skitash about the name of Arvand Rud to be added, at least once, he removed it every time, and this is not acceptable.

2- As we know, a Wikipedia Page, is not a NEWS page. The news about the future speech of the President Trump has nothing to do with a historical truth to be added in the page! I have removed the news, and he added every time.

3- The waters in southwest Iran have always been known as the Persian Gulf and have never been officially called anything else, he added another name, and I have to undo it everytime!

I need help. PayamAvarwand (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

1. We follow WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia.

2. That's sourced and noteworthy content, especially for a section about the Persian Gulf naming dispute.

3. "Arabian Gulf" was added to the lede as a result of an RfC. I'm unsure why you decided to ignore the invisible note and proceed with deleting it anyway.

4. You've been edit warring and have been reported to WP:AN3 accordingly. Skitash (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You've removed sourced information and an alternate name decided by an RFC. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Point of order - it was not PayamAvarwand who originally ignored the invisible note and removed "Arabian Gulf" from the lede, it was @Amiyn: - [42]. That said, OP seems to have a thing for WP:THETRUTH as opposed to WP:VNT, judging by their edit summaries. I have fully protected Persian Gulf for 72 hours. (Note once this protection expires, the existing semiprotection will need to be re-added). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Note I just re-checked and saw this. Yeah, this is not on. Blocked OP for 24 hours for edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit of a over reaction to a small edit war?. skittish only has 1 warning regarding it and yet it gets posted to admin noticeboard and the page gets full protection for 72 over one user. There is no dispute resolution or recommended talk page. idk your protocol but it seemed like a lot. not trying to stir anything up, I'm just confused. thanks JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Post-closure, but to clarify: it was two users. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Footnote: OP created a very obvious sockpuppet account and is now indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Footnote to the footnote: CU indicated the potential sock may have been a Joe job - however the user's conduct otherwise has made it clear that indef was still the correct call. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The User: Skitash is an Anti-Persian!

Block evasion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Is there anybody to control the user @Skitash? As you see here, and here, he is trying to hide and destroy the persian or iranian titles! e.g. Arvand Rud I ask you to check this seriously please. 2001:9E8:F583:9C00:353F:5D31:1022:2D82 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Are you familiar with PayamAvarwand? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Quack. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to close AfD: Gambella University

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The AfD discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambella University has been open for 7 days. I believe the discussion may be ready for closure. Requesting review and closure by an uninvolved administrator. Thank you. Wieditor25 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not how things work. Seven days is a minimum, not a maximum, and discussions can be left open for more than seven days — and this page is not for requesting simple closures of AFD discussions anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still learning the rules. Wieditor25 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India Pakistan war2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

India all 3 wings showing damage of all their airbases kindly add in new version. 174.94.10.8 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an administrator matter, please use the relevant article talk page to discuss changes. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tales_logo.png

Non-free content (a copyrighted and trademarked television anthology logo owned by a corporation) was uploaded without the proper categorization. Posting this to notify administrators so that it can either be deleted or supplemented with the proper templates and disclaimers. Darkknight2149 15:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The image is uploaded on Commons and not locally here. Any i ssues would need to be addressed there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It was uploaded at Commons based on it being below the US threshold of originality (text and simple shapes only) and considered ineligibility for copyright. You might disagree with this but that would have to be discussed at Commons. Masem (t) 15:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russification of non-Russian names and toponyms

A person, using several accounts (Sojetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Erledigungs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

WMF restores access to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

• Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Of general interest to administrators - per an update at WP:VPWMF from Joe Sutherland, the WMF has restored access to the article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. This follows a ruling of the Indian Supreme Court setting aside the Delhi High Court's ruling that the article violated sub judice rules, as reported on by Reuters and other outlets. Good news! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

What was the status of this article before it was restored by this office action? Deleted, oversighted, and protected from editing? Or was it somewhat less strict? Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Office protected with a big notice saying basically "We're sorry, but due to a court order, this article is restricted." Worgisbor (congregate) 05:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend: This was the status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The previous revisions were oversighted, yes. See Wikipedia talk:Oversight § Request copy of WMF-office protected page. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Please delete redirect

At this page, it says "The result of the discussion was to be determined by Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 1#RFC: Name of alleged killer". Since the Request for Comment is now closed as exclude, should the redirect now be deleted? If this is not the correct forum, would someone be able to please let me know the correct forum? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The RfC was closed by Chetsford as "no consensus to include the name of the suspect and no consensus to exclude it". I assume the redirect itself is not affected by the no consensus closure? Some1 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Some1:, actually, the page says "If the discussion there results in a consensus to exclude the subject's name, this redirect should then be deleted". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The RfC did not find "consensus to exclude the subject's name" though. It found no consensus to include or exclude the name. Some1 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to mostly agree with Some1 based on the wording of the close on the redirect. With no consensus, the state of the article returned to where it was before the dispute, with the name excluded. A stable version of a redirect isn't quite a 1:1 comparison with the stable version of an article. So the effect on the redirect seems kind of murky to me, but the redirect was up during the whole process (with the notice that there was a discussion ongoing). Also, by removing the notice of the discussion, and reverting it to a bog standard redirect, the closer chose to leave it up while waiting for the article RFC consensus, which suggests to me that the redirect being active is better argued as the stable version.

So I think we have the correct results implemented now: the removal of the name from the article, but the continued existence of a redirect, based on both being the stable versions before the no consensus. But it's certainly not a slam dunk; I don't think the conclusion is obvious, just the interpretation I think is closer to the rules and spirit. (I did not participate in either RFC). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

While the inclusion or non-inclusion of the redirect or, indeed the determination of what constituted the stable version of the article, is outside the scope of the RfC to identify, I generally agree with CoffeeCrumbs' analysis of the situation. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Abusive postings by IP-hopper

See Special:Contributions/49.230.61.5 and the histories of the pages the IP has edited. Each time they are blocked, they immediately switch to a different IP address and continue. It's been going on for some weeks. Can we do anything about this, like set up an edit filter? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 there is an edit filter already. Will let the person(s) working on that filter know about this thread. – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Reporting User:Userbvvc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re-reporting User:Userbvvc as suggested by asilvering in the last report dated 9 May 2025. Similar disruptive edits again today after a 4-day break. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I block this range without too much collateral damage?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=49.224.64.216%2F17&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 a lot of bad edits, some serous BLP ones. Might be a school. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be Special:Contributions/49.224.0.0/17. Depending on the situation, I think you can justify almost any block. But there's no reason to make a block harsher than necessary, and if it's just logged-out vandalism from school kids, you could probably leave account creation enabled. Most of them probably wouldn't try to create an account. Also, there doesn't seem to be much of anyone on Special:Contributions/49.224.0.0/18. Why block the entire /17? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

What range should I block? I clearly don't know enouigh about IP ranges, although I should! Doug Weller talk 14:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a IP range calc on toolforge. If you copy in all the relevant IPs it tells you the smallest range that covers all of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Qaboos_bin_Said#RfC on sexuality

There's no problem with a closure review here, but it would be better with an opening statement written by a human. I note that Itshrabkhan's contribution to the original RfC was also AI-generated. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Itshrabkhan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The AI has done a fantastic job writing a report here, Itshrabkhan. Would you like to have a go doing it yourself now? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear others' opinions on this closure. This close was previously discussed on my talk page here. Personally, I am not actually certain that this request was written by AI, it seems like a more formal extension of this editor's style. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Happy to be disproven, but I put the text through several different detectors, all of which came back at 100%. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! In any case I'm sure Itshrabkhan can rephrase and reformat it as necessary to relaunch a discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I once got an 80% certainty rating of AI authorship for an essay I wrote 15 years ago. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is actually AI-generated content and I don't see any problem with that unless I'm missing something, and I'm happy to know why. Nevertheless, I'll recreate the opening statement. Itshrabkhan (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Not withstanding the AI, I'm concerned about the exhibit of WP:PREC and WP:SPA behaviour. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Adding a null comment here so this doesn't get archived again. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Rewritten request

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

Closer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Itshrabkhan‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [[43]]

Reasoning: This is a request to review the consensus of the RFC in Sultan Qaboos bin Said's talk page. An RFC of whether to include rumours about Qaboos sexuality in the article. I believe that the outcome of the RFC needs a review because it was a single mind consensus whereas it should be how the voting ended.

The exclusion was based on a solid arguments and wiki-policies. For instance, sources stated that “Qaboos was widely believed by Omanis and Gulf Arabs to be homosexual” where in fact believed by only (3) Omanis and by saying “everyone knows about that” as the same sources stated, claims are claims and amount nothing than gossips or rumours.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to include allegations unless there are sources stating facts rather than just claims, and that this is an issue of any significance in the country which I don’t think it is. It is essentially dishonest to act as asserting the existence of rumour is somehow distinct from asserting the truth of that rumour.

In sources context, one of the sources quotes from a source that has been previously removed as unreliable, other is based solely on claims from only three individuals, which doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:UNDUE, another one is explicitly states that these are rumours, and the last one appears to recycle the same claims from these sources.

Non-participants

• Endorse: I don't think I would have dared to close this either way myself, but do I think the closure is correct, and the closure statement furthermore provides useful guidance on what and how should or shouldn't be included in the article. (FWIW, I thought cagliost made a particularly persuasive argument, and also refuted many of the opposing points, which largely clinched it for me.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Participants

• Overturn – in my view, this closure seemed like a supervote that didn't seriously consider any of the exclude arguments, because there was in fact reasonable refutations of those who supported inclusion. It is generally considered not okay to out someone as supposedly gay, or even hint at it, regardless of whether they are living or deceased; especially when the sources explicitly state it is rumors and speculation. This practice is widely seen as disrespectful, and Wikipedia has always seen this practice as disrespectful. This argument was not reasonably refuted, and furthermore, it was stated that, Many of the contributors to this RFC and the previous ones are motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I took offense at that remark, and I can assure you my exclude argument was not the least bit "anti-homosexual bigotry". That comment alone should have disqualified their !vote. The closer cites WP:NOTCENSORED as being a relevant factor, but doesn't explain how it is relevant. No one that argued for exclusion said the content should be censored, so NOTCENSORED is a very weak argument for inclusion, because the inclusion of disputed content isn't primarily based on NOTCENSORED, and those arguments citing NOTCENSORED should have been given less weight. The closer also cites source reliability as being relevant, but seemingly ignores Pincretes accurate analysis of the sources. The most reliable way for Wikipedia to report someone’s sexual orientation is in their own words, and we don't have that here, and someone else’s purported sexuality is not owed to the public, nor is it encyclopedic, when it is based on rumors, gossip and speculation. Both the 2017 and 2020 discussions got it right to exclude, and this one also got it right to exclude, based on the arguments for exclusion, and the numerical advantage, if consensus had been determined properly. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The opinion of prior participants in general is often useless for discussions like this one anyway, but here goes. The previous RfCs were largely based on BLP grounds, but the subject died in 2020, so that no longer applies, and using the consensus of these previous RfCs as if they should influence this 2025 one is grasping at straws. The rumours about his sexual life have been discussed in reputable sources since at least 2004[44] and indicate the political implications. This is not some idle celebrity gossip and not based on one source or one person, but a persistent claim (which should thus not be presented as a truth, but as a claim) which influenced or indicated the image the Sultan of Oman had with (parts of) his population, on a highly contentious topic in his country. The opposition was mainly based on "but they are only rumours", which no one denied, but isn't a reason to exclude things. See e.g. Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby, William McMahon or Jörg Haider, or the featured article Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Fram (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  When I asked what the "political implications" were, no one could describe them, apparently those were unfounded rumors as well, considering he ruled for thirty years. And yes, this is some idle celebrity gossip that had no significant impact on his life, and there is no context provided at all in the article how it influenced or tarnished his image with the population. And since you invoked other stuff, there is an ongoing RfC at Mustafa Kemal Atatürk about persistent rumors about an alleged affair he had, which is leaning towards exclusion. I guess it just depends on what the rumors and gossips are, i.e. someones purported sexual orientation, and whether that gossip is suitable for inclusion. BLP states: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, but when it's a BDP, we suddenly abandon those standards in favor of spreading titillating and unfounded claims about a deceased person. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is no indication that the Ataturk / Gabor alleged relation had any potential political implications, or was punishable by 3 years of imprisonment if confirmed. The alleged (or outright stated) homosexuality of the sultan and the discrepancy with the official policies led to friction though, see e.g. this, or the actual title of the article from the Middle East Review of International Affairs, "Assessing the political stability of Oman". Whether you agree that it potentially had political implications or not is not really important: we go with the sources, and this is an impeccable, peer-reviewed source which reports on the rumours in the context of such implications. This is not some sensationalist tabloid (just like the many newspapers who reported on it, from le Nouvel Obs I cited above to things like Le Figaro, aren't sensationalist tabloids either), these are respectable sources which you can't so easily dismiss. Fram (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  No matter how you frame your argument, it's wrong to out someone based on gossip and rumors, it's not a widely accepted practice that respects the private choice of a person, living or deceased. On the other hand, it is a widely accepted practice on Wikipedia, that just because content can be sourced, doesn't automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion, and this is very much one of those instances. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• As mentioned, I've discussed this with a couple other editors at my talk page here in some detail, but am happy to answer any specific questions about this close. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  • It would be great to get an opinion from an editor who was not previously involved in the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite protections that were supposed to expire?

Hi, quite new to Wikipedia as an editor, but had been getting familiar to the protection policy since around 2023. I've been looking through the request for page protection archives over the past several months and noticed there were some articles intended to be protected temporary, but were somehow never set to expire. Examples include:

• Avocado, intended to be semi-protected for one year
• Golden Gate, intended to be semi-protected for ten days
• Qeparo, intended to be semi-protected for three days
• Maldives, intended to be semi-protected for one month
• Fanum (streamer), intended to be semi-protected for six months

Was it a last minute change from temporary to indefinite, or were the expiry dates just not set? Do you think you could either unprotect those articles to see how it goes, or do you think the protections are still necessary? A similar issue happened with the Cambodia article; that was accidently semi-protected indefinitely on July 2018, but was unprotected on March 2023 following this discussion. However, the article was semi-protected again just 23 days later when disruptive editing returned. BriDash9000 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• You should ask the admins who made the changes. In the past, I have changed my mind on protection after posting one time duration, and deciding a longer one was more appropriate, but it isn't a common thing. It might have been a mistake (either the protection duration, or the comment not stating the proper time) or it might have been a change of heart once they got to the page, but the admin corps as a whole isn't going to know about these individual instances, only the admin that performed the work will know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

As stated, probably just mistakes. Probably if there are other situations like these where there is a discrepancy, putting in a request at RFPP for a downgrade in protection would be the best way forward for the future. As for now, pinging Ymblanter, Anachronist, and Daniel Case per the above. Super Goku V (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Concerning Avocado, I intended to apply indefinite protection and I applied indefinite protection. We can discuss whether it is a good idea to unprotect the article after 9 years protection, but I do not see any mistakes here. The one year applied to unlocked move protection, which I did not touch. Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What the heck is it about avacados that made them such a vandalism magnet? Good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well... I had come to learn that there are haters of the fruit to the point that such vandalism isn't surprising to me. – robertsky (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of it may be related to memes too, such as (but not limited to) the "free sha vaca doo" meme. That said, I'm not going to go back through the page history to figure out what it was at the time or historically (because I'm lazy). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe people just don't like Otis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have lifted the protection on Maldives Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

All things being equal, WP:PROT is certainly one of the more esoteric area of the project to immerse oneself in. For two years. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

MappilaKhrais

Hi regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MappilaKhrais

Do you think https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter might help to preemptively stop this guy? This guy have been vandalizing wiki for years. Disruptive edits by this user is such a pain to other wiki editors.

I think they will not stop. We need to take some sort of actions here.

is there a way for admins to get alerted - when edit from new account ( from that IP range) are made on specific articles or specific user-agent ?

or multiple accounts are created from same IP range?

or do you think its appropriate to block that IP range all together Cinaroot (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi there, proposals for AbuseFilters against a LTA, according to the notice on WP:EFR cannot be made public. The page says - "Private filters should not be discussed in detail. If you wish to discuss creating an LTA filter, or changing an existing one, please instead email details to wikipedia-en-editfilterslists.wikimedia.org." I don't really have the knowledge to provide you with opinions on a creation of LTA filter against a frequent socker from the start of 2024 though. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 12:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Username

Hello, I want to change my username but I am indefinitely blocked on ruwiki. Is this a problem? Leo^talk 11:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Leo, no it shouldn't be; see WP:CHUN for details! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it may be an issue as global renamers routinely request that you deal with the block in that wiki first unless you can reason out why not in your request. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's OK as it's wp.ru. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Leo^talk 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Concern about Daft Elephant’s collapse of active RfC on Talk:Femosphere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Concern about Daft Elephant’s collapse of active RfC on Talk:Femosphere

Update: Since my original post, the RfC was re-opened by one editor, then re-collapsed unilaterally by Daft Elephant a second time, despite constructive engagement from multiple third-party editors. A second editor has since reopened it. Due to the repeated collapses and escalating behavior, the matter has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and is now being discussed at ANI.

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mauriziok Creating Copies of Articles

This is currently pending at MFD and is both a content issue and a conduct issue. User:Mauriziok has apparently created approximately 300 user space articles that are copies from article space to user space, which is not permitted.

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

Mauriziok was asked about these copies nine months ago by User:Bri but did not answer. Bri has now nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300 pageant drafts in userspace .

The content issue will be taken care of at MFD, but the creation of these copies is an attribution violation, and is otherwise not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• I accidentally filed this at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI and have changed the notices to indicate that it was filed at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Userspace Ban

I recommend that Mauriziok be topic-banned from creating subpages in user space.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I was wondering if something like this was appropriate, too. I'm glad that RM took the initiative. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Very strange behaviour. They've recently blanked a handful, so I've U1'd. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support They had promised not to do this again. See User talk:Mauriziok#Copying within Wikipedia, and Userspace content forks and User talk:Mauriziok#Userspace content forks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: this can not be technically enforced, if this ban is enacted and gets violated such that it needs enforcing, the options will be to block the user from the entire User: namespace, or siteblock them. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the details, User:Xaosflux - If the ban is violated, I will be satisfied with blocking the editor from User space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Mauriziok is slowly getting it and has tagged 100+ pages for U1. Hundreds more need to be deleted. I'm interested in a resolution to this that does not require a topic ban. See the discussion in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300 pageant drafts in userspace. If the needed responses aren't given in the following few days, I will support a topic ban. —Alalch E. 13:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Of the 218 biographies that were listed by Bri, I counted 22 that have become red links. That means that approximately 193 of them are still there. Also, Mauriziok has written, in response to my Delete All vote at MFD, Not all the drafts should be removed. I'm voluntarily removing all inactive drafts, as well as templates and bios. This appears to be a case of I Didn't Hear That. They haven't explained what sort of activity calls for keeping hundreds of drafts that are somewhere between active and inactive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  After a few days, I don't think that a satisfactory resolution is going to be reached without some action. —Alalch E. 23:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, @Alalch E. Excuse me, I was checking the page https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Mauriziok/2 to see if I could check the latest version of each of the workshops, but for example, the link in the title of each one takes me to the deleted workshop, and I can't see anything there. In the case of the date, it gives me a permission error, indicating that "you do not have permission to view metadata of deleted history entries, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers." So, the only thing I can see through that XTools link is the list of workshop names. I'd like to know how I can access the workshops I was editing. I mentioned earlier that I was working on workshops for Miss Venezuela, Mr. Handsome Venezuela, Miss & Mr. Tourism Venezuela, Mr. Universe Venezuela, Miss & Mr. Sports Venezuela, and Gentleman Venezuela; but they were also deleted. The goal would be to publish them once I finish improving the workshops and then be able to permanently delete them appropriately.  For my part, I've been gradually eliminating workshops, eventually eliminating more than 200. Yesterday, I decided to continue eliminating more workshops in an orderly manner, but suddenly, practically all of them were eliminated. I had indicated that it would take me about a week to eliminate 300 workshops, but seeing that the number was three or four times bigger, the time required would be longer. If you could please tell me how I should proceed in this case. Thank you. Mauriziok (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is confusing. Are you asking for undeletion to userspace, in the midst of a discussion of a userspace restriction? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Bri I'm asking that only the workshops I was recently working on be reinstated, not the ones I've already finished working on or the ones I was never able to, which is the vast majority. In the case of the workshops I'm asking to be reinstated, they don't need to be reactivated all at once; they can be done beauty pageant by beauty pageant, once I've improved the series enough to be published in the articles, with the workshops properly removed. Mauriziok (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's right, you get a handy list of all your user drafts which you worked on, and, of course, you can not see deleted content. The deletion of the pages did not destroy the record of what you were actively working on, what you were working on in the past, and what you intended to work on but never got to it, and you can reference this list and request undeletion on a per-page basis, but it is not appropriate to request undeletion of whole series of pages. Try asking for one to be undeleted, then work on it (if it's really needed for you to improve the article), incorporate the changes into the live article, and request deletion. But in the future, please try to implement the changes directly in articles as opposed to creating copies and syncing the live article with your userspace copy. While I understand that the way you have been doing it feels natural to you, you were definitely on the extreme end of relying on this style of editing, and have significantly overstretched the bounds of reasonableness. After the MfD was started, you were showing signs that you are dealing with the problem but you were slow relative to the tempo of the MfD, with its standard duration of 7 days; you did not set an alternative schedule, and you were not sufficiently responsive. Even if you are topic banned per this discussion, I will support lifting the restriction once you can explain how the problem will not reoccur. I might also change my recommendation here to opposing a topic ban before the discussion is closed.

  Separately, you are not using edit summaries very much. When you bring the changes over from the copy, enter a suitable edit summary describing the resulting changes. Please see Help:Edit summary. —Alalch E. 15:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @Alalch E. How can I request a recovery of a draft? Mauriziok (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  You can ask the admin who deleted the page or at WP:REFUND. An admin responding at REFUND technically probably shouldn't accept, but... @BD2412 What do you think about undeletion on a per-page basis when the page is one of the hundreds of user's drafts deleted via a mass-MfD because of WP:COPIES? Presumably the editor would like to resume what they were working or intending to work on, incorporate the changes into the live article, and tag with U1. —Alalch E. 02:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  If you mean undeletion through the WP:RFU process, that would be unavailable for pages deleted through an XFD, as these were. In theory, you would have to ask the deleting administrator on a page-by-page basis. Of course, this discussion could result in a consensus that modifies that general rule for this set of articles. BD2412 T 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. So the only way that exists at the moment is to ask the administrator who deleted the page? Mauriziok (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  If you want a page undeleted and you're not an admin, you need to ask an admin to undelete it, and the first instance in such cases is to go to the deleting admin. For a potential other option read BD2412's reply above yours. —Alalch E. 05:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Robert McClenon.—Alalch E. 23:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that Mauriziok has not edited since 30 April. Since non-admins cannot see deleted edits, we can't see if they nominated any articles for speedy deletion that have now been deleted. But they haven't made any comments at the MFD, or here, and they haven't made any edits to articles that still exist (e.g, are still tagged for U1). So there are still about 195 biographies nominated in the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think the biographies and their talkpages have been deleted per the biographies list that I made, all redlinks now. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Until now, I didn't know how to discard drafts, so I had to organize them quickly because of the amount. I request that I continue editing the drafts, with the understanding that once I improve a few, I'll incorporate the deletion request to prevent them from accumulating, so I can continue editing others. Thank you. Mauriziok (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You still have not shown that you are able to organize your userspace. Pages blanked by you but not tagged U1 for starters, even though this was brought to your attention in this AN case days ago. I do not support continuing on this path. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bri Ok, these drafts have now been properly deleted. Mauriziok (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see about 24 pages still present. Are those copies of articles?

• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela
• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela 2019
• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela 2021
• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela 2022
• Mauriziok/Female national beauty pageant delegates 2
• Mauriziok/List of Caballero Venezuela editions
• Mauriziok/List of Caballero Venezuela runners-up and finalists
• Mauriziok/List of Caballero Venezuela titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Chica 2001 titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Earth Miss Venezuela titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Señorita Deporte Venezuela titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Señorita and Mister Deporte Venezuela editions
• Mauriziok/Men's Venezuelan pageant templates
• Mauriziok/Michell Castellanos
• Mauriziok/Reinas y Reyes de Venezuela
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2011
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2012
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2013
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2014
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2015
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2016
• User:Mauriziok/Señorita and Mister Deporte Venezuela

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Blanked userspace pages

Should remaining, blanked userspace pages listed here be tagged G7 speedy delete? Is it proper for me to do this? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:G7 does not apply to blanked pages by the user in user space. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, is it U1? I'm not sure ... maybe I just should stay away from this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

A blanked(-by-the-user) user page is generally, IIRC, considered a de facto U1 request by the user, provided the page otherwise qualifies for U1 (i.e. it isn't a userified article). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No. People blanking pages in their userspace is not a request to delete them, they may like to have blank user page or empty a sandbox page before returning to it later or... Userspace pages should be deleted upon explicit request, but not because of blanking. Fram (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Change to the functionaries team, May 2025

At his request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Nguyentrongphu

• User talk:Nguyentrongphu

This is the talk page of a user that was indeffed 4 years ago. They also happen to be an admin on Vietnamese WP. The talk page seems to be being used a fair bit as a place where vi.wp editors they have blocked on vi.wp appeal to them - although Nguyentrongphu doesn't respond. Should the page be protected? DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Not only that, but an IP restored (and responded to in Vietnamese) content by Nguyentrongphu that Nguyentrongphu had removed several years ago. I've reverted the page to Nguyentrongphu's last edit and semi-protected it as the only purpose for the talk page now is for them to appeal if they ever desire to (note I've also restored a declined unblock request that they removed several years ago in violation of WP:REMOVED that nobody previosly caught). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

From these two "appeals", it looks like the semi-protection by The Bushranger may not be enough. Full? 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Possible error with mass message regarding revoked autopatrol

Hi, I was hoping some other admins could take a look at the situation that led to Boleyn being falsely informed that their autopatrolled right has been revoked. See User talk:Boleyn#Suspension of autopatrolled permission due to inactivity. Given that it's a mess message and they have been an active editor, I'm concerned this mass message may have been incorrectly sent to others. I'd appreciate input from other admins on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@JJMC89, all yours. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see some comments on their talk page that seem to imply that other editors have received this notification via email if they have alternate accounts (which makes sense because I'd imagine most people with legit alts use the same email for them). If it was an alt account that had the perm removed, I'd imagine the notification would've been posted on that account's talk page instead, so that still doesn't explain what went on here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Although, upon closer examination, it seems only Rosiestep mentioned emails. JBW got it on their talk page [45]. Now I'm wondering why things were set up this way and how that even works. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There are about three threads on this matter:

• User talk:JJMC89#Why revoke me?
• User talk:JJMC89#Hallucination?
• User talk:JJMC89#Removing autopatrolled?

Basically, some users have WP:VALIDALT accounts, which were given the autopatrolled right some time ago, but have not used it recently. These accounts were to have been warned about impending revocation, but the message was sent to the primary account. The boilerplate message did not, however, state which account was eligible to have the right revoked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Four, but I just closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Related?_revocation_of_autopatrolled in lieu of this. @Clovermoss, more on the process is here if helpful. Star Mississippi 22:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That last link seems to imply it happens when the alt's talk page redirects to the real account, so that explains my confusion surrounding the how. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeap. Probably a user talk redirect from the alt's talk page to the main's talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Boleyn2 and Boleyn3 had autopatrolled revoked. Since both have their user talk page redirected to Boleyn's, MassMessage followed the redirect when posting the message intended for those two alternate accounts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The message should say explicitly (and preferably in bold to stand out) from which account the autopatrolled right has been removed, instead of just "your account". That would answer most people's questions straight away. Fram (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Phab:T394413 has been created to help with this. CMD (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Revoke old confirmed groups

The following users were granted indefinite confirmed rights by an event coordinator more than 10 days ago, in violation of the rules for use of event coordinator access:

Should their illegitimate "confirmed" accesses be revoked? (I'm an admin so could do so myself, but figured it would be wiser to post here before revoking 78 users' permissions) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: some of those editors have 0 edits (eg. Kiritusu) Huldra (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to revoking the confirmed flags. If any of these editors made ten edits today, they'd immediately get autoconfirmed since their accounts are per se older than 4 days. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

True, but until they make 10 edits they have rights they would not have had had someone not breached our rules. And I don't see why we should allow that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be too pedantic about 10 days, nor use the term illegitimate. However, looking at them individually I'd probably agree with removal, especially anything referencing a single editathon some time ago. I'd hope you could justify each removal rather than saying 'rules'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The most recently granted case is CarlosRobbin.02 in January 2025. The others all date to March 2024 or earlier, with most being even older than that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The yare not editing, therefore they have no need to be confirmed. My only concern with removal is I know with EC if I grant and remove an editor's for gaming at 400, they won't get it automatically at 30/500. Should any of these become active, would they get confirmed automatically after your removal or would they have to request that and then EC? That could be confusing for them, but not a strong argument against. Star Mississippi 02:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's safe to remove them, they will autoconfirm as needed. The event coordinator granting out of scope should be coached. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot by mentioning this, but your analysis didn't catch my granting of the confirmed user right to Shicari r, who is blind and therefore cannot complete our CAPTCHA (or did you filter them out manually?) I knew about the general confirmed-user expiration date rule but re situations like this, I've always thought it best to ignore all rules here (I actually know of a blind user who was put out by a confirmed flag auto-expiring). However, in this case, they haven't made any edits; I've reached out to this user by email; given what they were going to use it for (a student project), they should've edited by now. I'd done my best to verify they were who they said they were before helping them out here. Also, this sort of situation is unlikely to happen very often. Graham87 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed that one because I excluded grants by both current and former admins (not thinking about the scenario where a former admin was granted event coordinator rights after their desysop). And the query I was using to find these relies on the user_former_groups table, so crosschecking timestamps so as to include Shicari r but exclude the many people you granted confirmed rights to while you were still an admin and hence not subject to the 10-day limit exceeds what I'm willing to code.

It turns out there are two such users: you and Gnagarra who has not made use of their ability to grant confirmed rights as an event coordinator since their desysop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I granted it to myself just before my desysop, but the outcome is the same. If consensus is that these situations should have at least *some* kind of expiry (maybe 3/6/12 months?), I'll do so in the future. (Maybe in this case I should've checked that the user could log in first ... better followup all-round might've been better). The other user is Gnangarra. Graham87 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably put a time limit of any duration up to three months to user right and renew when needed. Ideally, the person would have clocked enough edits by the time the user right lapses for autoconfirmed rights to kick in. – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason I shouldn't do this revocation? If I don't hear any objections I will do it sometime tomorrow. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Rights revoked from all users, as all of them were more than 3 months old, and all but one of them are more than year old. If anyone still needs this permission (and can't just make the necessary edits to become autoconfirmed) they are welcome to re-request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Related? revocation of autopatrolled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure if it's the same, but noticed in my watchlist today that @JJMC89: removed autopatrolled from Possibly and one of DGG's alts. This is, of course, correct since the deceased editors have no means of using the varied rights. They noted retention of other varied permissions: mover, EC. It brings up the question of what the processed is when an account is locked on an editor's death and if we're going to revoke for non use, whether the steward who locks or an admin active on their TP should remove at lock. Thoughts? No issue at all with JJMC's edits, just thought related to this conversation. Star Mississippi 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

when I went to notify JJMC89 that I'd flagged this here, I noted this was actually a result of Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Flag_removal_process, but kept it nested as it's a similar issue of stale permissions. Feel free to move elsewhere if needed. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think global locks prevent the user from logging in on any of the 1,000 wikis. So they can't access their user groups / user rights since they can't log in. As such, the exact rules and timing of if/when their user groups get removed on enwiki probably isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. May not need any formal rules for that situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renamed user 73876485f2f7c42af5f2a33994cf3cb0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Renamed user 73876485f2f7c42af5f2a33994cf3cb0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove PCR. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deployment of Multiblocks on this wiki on June 2-4

Hello all! We want to introduce you a new feature called Multiblocks, #14 wish in Community Wishlist Survey 2023, that was also supported widely by your community.

With Multiblocks, admins get more block options: a sitewide and a partial block can run at the same time with different expiry dates. This eliminates the need to wait for the expiration of one block to apply the other. An admin may want to initially impose a temporary sitewide block on a disruptive user, and later keep their access to specific pages or namespaces restricted. This may be useful in cases of blocking Wikipedians heavily involved in editing specific namespaces or pages.

After successfully releasing it on four pilot wikis (Polish, German, Italian and Hebrew Wikipedia), we will begin mass deployment of the feature by the end of the month: all non-Wikipedia projects plus Catalan Wikipedia will adopt Multiblocks on the week of May 26, while all other Wikipedias — including yours — will adopt it on the week of June 2.

Administrators can test the new user interface now on your own wiki by browsing to Special:Block?usecodex=1, and can test full functionality on testwiki. See the help page on MediaWiki for more information. Please see T377121 on Phabricator for more info as well.

Please, be aware that the new Codex interface might break some existing gadgets, so contact the team or ping me directly under this thread if you have concerns or if you need help in rewriting hooks. The team is ready to help you with this.

I'm happy to answer your questions or to address your concerns. Please ping me in case of need under this thread. Thank you! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): How will this interact with the block tab in Twinkle? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle needs some work to have full multiblocks support. As the original author of the Twinkle block module, I can help with this, but it will take time. I've filed #2178 on GitHub. Until that's resolved, Twinkle should continue to work without issue for targets that have precisely 0 or 1 active blocks (not multi-blocked), which presumably will be the overwhelming majority of blocks made. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If I pull up Twinkle's block module on someone under a multiblock, will it fail gracefully, or is there a risk it will, for instance, overwrite the multiblock while leaving me under the impression that I'm just revoking talkpage access? If the latter, can we put a warning into the module or just make it not work in those cases, for now? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No idea since we haven't patched it yet and multiblocks isn't deployed yet. I think the plan is to detect a multi blocked user, and in that situation, blank the Twinkle form and provide a link to Special:Block –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

By design, it should be impossible to inadvertently add a new block on top of an existing one. The API will fail if you attempt a reblock on a multi-blocked target without passing in newblock=1 or an id parameter to specify which block to modify. This means that any script that uses mw:API:Block should continue to work as before, except on multi-blocked targets, where it will simply error out. The same is also true for mw:API:Unblock.

Unless folks really want the Twinkle block module to live on, I think the engineering time is better spent on getting Core's Special:Block to have feature parity. We achieved some of this already – Special:Block now surfaces range blocks that affect an individual IP. In the past this required manually reviewing the block log, Special:BlockList, or using Twinkle. Next up on that list is T392857 – Bring block + issue user talk template workflow into Core. Then we will be left with very few things that Twinkle does that Special:Block does not. It will be a while before that work is complete. My thoughts are multi-blocked targets probably won't be encountered that much to warrant fixing Twinkle. We will likely go with the short-gap solution Novem mentions above for the interim. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

We achieved some of this already – Special:Block now surfaces range blocks that affect an individual IP. This is awesome. Thanks for this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Remove my IPv6 adress from the history of a talk on pt.wikipedia.org

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi.

I was sure I was on IPv4, I disabled IPv6, but on pt.wikipedia.org, it is my IPv6 adress which was used.

I don't want my IPv6 adress to be available on the web. Can an admin delete the history entries on Discussão:Luna E-3 No.2, from the pt wikipedia, please ?

I'm very sorry to ask this :( I'll be more prudent. I think it's because I'm on another interface, in wifi, but on en:, my IPv4 was still used. I was stupid. So sorry.

It's me indeed, I'm just talking about a date error on Luna E-3 No.2, that I edited on en:

Thanks, very sorry  :)

88.160.100.84 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Administrators here have no power to revision-delete on the Portuguese Wikipedia. You will need to ask admins there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for removing Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was imposed a topic ban for the edits that I have made in the page List of Mudaliars.Even though, I added the contents with sources, the contents were removed and I was imposed a topic ban. Could someone please check on this? Pikachu 9988 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to check. You were informed about the topic ban on your User talk page. If you have questions it's best to ask the admin who imposed it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've commented on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Pikachu 9988 should be blocked for multiple topic ban violations, actually (t-ban imposed at 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC), then violations at 17:12, 16 May 2025, 17:38, 16 May 2025, 18:17, 16 May 2025). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  I gave them a logged warning for those violations yesterday, as is standard for a first-time TBAN violation that could plausibly be a misunderstanding. There have been none since then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Could've been a misunderstanding. And Putin might be on Zelensky's Christmas card list. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on how they've approached this, I'm quite ready to believe that they didn't understand they were TBANned despite the big box saying they were TBANned. That speaks to a larger potential competence issue, but I don't think to deliberate evasion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Pikachu 9988 has made numerous edits that appear to be vandalism or involve the addition of poorly sourced or unverifiable content across multiple Wikipedia pages. In many cases, the sources provided are either unreliable or do not support the added material, making it difficult to verify the content of the affected articles. I respectfully request that some administrators review this user's edit history over the past two years and consider reinstating any content that was improperly removed or altered.

List of Articals Violated by Pikachu 9988 but not limited to:

1. Sengunthar
2. Telugu Chodas
3. Srikantha Chola
4. Rajadhiraja II
5. List of Sengunthars
6. Karikala
7. Kakatiya dynasty (edit war)
8. Durjaya (Andhra chieftain)
9. Vijayalaya Chola

Thanks 37.186.54.78 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• The recent edits by User:Pikachu 9988 to List of Mudaliars were not only a violation of their topic-ban but also show why a topic-ban is needed. In short, they added persons, who are possibly legendary rather than historical, to the list of member of a community based on a 12c poem by Ottakoothar. Worse, according to historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (see pp. 521-523), the poem was supposedly commissioned then by members of the Sengunthar caste as a panegyric to the community, and the poet's work and later annotations are known to be largely fabricated stories to boost the community's origins. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack by Rgregergrgegergrg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hello @Liz and other respectable admins, there is a madlike user Rgregergrgegergrg on Wikipedia whose behaviour is like crazy person. I restored the revision by Elmidae on Short-beaked echidna but Rgregergrgegergrg reverted my edit immediately and then i warn him on his talkpage but he abused me 'shut up you stinky indian curry muncher'. He is doing edit war on Short-beaked echidna so please have a look at Short-beaked echidna and think to block him. Thank you! Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User blocked, PAs revdel'd. (I think their vandalism was all reverted by the time I got there.)

@Durjan Singh Jadon: you should report such incidents to a subpage of this board, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ('ANI'), or better yet to WP:AIV, for faster response. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, can you have a look here. Thank you Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Durjan Singh Jadon: no, I've no interest in, or knowledge of, that subject.

And please don't ping people onto that, because a) it quickly gets annoying, and b) you don't want to be seen to be canvassing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inability to negotiate and uncompromising attitude of the @Skitash administrator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello to everyone. My complaint is directed against the administrator under the nickname @Skitash. In my opinion, Skitash is an absolutely incapable and uncompromising person in his actions, abusing his position as an administrator. He surprisingly often supports the user @Quetstar in his actions, most of which are also uncompromising removal of content, mainly photographic.

I tried to negotiate with Skitash about his edits on his talk page, because these are HIS edits, and argued my position on most issues (here and here). And in response.... he deleted my entire topic from the discussion page, without even really answering anything (except "my talk page isn't the place for that" although it is literally only his actions), but at the same time he continued to do the same thing that caused the conflict that I wrote to him about in the deleted topic. No matter what the situation, he demands that I, a non-administrator, seek consensus, and everywhere. He himself has not yet started a consensus on deleting information or even my articles, he simply deleted them without warning.

DETAILS:

Arab Deterrent Force.

On May 9, I added information about South Yemeni participation in the Lebanese Civil War as part of the Arab Deterrent Force (also ADF) and provided a source that confirm it. But already in May 11, Skitash deleted my edits about it, referring to the Fringe theory. In the discussion he deleted, I cited even more additional sources that I found, confirming the participation of South Yemen in the ADF forces (here, here, here and here), but after my attempt to return the information about this, Skitash repeated the rollback, this time without any explanation at all.

Algirr (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misclicked. There will be a continuation below. Algirr (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

They are not an administrator. Secretlondon (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

it, what? I thought he isa

Algirr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

But who is he in this case Algirr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Secretlondon Do you mean Skitash is a a standard editor? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

But why then does he always warn about edit wars, or about my discussion on the admin page, etc.? Algirr (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Any editor can revert edits and warn other editors about violations of policies and quidelines. Administrators are just editors that have access to certain tools that allow them to hide problem edits, delete pages, and block users from editing, among other things. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we must all work together to improve the encyclopedia. The community has adopted certain policies and guidelines (P&G) to facilitate that collaboration, and all editors are expected to abide by those P&G. We start off with warnings, which become stronger with repeated failures to abide by the P&G, and may lead to being blocked from editing. The community may also determine that an editor is sufficiently out of touch with the norms of the community that they should be blocked from any participation at Wikkipedia. Donald Albury 23:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

oh, I see. Algirr (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

1. I am not an administrator.

2. As per WP:BRD, once your edit is reverted, you're expected to seek consensus for your changes before re-adding the material. This is how the encyclopedia works.

3. Your "source" is a random WP:BLOG and thus an unreliable source. And yes, the material you're insisting on adding is considered WP:FRINGE since there are hardly any credible sources backing it.

What I do find concerning, however, is your behavior. You've resumed edit warring almost immediately after your third block this month ended, and you've continued to make personal attacks[46][47] and WP:LEGAL threats[48][49] against editors who disagree with you, including in this very complaint. Skitash (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I already said, these are not personal attacks or threats. As usual, you remained silent.

Yes, and I came to your discussion page where I posted all the facts and more links and sources, and in response you silently deleted everything and continued doing the same thing as before

As I said, I provided additional sources that you ignored.

Your behavior is much more concerning - you have never even compromised, you have never given in, and you have never been the first to reach a consensus, shifting all responsibility onto me as an opponent. Algirr (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"these are not personal attacks or threats " They absolutely are—regardless of how you try to frame them.

"I came to your discussion page where I posted all the facts and more links and sources, and in response you silently deleted everything" You did not come in good faith. You came to personally attack me. Also, you're supposed to open discussions about content on the relevant article's talk page. Not mine. I'm allowed to remove comments from my own talk page.

"shifting all responsibility onto me" That's because, in this case, the responsibility is on you. For example, on Mengistu Haile Mariam alone, you've reverted at least six different editors that contested your change to the infobox image.[50][51][52][53][54][55]

I will not tolerate or respond to further personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

1.No, its not. It is description of opponent. I am not said he is moron or something like this. I said he is one of the people who always deleting something and canceled changes, etc.

2.I came with an attempt to resolve the dispute peacefully (what you never did with me), as you constantly said to do in your messages with blocking threats. This is a not true, I didn’t say a single rude word in my messages on your discussion page. Well, you deleted all my arguments, ignored them and continued to do the same things.

3.By blaming me for the Mengistu article, you have presented it in a one-sided light. There were 2 disputes. In the first one there was one proposed new photo, in the second another. The only person who resisted the second photo was a user with whom I had already reached a consensus, but you were not satisfied with this and decided to join the conflict and heated it up even more.There were no personal attacks before, but overall it's OK Algirr (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the only thing you did was push your point of view everywhere (much more intensively than I did), ignore my counterarguments and throw threats of blocking at me. If your actions everywhere coincide with the actions of the Quetstar user, this does not mean that you are right everywhere. Algirr (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't finished writing everything I wanted yet, and perhaps this dialogue should be moved here, since you're not even an administrator. Algirr (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I would advise you to stop digging a hole, and take a break from commenting here for a day or two. Donald Albury 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Donald Albury What's wrong? I am just answering Algirr (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read, and learn from, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wording of apparent legal threats clarified, unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:BOOMERANG. OP blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC) @The Bushranger I'd like to note that the editor has a sockpuppet account named The Algirr. Skitash (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Not any more! Indeffed, Opened up SPI since we may have to start scooping up more of these. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC) @Rsjaffe: Note that on their talk page they appear to have a legitimate explanation for the altenate account, and did not block evade using it. It should have been flagged as an alternate account but it was not used abusively. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC) And the edit was prior to the block. OK, I'll cancel the SPI but keep the alternate blocked with a link to the original account. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) As they have clarified that they were not intending legal action, I have lifted the NLT block, and advised them to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caste POV pusher

Hello respectable admins, please see the edits made by BhiRaaj, he is Bhil caste warrior and adding Bhil word and Bhil king in several articles without any source. I request you to block this Bhil warrior, all of the edits made same tune of his mind. Please see this1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Thank you! Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Durjan Singh Jadon, can you link to discussions you've had with this editor explaining our policies? As you are probably aware, ANI is where editors involved in a dispute come when our other methods of resolving disagreement (article talk pages, user talk pages, 3O, DRN, etc.) have failed. I can't see that you have tried talking with this editor so if you have, please point it out. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, i will try next time my best. Thank you Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Below section merged as they refer to the same issues. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Bhil State

Hello Sir, I have provided information about the Bhil states of the British period on the Bhil page based on British sources and India Gazetteer. The British ruled India for more than 300 years and during their time there were some states where there used to be Bhil kings. I have added information with references.This information was removed. Their argument was that the British sources are not reliable; if this is so then British sources should be removed from the entire Wikipedia.Well, according to me, the most reliable source in this country is the British because they have written unbiased history. I have also added references from various gazetteers of India. Whatever information I have added till now is available in various books by me, but some books are not available on the internet.I request you to bring back Bhil State History on Bhil page BhiRaaj (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@BhiRaaj: This issue does not need administrator intervention yet. I'd recommend that you continue discussion at the concerned articles' talkpage (eg, Talk:Bhil) or at WP:RSN for input on source reliability. That said, IMO your current argument that century old WP:RAJ-era books or gazetteers are the most reliable sources on the topic of caste etc is unlikely to get your anywhere, and your efforts would be better spent researching what modern scholarship has to say on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Maybe this should be sent in the article's talk page instead? Do note that "all or nothing" complaints like "If a language written in A is bad then remove all A sources" should be avoided. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hide these racist edit summaries.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hide these racist edits targeting Mexicans:

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/159.148.186.246

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/85.203.22.145

https://li.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicane&oldid=439438

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/Gypsy_person_in_Cali

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/195.123.247.30

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/43.133.172.211 107.151.196.215 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toiminnot:Muokkaukset/199.33.68.37

https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speisialta:Contributions/Palmdale_CA_93550 107.151.196.215 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The different language versions of Wikipedia are all completely separate projects, and we have no administrative control over them. Please take this up with the fi.- and ga.wiki admins, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

L235 re-appointed as full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that L235 (talk · contribs) will be rejoining the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk. We express our thanks to the clerks for the work they do in ensuring that the arbitration process operates smoothly. If you are interested in joining the team as a trainee, please read through the information page and send an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § L235 re-appointed as full clerk

User talk:Waxworker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User talk:Waxworker

Recently this person took down info I added to a page that has a reliable source. Can anyone help me? Here’s the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dobson_(actor)Youngblue2005 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion about clerking for next Administrator Elections

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Election clerk(s). Soni (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Austin Metcalf

The suspect in the Killing of Austin Metcalf is currently a redirect, and now has an Articles for Deletion discussion against it. Should the Articles for Deletion discussion not be closed as "wrong venue"? Also, can my other posts on this page today be permanently deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, the proper venue is RFD and a discussion is already underway there. I have closed the AFD as procedural close. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can my other mistaken posts today on this page with the suspect name be permanently deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But also, I don't think that revdel is warranted here. All discussions (AFD/RFD) regarding the accused are already public, 2-3 revisions with the accused's name here is nothing by comparison. If revdel was really required, some admin would've done it by now. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Double-black-stricken edits in contributions

Special:Contributions/179.106.144.1

What happened to these edits? In my experience with ordinary admin revdel, the link is still blue and I can do something, but I can't here. In my experience with oversighted edits, the text is grey and stricken out with a single line. I don't think I've ever before seen a black strikeout or a double-line strikeout. Nyttend (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend A single line means a revision is revision deleted, and is visible to and restorable by admins. A double line means the revision is oversighted, it will not be visible to admins. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Oversight#Nomenclature, "grey and stricken out with a single line" is ordinary admin revdel when viewed by a non-admin (which I just confirmed by logging out and checking the page history of a page with revdel'd edits - blue with single line logged in as admin, gray with single line logged out). Double black strikeouts = oversight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the info there needs to be updated, then. Based upon checking a couple revids there, they're definitively supressed. Actually, based upon a quick check in a private window, it appears to be a skin-based thing. double-crossed out and black is vector-2022, vector, monobook, cologneblue and minerva, while timelesss is the odd one out with a single grey line. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

phab:T394587. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Those edits have been “oversighted” or “suppressed”. (WP:SUPPRESS) 2001:8003:B15F:8000:4CE4:2C0C:995B:4859 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Administrators deletion protected

War 2 and War 2 (2025 film). These pages are deleted multiple times.

This is the teaser of the film from verified you tube channel of Yash Raj Films

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1W-AViQ-M

Administrators should remove the block. There are also multiple drafts of the same topic.

This highly notable film not having Wikipedia article is not right. Fruit Orchard (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fruit Orchard: present an acceptable draft to WP:AfC, and this may well be done. You can start at WP:YFA, with reference to the relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, and your sources at the ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Draft:War 2 is accepted protection will be lifted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

But please note that the existence of a teaser does not fulfill our notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Note the many deletions and draftifications (there were at least 5 disambigation names in draft as there were so many draftified after the bludgeoning following deletion discussions).--CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Fruit Orchard - The film in question is an upcoming film. Please read film notability guidelines, which explain that unreleased or upcoming films are seldom considered notable. Film notability is based primarily on reviews by film critics and reviewers, which are published as soon as the film is released in theaters. Articles about unreleased films are usually too soon and are too often promotional and so non-neutral. However, if you think that the film is one of the exceptional films that is notable before release, you may submit one of the drafts for review to see whether the reviewer is willing to recommend that the title be desalted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the present draft is going to be any good. The sources are quite literally all the usual pre-release monomaniacal sources meant to generate buzz. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Shahab Khan Administrator access only

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Shahab Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hy everyone! I wrote an article about a Pakistani cricketer who debut in First class cricket in 2023-24 National T20 Cup and won the best bowler award. When I started publishing it, I found that this page is only within the domain of the administrator because this page was created over and over again for different person back in 2017. I'm here to ask for protection removal so that I can publish it. Or an admin should write this article. Behappyyar (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to even be about the same Shahab Khan; at least this discussion is about an actor, not a cricketer. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That's what I am saying. Should we create it on the same page or change the name like Shahab Khan (cricketer). Behappyyar (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry; I should read posts properly before replying to them. While an article about the actor (or any other namesake) does not exist Shahab Khan is the correct title for this. I am not an admin so I can't lift the protection myself, but I don't see why that shouldn't be done when an admin sees this. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article title and you're free to create it @Behappyyar Star Mississippi 12:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Thanks 💫 Behappyyar (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Tags request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please change the link for the ProveIt edit tag from ProveIt edit to ProveIt edit or ProveIt edit. Thanks Nobody (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.  Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive user: Scope creep

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

--qedk (t 愛 c) 19:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impersonation concern: “Sarbaan Shahid”

Hello. I was contacted by someone claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator named “Sarbaan Shahid” who offered to publish my draft in exchange for personal contact. However, this user does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. Please advise or investigate.

Thank you. KGrigol (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave this so you can get a fuller response, but in the meantime please have nothing to do with this person. I very much doubt that they are a Wikipedia administrator, but if so I think they will not be for much longer. Nobody should contact you like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not the first time a phisher has tried this, although the one I recall was on another language's Wikipeida. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

KGrigol, this is a common scam, please review Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. The imposter will ask for money and either do a terrible job or simply disappear with your cash. If you have more questions, you might bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Adrien Nunez image

• Adrien Nunez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An WP:SPA keeps removing the Adrien Nunez infobox image. Rather than either revert the SPA or revert to a prior infobox image, User:Polarmadewell put an image request banner up for an article with 3 remaining images in it. As the photographer of 3 of the 4 images, I would rather a third party figure out what to do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the image and removed the request. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Grantball: was not notified of this discussion, which the yellow box on top of the edit window says is required. I have done so. Tony, in the future, please remember to do this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger, I am, of course sorry about the notification, but I was here because I was confused about how things were going procedurally, and a bit out of sorts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

User:DrKay, may I ask if your decision was based more on the fact that 1. all other images are of him as a basketball player rather than an entertainer, 2. the image is from last month rather than 2020 or 2021 or 3. the image depicts him actually looking at the camera?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I just undid the last removal. I'm not especially attached to that image, so feel free to replace it. DrKay (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I am happy with the reversions and consider it better for each of those reasons, but reverting an SPA is also a valid explanation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking to get a defaced wiki page fixed.

The page is Jason Itzler Im a live streamer so people are trolling adding things to make me look bad, if we can revert back to around 2 months ago That would be great and if we can lock it so no more edits. Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I invite you to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, which gives more context about what should be done in your situation. Some claims are sourced to unreliable sources like the New York Post and should either be removed or a better source should be found. However, others have more solid sources like the New York Times, and cannot be removed just because the subject of the article asks to, without more evidence that the sources are wrong. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

We also do not protect("lock") articles merely to prevent others from editing them. If there is a demonstrable problem with vandalism or WP:BLP violations, then protection can be considered. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah. Unfortunately reliable sources—Miami Herald, The New York Times—state that the subject is a former ringleader of the prostitution ring New York Confidential who has been imprisoned multiple times for drug crimes, prostitution, and money laundering, on top of previous charges of aggravated assault with a weapon, burglary, and stalking in Florida. (I removed the NYPO materal before posting here, as it's all-but-deprecated.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking specifically at content added in the last two months, a lot of it should be double-checked as it might not be verified by reliable sources (Special:Diff/1275028363/1291494608) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we get Reference 8 removed as well, ( PIMP ‘KING’ IN RIKERS RUMBLE) Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The New York Daily News is considered generally reliable. However, concerns about content should take place on Talk:Jason Itzler, not here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi@Chaotic Enby @The Bushranger @331dot this has been at ANI before, I think, and landed on my Talk for reasons I don't recall but my have been due to my prior protection of the article: User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_22#Jason_Itzler_reversion and User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_19#Itzler_reversion_about_Sumnicht. I unfortunately no longer had the on wiki time or interest to monitor the issue. Just sharing background if helpful Star Mississippi 01:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

ETA: prior discussion Star Mississippi 01:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The OP says, "people are trolling adding things to make me look bad". Hasn't he considered that it's his own actions that make him look bad? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Gasnobrakes10, we can do nothing about the fact that independent reliable sources report on crimes you have been convicted of. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

CU request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we get a CU to have a quick look at User talk:Man against n and just shut that down properly? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The correct location is WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. Or you can use {{Checkuser needed}}. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. I blocked the "neighbor" and have left Man a final warning. No objection if someone thinks a block is called for now. Star Mississippi 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomen est omen - obviously a WP:SPA introducing his own WP:OR. But do I have to be called a Nazi defender if I disagree [56]?  @xqt 04:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Star Muissssippi's call was fine. But the fact that they carry on denying it suggests that at this point, a block would be preventative; they either don't understand or don't care what they've done. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same guy based on behavior. Истина в последней инстанции (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is probably also them given the CU data; which was blocked on ruwiki for trolling. beef [talk] 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to Create Draft:Binod Tamu Ballu

Hello, I am trying to create a draft page titled "Draft:Binod Tamu Ballu," but I am receiving a permission error due to the title blacklist. I believe I meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I want to create a draft to document my contributions as a Nepali artist (or your relevant field). Can an administrator please create this page for me or help resolve the blacklist issue? Thank you! Binod Tamu Ballu 2400:1A00:4B8D:A106:1095:DF0A:503:CA49 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

2400:1A00:4B8D:A106:1095:DF0A:503:CA49, can you try creating a version in your User space? I'm not sure if that's okay for IP accounts but I'd try that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's now been created, reviewed, and declined. User:Liz, I believe the request was related to the title itself, which probably wouldn't be helped in userspace, even if an IP did it. No idea if IPs creating something in userspace is a good idea to suggest; I'm going to go to VP. But I'm not complaining at you at all :-) Nyttend (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Request block for User:Alceste sur son yacht

Talk:Jean-Paul Gut have repeatedly possible vandalism duplicately from article for Jean-Paul Gut Donnermar2 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This new editor has completely reverted the new section I introduced on the talk page of this article for consideration, review and discussions by ALL editors.

I invited him to argument on the talk page, but he never did.

The proposed changes to the main articles are proposed on the talk page TO ALL editors, so that they can discuss, before amending the main article, wording/editing of mere important facts, that are further more published about this person by numerous respected media all over Europe (such as Financial Times, Handelsblatt, Der Spiegel...)

See hereafter my proposed changes for discussions by all editors, which Donnermar2 wants to forbid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Paul_Gut&diff=prev&oldid=1291593076

Such facts also appear here and there in other articles on Wikipedia where the name of this person is mentioned.

I strongly deny any wrongdoing on my part regarding the BLPs, and of course any vandalism on my part.

I consider that Donnemar2 actions are pure vandalism,

as apparently he has also not contributed on any other wiki either.

I myself contribute on Wiki Fr

Regards, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems to have at its heart a content dispute, but that has been compounded by both editors' behaviour. Please discuss this in good faith on the article talk page. That means without accusations of vandalism, without changing or removing other people's talk page edits, without claiming that anything can be included as long as it is reliably sourced, without touching the article itself until agreement has been reached and simply with good faith. The steps at WP:DR may be taken if you reach an impasse. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I fully agree with your remarks. This is the reason why, on what is a touchy subject, I have not changed the main article upfront. On the contrary, I have proposed the necessary changes on the talk page, so that ALL editors can express their opinions, not only about the content, but the way to write it too,

so that the main article will then be reflecting ALL facts (not a small selection as now) will become neutral, and strictly according to the existing sources.

Regards, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Alceste sur son yacht, left a message about this on my talk page. I'm guessing because they saw an unanswered message from me querying a message Donnermar2 left a new user, see [57].

I must admit, I don't understand why Donnermar2 has removed a talk page discussion that Alceste sur son yacht left at Talk:Jean-Paul Gut. [58]. The edits by Alceste sur son yacht were not vandalism, they look like an effort to improve the article and contained references.

It looks like Donnermar2 might need to look at Wikipedia:Vandalism and familiarise themselves with what constitutes vandalism. Reading through Wikipedia:Username policy might also help to avoid putting off new users before they start? Knitsey (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also suggest that @Donnermar2 strike through the level 4 warning they left. Knitsey (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Alceste sur son yacht, I do not want to imply that any of your edits are as bad as Donnermar2's, but, purely because you seem to be more amenable to discussion, I would point out that everything that is well sourced does not necessarily belong in an article. Of course the content that you wish to include may belong (I have tried to avoid the underlying content dispute) but it still needs to be discussed if it is removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I got your point, and I agree in principal. This is in fact the very reason why I first published on this talk page, and not on the main page of this article (as I also mentionned in the introduction paragraph), so that discussions can happen, and in order to get the input of other contributors. Let's see what will come. Cheers, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Knitsey: I appreciate your suggestion. Thank you. However, so far, @Donnermar2 ignored it, unfortunately. Cheers, --Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alceste sur son yacht, I'm not an admin so please feel free to ignore this.

Maybe put this down to an over enthusiastic new editor and request this be closed. It looks like the discussions at Talk:Jean-Paul Gut have started, with some of Wikipedias experiences editors. You are free to delete the warning message from your talk page if you wanted to. Knitsey (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Have a great day! Cheers, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

As suggested hereabove by @Knitsey, I respectfully ask this request to be closed, as it is without merit. Thank you in advance. Cheers, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Draft talk page moved to main space and overwritten

Today, User:Itamar Sade moved Draft talk:David Assia to David Assia. It seems they then overwrote the contents with those of Draft:David Assia, which had recently been declined at AfD.

At the very least, a history split needs to be made, and the old talk page restored. The subsequent edits to the mainspace page may need to be merged onto the draft, if the former is not kept.

User conduct is being discussed already, at WP:COIN#User:Itamar Sade, so all I'm asking for here is a cleanup of the edits.

What a mess. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a history split is needed, since it was the same editor working on the content in draftspace that then pasted it into the article - it's correctly attributed as it is. My concern is the extremely blatant end-around of a declined AfC, what with moving the talk page to mainspace and then pasting the declined content on top of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've split the old talk page edits, since that's cleanly doable and bound to cause confusion down the line. I've not merged the draftspace edits, both per The Bushranger's comments and because there are WP:Parallel histories with the second AfC decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting experienced closer

Is there anyone who's willing to close WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor? It's been hanging around on WP:CR for a month or so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could a willing administrator create Matplotlib version3.10.0, https://matplotlib.org/ as a redirect to Matplotlib? It is linked in the exif of File:Mandelbrot high-resolution.png. JayCubby 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. I'm not happy about this situation where files are forcing increasingly bizarre titles to be created, but it's what the consensus is and I can't think of any better ideas. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russification of non-Russian names and toponyms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A person, using several accounts (Sojetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Erledigungs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you started a file at WP:SPI? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the two accounts as socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goelia. However, I think filing an SPI and requesting CU would be helpful to look for others. The socks in Goelia appear to be stale, but these two accounts can be compared against each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New general sanctions regime notification

Permanent link: here.

The community authorizes the standard set of contentious topic restrictions as general sanctions for topics related to Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, and Syriac identity, culture, and politics, broadly construed. The use of "and" here should be understood inclusively, meaning sanctions may apply to any, multiple or all of these ethnicities and listed topics. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please review for Special:Contributions/Bajetha thakurs

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

Please help for contributions for Draft:Bajetha Donnermar2 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Bajetha thakurs (talk · contribs) creating articles using WP:LLM (GPTZero shows a confident match) and should be strongly discouraged to contribute untill they fix this major issue. Agent 007 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's an edit where they left the LLM response in along with the text! Second person entranced by LLM I've had to deal with today. Going to pblock from mainspace, draft and category space until this is cleared up, as an LLM helps a person contribute a lot of material quickly (which we do not want in this case). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Clean up redirect / AfD closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My apologies, would an another admin please clean up a mistaken closure of this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Panamá Flight 982) I made, please? I was using XfD closer, but it appears to have only deleted the redirect, but not the actual article itself, I'm not sure if I should revert, or now tag the article as G6... or something else. Again, apologies. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like HouseBlaster got it for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amending Judge Deborah Taylor Wikipedia Page

Dear Administrators

I am trying to amend the wikipedia page for Judge Deborah Taylor. Deborah Taylor (judge)

Details shown on this page appear to have been confused with a different Judge Taylor working in Immigration and Asylum. The picture on the page is correct. However, Judge Deborah Taylor has asked for the correct information to be shown. She is currently Chair for the Nottingham Inquiry and would like the website to be clear when viewed by the public. Correct information to be added is below and I have referenced with the attached source https://nottingham.independent-inquiry.uk/the-inquiry-team/

I have been unable to update personally as I understand there is a conflict of interest as I work for Ministry of Justice. I have tried to update using edit COI and edit request wizard - but am not familiar with updating wikipedia and am falling foul of protocols which delete my requests. Could I please ask that the Judge Deborah Taylors page is updated with the correct information?

Thank you

Stephen

Deborah Frances Taylor (born 18 December 1959) is a retired British barrister and Judge.

Early Life and Education

She was born in Newcastle upon Tyne and educated  at Central Newcastle High School for Girls (GDST), before studying at Somerville College, Oxford from 1979 to 1982 graduating with a BA in Jurisprudence. She completed Bar Finals at the Inns of Court School of Law in1983.

Legal Career

Taylor was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1983 and practised at Crown Office Chambers, appearing in notable cases including Callery v Gray (HL)(2002) following the introduction of Conditional Fee Agreements.

Taylor was appointed an Assistant Recorder in 1998, Recorder in 1999 before being appointed to the Circuit Bench in 2005. From 2013 she also sat as a s.9 Judge in the High Court Queen’s Bench Division and Administrative Court, and in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. She was appointed a Judicial Appointments Commissioner from 2011 -2013.

In 2016 she was appointed a Senior Circuit Judge, Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court and Recorder of Westminster. Taylor presided primarily over serious and complex financial cases.Other notable cases including Balakrishnan (the Lambeth Slavery case) (2016), Gregor Matlok (2017) burglary in pursuit of Madonna, Rolf Harris (2017), the appeal of Amy Dalla Mura (2017) for harassment of Anna Soubry MP, sentencing of Julian Assange (2019) for failing to answer bail, Claudia Webbe (2022) appeal by MP against conviction for harassment, Hornberger (2021) stabbing outside the Home Office, and the trial of Boris Becker (2022).

Taylor was made a Bencher of Inner Temple in 2010 , and served as Treasurer in 2022. After retiring from the Judiciary in December 2022 she became Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service from March 2023 until April 2025 and was appointed Chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board in July 2023.

On 22 April 2025 Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmoud announced the appointment of Taylor as Chair of the Nottingham Inquiry into the 2023 attacks by Valdo Calocane during which three people were stabbed to death and three more seriously injured. Stephen Manger (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Stephen Manger Your edit history doesn't indicate any edit requests were made by you. What happened when you attempted to use the wizard? You can also make an edit request manually directly on the article talk page. See WP:ER for instructions. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This and this show that Taylor (as the OP says) attended Somerville college from 1979 (which of course strongly suggests that she was born in 1959, not 1953). Therefore the biographical sentence is about the wrong person, so I have removed it, and also DOB of the subject, which was unsourced anyway. I have sourced the correct middle name with a government document. I believe the article is now correct, but of course could be expanded (possibly using the interview source I mentioned). Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. @Baratiiman is doing vandalism in Tourism in Iran. The user has added a nonsense paragraph that cites "no tourist visited Iran in 2025"! The user has used a non-reliable reference that does not correspond with those words too. I reverted the vandal edit in that article and warned the user in its' talk page, but the user did not respond and reverted back. This user has been banned in Persian Wikipedia due to its vandal actions. The.shahab (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have put sources

And Where is your source Baratiiman (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I assume that you can understand Persian (I do, at least). Take another look at your reference and see if "No Tourist in Iran 2025" is anywhere in that article or not. The.shahab (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Word by word i've translated the text Baratiiman (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I should unbelievably believe that you do not understand neither Persian nor English! Mr. Shakib said: "in Norooz 1404 (March 21st - April 2nd 2025), [inbound] tourism of Iran was severely weak and I somehow could say that no "incoming tour" was held in that time."

Just for your information, a tourist can visit a given destination, on a packaged tour, or as an individual. No tour in Iran, means no packeged one (A to Z). Mr. Shakib is the manager Association of Tour Operators of Iran, so he cites his words about those tours. The.shahab (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

And how can we say how many tourists visited Iran in 2025 when the year isn't half over yet? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

And that is contradicted my my own original research (yes, I know that that can't be put in a Wikipedia article) by which I was talking to a Bangladeshi in the UAE just a couple of weeks ago who had visited Iran in 2025 as a tourist. I don't know whether it was in Norooz (or however you spell it) but it was about then and definitely in 2025. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Baratiiman has been the subject of repeated complaints regarding the quality of translation of Farsi sources that border on WP:SYNTH. See Talk:2025 US–Iran negotiations#Three times Khamenei, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Reformists Front section has been sabotaged, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Quality problems, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Chatbot sentence for possibly recovery, User talk:Baratiiman#Removed a text block from you at food security, User talk:Baratiiman#Ways to improve List of libraries in Isfahan, User talk:Baratiiman#List of libraries in Isfahan moved to draftspace, User talk:Baratiiman#"Jew settlers" for example. Articles they have created or edited heavily often have to be cleaned up for poorly-written and possibly unsupported material.Borgenland (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Also noting statistics [59] during the last Persian Year, which ended with Nowrouz on 20 March of this year, unless Baratiiman can prove that those 7.3 million stopped arriving on 1 January or tries to discredit the source. Borgenland (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Quwoting2

User Quwoting2 keeps removing content from the Debí Tirar Más Fotos article (just to give one example) without providing an explanation in the edit summary, despite multiple warnings and direct requests to do so. Multiple warnings and complaints by different users regarding Quwoting2's behavior can be found here, here and here for years now. Also, on the article’s talk page, attempts to discuss various topics have been made, but they continue to engage in disruptive editing regardless. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

^ *slight breath* okay..

So for context the main reason this is being brought up is that the sampled/interpolated artists for this album are credited as producers and not songwriters which can be seen here and here (@Sbb618 ping?). My opinion is that they should remain credited as producers unless reliable primary sources are available, e.g. physical/liner notes, in which case they can be credited as songwriters, or, in the case of an album like GNX by Kendrick Lamar, not at all. @Thedayandthetime then suggested that a note could be added to every credited sample, which I believe would only server to clutter the page more: notes like this^[a] would arguably serve as more of a distinguisher. (In their defense I did not elaborate on this in my edit summaries, but I felt I had explained it enough.) Despite this, they have insisted upon adding (what is in my opinion unnecessary) content to the Track listing section, stating "this is Wikipedia, not a Bad Bunny fan page". I don't get that.

In my opinion, I am simply following a consensus. I may be wrong. Quwoting2 / Mhm? 02:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been following any disputes on the page itself the last few months, but the credits for the album that are given on streaming services have been confusing & led to many debates, since they're both incorrect (Bad Bunny is not the sole writer on almost every song even though most of his albums list him as such; this can be confirmed by looking up the songs in publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories) and misleading (for some reason, on Tidal (usually used for sourcing credits because it's the most comprehensive & easy to read) this album listed the original writers of its many samples not under writers as is commonplace, but under *producers*, which is almost certainly not the case).

Should we faithfully reproduce the data from the best & most accessible source we have even when it's wrong, incomplete, or both? Or should we interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense? I don't have a good answer. I think as-is, the page is getting cluttered and looks unbalanced, but that's really working around the data we have now instead of being priority #1, and is getting off track from the topic at hand. Sbb618 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I do think we should "interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense". Per WP:PRIMARY, "deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct seems to me to be the very definition of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Except we can guarantee those dimensions through sources, as stated above (publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories). Also, Spotify had all sampled artists credited as songwriters for a while. Not sure if there's an archived version of that though. Thedayandthetime (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's a revision with (now archived) Spotify giving proper credit to the songwriters. Per WP:CON, "consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable)." The only editor opposing my edits is Quwoting2, who once again removed content while this discussion was happening, which could be seen as violations of both WP:STONEWALL and WP:DISRUPT. Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on extended confirmed

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. It is a proposal to change WP:XC from 500 edits + 30 days to 500 edits + 90 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this so dropping it here, broken tool on contribs page for IPs

I was looking at the IP contributions of this person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.173.126.199

When I clicked on the WHOIS toolsforge link, it went to a 404: https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=67.173.126.199

Just FYI for wherever one of you may need to refer this. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It took what seems to have been an inordinate amount of time for me (I didn't time it as I should have done) but it got there in the end. Either toolforge or the WHOIS server seems to have a bit of a performance problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person, I had a technical problem two days ago when Quarry was down and if I have technical questions, I post a query at WP:VPT. I don't always get a solution but the percentage of editors who check on that noticeboard who can answer technical questions is much higher than WP:AN. Give it a try next time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

An additional tool was recently added as the Alternate for Geolocate. That tool is not relevant for this report, but the discussion shows where such matters are controlled: Template talk:Anontools#Protected edit request on 1 May 2025. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Block request for a disruptive user Skitash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This guy is reverting all of my edits in English Wikipedia, all of them and says that I'm "disrupting" the English Wikipedia. But you can look my edits: There's nothing disruptive. The administrators must solve that problem.

For example: I just added Amr ibn Hisham's pictural name on his article and he reverted it. 78.177.163.183 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethnocentric edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please lock the Turkic people in Afghanistan page. It is constantly being edited by ethnic nationalists who attempt to alter the demographics, including Pashtun Ghilzais. The claim that they are descendants of Khalaj is merely a theory, and even if true, their current identity is Iranic. Therefore, this manipulation is a clear example of Pan-Turkist falsification. کوروش نیک نژاد1010 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please make the request here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Cinaroot (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I did this but it is unjust to consider the Ghilji Pashtuns as Turks based on an unverified theory especially when the same people who proposed this theory themselves believed that the Khalaj had an Indo-European origin کوروش نیک نژاد1010 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I declined the protection request. Protection is not required, and this topic should not have even been brought here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AI editing? concerning User:Jorge906

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jorge906 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles/GA reviews that this user created, e.g. Dancing with Our Hands Tied, Talk:King of My Heart/GA2, Draft:How Did It End?, seem to be products of blatant AI (not just AI-assisted, but AI-created). Is this permittable? Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Leaving a note at WT:GAN pointing here. CMD (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. @Jorge906, can you please tag the GA review with Template:G7? LLMs do not understand our content review processes. If the review page is deleted, it will go back to the queue in its original position. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to take a closer look at the article and draft, but both the GA review and their userpage have blatant LLM hallmarks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I also recall they made an obviously AI-generated proposal at the village pump last month. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I do recall that, but I deleted it I think Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it was archived as seen here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#Provisional Initiative: Improving Judy Garland Content on Wikipedia. Even if it was deleted, it would still be in the revision history anyways. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

[The following is addressing the use of AI to generate a GA review. specifically Talk:King of My Heart/GA2]: It is tempting to say that AI-generated GAN reviews are not permitted ... but AI is a locomotive rolling down the track. At this point I think WP should focus on emphasizing that AI is a tool the reviewer can use, no different that the existing Copyright Violation tools; or grammar/spell checkers. For all these tools: The human editor must still "review the review".

At a minimum, the human editor that ran the AI tool must read the AI report; compare the AI report to the GAN article body and verify accuracy; and craft a manually-written confirmation that they've reviewed it and it is consistent with the GAN article.

In addition, the human must perform the tasks that AI tools cannot do yet:

1. Validate that images are free use
2. Examine some sources and verify that the citations are legitimate
3. Check cites for consistency (e.g. mixing [rp] with sfn )
4. Compliance with MOS guidelines
5. Image layout and formatting
6. Do "Wikipedia specific" style checks e.g. InfoBoxes, NavBars, Categories etc.
7. ... etc, etc, etc ...

Also: The AI tool (at least these example cited above) is not producing good quality comments ... they seem to be vague hand-waving. AI is not catching prose or style issues that a (experienced) WP copy editor can provide.

For those reasons, an AI-generated review, by itself, is absolutely not acceptable for a GA review.

Those are my initial thoughts. I suppose this same AI debate will start happening in several places in WP: GA, article creation, Peer Reviews, FA. Noleander (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not just tempting, it is practice based past AI review attempts, and this is another example of why that practice exists. All very well to say "AI is a tool the reviewer can use", but if the AI cannot catch prose and style issues, then it isn't really going to be a helpful tool. Llms are predictive algorithms, they're not going to be much help with anything else. For example, this AI has claimed that there are bare url cites in the article. There are not, but presumably it's picked up somewhere that bare urls are not ideal, and has inserted that idea despite it having no relation to the article at hand (something a grammar/spelling checker would not do). CMD (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I dislike AI articles and reviews as much as anyone. But it's not realistic to outright ban the use of AI ... editors are going to use it, there's no stopping that. Isn't it better to require disclosure and to create guidelines, than to pretend editors will stop using it? Noleander (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's also no stopping e.g. block evasion and sockpuppetry, by people with the necessary nous to avoid making it too obvious. We still have policies against such things, and enforce them when we can. The only 'guideline' (actually a policy) we need regarding AI-generated input (in articles, or elsewhere), in my opinion, is that it should be immediately deleted, and the contributor warned that persistent use of such material will result in an indefinite block. LLM-generated content 'cannot be trusted in article space, and anyone incapable of communicating in their own words elsewhere on Wikipedia has no business trying to participate in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct. An editor who cannot contribute without AI tools is not competent to be editing, and is unwelcome. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd support a ban - my suggestion above was my attempt to be practical (and modern?). Does WP have a ban on AI already in place? I see essay Wikipedia:Large language models ... is there an active proposal to make a policy/guideline covering AI? Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As of now, no ban, and as far as I'm aware, no formal proposal for such. Instead, we have a time-sink expanding at an almost exponential rate, as more and more communication-skills-deficient individuals (and sometimes just lazy ones) decide to let the bots do the work for them. We spend more than enough time trying to make sense of each other, and I very much doubt the community will show much enthusiasm for endless arguments with bots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Another troubling scenario is using AI to flood Talk pages as a kind of automated gish gallop tool, as was suspected recently at Talk:Acupuncture. The editor is question was sanctioned, and that is what in practice will happen to problematic AI-using editors, but the community as a whole should ideally get behind a PAG on this. I suspect there are too many editors who believe AI is somehow useful for encyclopedia writing. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Per this discussion, such comments can be collapsed by admins or "closers", and I think there is generally strong support for any user to collapse them. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Should this AN issue evolve into a proposal for a WP guideline/policy? Initiating that would be way over my head ... but it would be nice if this AN issue resulted in a concrete proposal. Noleander (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There are many important concerns, however for the purposes of this side conversation from my comment I want to emphasize the narrow case in question, that AI should not (because it can not, it's just not how the models work) be used to review a GAN. There are no guidelines that can ameliorate this. CMD (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been historically pretty difficult to make proposals to restrict generative AI that everyone can agree on, until the ban on AI-generated images not too long ago. From experience, it is best to start with clearly defined proposals in specific use cases. A possible RfC question could be something like:

Is AI-generated content acceptable in a GAN review?

This is specifically about generated content, and doesn't apply to, say, using ChatGPT as a translation tool, or as a grammar checker (although someone using a LLM in that way should verify that it doesn't alter the meaning of what was written or add new content).
I expect the question of using LLMs for spotchecks to also come up, and don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be included as an additional question in this RfC – it isn't great, but might be slightly out of scope on top of being harder to verify. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Making the question about generation presupposes that the different functions of ChatGPT can be separated, which they can't be. Further, so far, no-one has pointed out what the llm can be used for in a review. Noleader specifically stated that they don't trust it for spelling and grammar, which seems the part of GACR that a predictive algorithm would be most easily able to do (I find it to have a roughly equal hit and miss rate). Use in GAN review is a specific use case, and one which those at GAN have already rejected multiple times in the past. Somewhere there are specific tools being trialled to assist with source checking and identifying unsourced text, but so far as I know aren't at the point where they can replace manual spot-checking. CMD (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant to say grammar checking regarding the reviewer's own written review, not regarding the article under review, my bad. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still wouldn't encourage that, as it can't be separated from everything else ChatGPT does. It's all the same algorithm/base instructions. Very different results from say, putting it into a document editor and seeing what squiggly line suggestions are made (at least perhaps, until llms are integrated into those products too). CMD (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander, in my view this "attempt to be practical" is what has stalled out a lot of discussions on AI more than anything else. Since you do apparently support a ban, why the devil's advocacy? You don't need to answer that. But the next time you see someone doing it, ask them if that's what they really believe is best. After all, we also can't prevent people from violating BLP policy, or from writing unverifiable content on Wikipedia, or whatever else. It is, nonetheless, our policy that people do not do these things. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I wrote that "devil's advocate" post above because I assumed that WP would permit AI soon, and my goal was to establish restrictions & constraints (within the GAN context, at least). Now that I see that other editors are willing to support a ban, perhaps such restrictions will not be needed. Regarding the absence of any AI policy in WP (so far) .... that reminds me of some policy proposals from many years ago: I quickly discovered that creating new policies in WP is a Sisyphean task: one could propose the policy that "2+2=4" and dozens of editors would oppose it. Such is the nature of WP consensus-building. Noleander (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a good time to mention that consensus is a Wikipedia policy. Recent discussions on ANI show overwhelming consensus that many instances of LLM usage are disruptive and not acceptable on Wikipedia. Even if there is no policy or guideline that explicitly addresses LLM-based disruptive editing, we are fully capable of determining whether the effects of LLM-assisted edits are disruptive and implementing sanctions for user conduct when necessary. An editor will eventually propose the right wording in the right location to get the consensus codified into a policy or guideline section that we can link to with a convenient shortcut. Until then, we will continue to handle inappropriate uses of LLM case-by-case under the backing of consensus, which is a policy in itself. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Outside of individual bans, nope. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There is policy consensus that LLM-generated contributions to discussions may be collapsed or struck. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines § Striking and collapsing obvious LLM-generated comments to implement the consensus from the January RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199 § LLM/chatbot comments in discussions through an addition to the talk page guidelines. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, I think so. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it a problem using AI to generate articles? Obviously, I do the citations myself. Maybe I should read the WP policy on using AI. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that bases its output on indiscriminate data-trawling from all over the web (including Wikipedia, along with vast quantities of even-less-WP:RS-compliant material). Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that, as an inherent consequence of this algorithm, will routinely 'hallucinate' false statements (along with citations etc) where it struggles to cobble together plausible text. And yes, it is 'a problem' to post any article you have not written yourself citing sources you have yourself read, to Wikipedia. This would apply whether you obtained it from an LLM, via an Ouija board, or from some bloke down the pub. Articles are supposed to be written by contributors, based on material they have obtained from the sources they have cited. That's what contributing an article entails. Not leaving it to some bullshit-bot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is well put. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is against Wikipedia policy to use AI to help you write, as long as you proof-read and double-check the text. Submitting AI-generated text without reading it is against the rules, but it isn't against the rules to use AI to write it. Just like it isn't against the rules to use the AI tools embedded in graphics programs to make images. Just like it isn't against the rules to use scripts and bots to perform tasks on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, it is against the rules to generate new images from AI prompts, or upscale existing ones. And bots have to be approved. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is against the rules to generate images with AI, but it isn't against the rules to use AI assistance when making or editing images. The distinction came up in the RFC on use of AI in medical images. Editors pointed out that some programs (like Photoshop) come with AI built-in. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I know, I started that RfC. I was just pointing out that things weren't as unregulated as it may seem. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure. And I was just trying to clear up that "using AI" has degrees to it, so that the editor who asked isn't afraid to use AI to spell-check or something like that in the course of writing. The verb "use" is ambiguous and vague. We already say "generate" and "assist", which are better verbs to use when talking about AI, imo. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

AI to spellcheck is interesting. I must be from the future, since every computer I've used in the last couple decades has spellcheck built in, no ChatGPT needed...

Someone could use an LLM to "generate" a rote table perfectly, while another could use it to "assist" in producing made up citations for human-written text, so I don't see how that categorization is useful here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that this is the second time that this user makes an AI-generated review of the same GA, after Talk:King of My Heart/GA1 last month, where they had explicitly been told that this was not sufficient for a review. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in the first GAN of the same article (Talk:King of My Heart/GA1) I had told Jorge906 that an AI review is probably not legit. Somehow they come back for GA2 of the same article with AI... Ippantekina (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Given your latest edits to The Red Tour, stating that content is translated from Vietnamese, I hope you are willing to state that you can read Vietnamese yourself at a level sufficient to be sure the translation is accurate, and are not relying on machine translation to do that for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This user is still using AI to edit articles... I dropped them a message on their talk page to temporarily halt all of their AI edits. Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They should probably just be indeffed as NOTHERE... JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And this: Talk:King of My Heart/GA2. No need for AI if you're just going to wordlessly tick the boxes. Well, thanks for all your attempts to turn this around, folks, but I'll call it here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator backlog for speedy deletion F8

Hi, there's a 305 file backlog for WP:F8 deletions(!). They're pretty easy to deal with, so help in clearing would be appreciated! —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Konnichiwa222 - disruptive edits and ECP evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Konnichiwa222 have been engaged in edits that are nonconstructive, biased, pushing POV WP:POVPUSH, unexplained content removals, re-adding reverted content without discussion and violating wikipedia polices.

They were also previously warned by other editors. They have also removed or blanked other editors warnings on their talk page without any reply.

They have also tried to evade wp:ecp here and edited Flag of Israel right after

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_during_the_Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1292218192 ( reverted before by another editor, and you are adding it again )

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_7_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1292224342

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=prev&oldid=1292008071

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1290430715 ( removal of links and texts, and npov violations )

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_during_the_Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1287655613

There are probably more - but can find if needed Cinaroot (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit at 'List of states with limited recognition' is amazingly bad. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1291780456 They have tried to do it multiple times Cinaroot (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They were also accused of dishonest edit summaries for this edit by another editor here Cinaroot (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a user who is extended confirmed (which they are, and have been since 16th April) can "evade ECP"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They had edit count of less than 500 on April 16th. they made several edits to Category:2019 anime films to reach 500 edits and got ECP on April 16th. Cinaroot (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Whats interesting is here you can see repeated edits and reverts of the same content. But you cannot see that edit history here Cinaroot (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot Those edits are all to different pages - note the years are different. They made one edit to each category then immediately reverted it, making a total of 122 pointless edits to game ec [60]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

haha.. completely missed it. Cinaroot (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. The link was unclear what was being pointed at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely topic banned Konnichiwa222 (talk · contribs) from all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This is implemented as a contentious topic restriction. — Newslinger talk 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

While I focused on a-i because that's one of my top topic areas I'm interested in, the problematic behavior extends to other areas as well. So a temporary or permanent site-wide block may also be appropriate, IMO.

Cinaroot (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Since we are in a noticeboard discussion, it would be helpful if you or anyone else could share evidence of the conduct issues in other topic areas here, so that it can be evaluated.​ — Newslinger talk 17:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. After Konnichiwa222 deleted this noticeboard discussion in Special:Diff/1292570392, I indefinitely  Blocked them for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 18:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - probably a sock too. do we need a sock investigation ? Cinaroot (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, when you write the blocking message here Special:Contributions/Konnichiwa222 - I think you need a special URL so that the message can be easily retrieved in the future (when the discussions here are archived). Just a small tip. Cinaroot (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence that links Konnichiwa222 to a suspected sockpuppeteer, then please file a sockpuppet investigation to have it examined.

As for the block message, any link to a discussion that has since been archived automatically triggers a pop-up message with a link with the archived discussion; see WP:ANI#Letting other admins know about this board for an example. I suppose I can use a link like Special:GoToComment/c-Cinaroot-20250527065700-Konnichiwa222_-_disruptive_edits_and_ECP_evasion that goes directly to the first discussion comment, and I'll think about doing this next time. Thanks.​ — Newslinger talk 19:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes - that pop-up doesn't work. I know about this Help:Permanent link I don't know how about Special:GoToComment

So it would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1292584656#Konnichiwa222_-_disruptive_edits_and_ECP_evasion

See eg. Special:Contributions/Thinker78 Cinaroot (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to use Special:Permalink if the discussion were already closed, but I did use it in the topic ban notice. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

yes - that make sense. ty. Cinaroot (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Emperor Nobuyuki (talk · contribs) has just been CheckUser-blocked as a sockpuppet of Konnichiwa222. This sockpuppet account also made unconstructive edits to multiple pages before it was blocked. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ms. Hanna Wendot Cheptumo

l want to create article for MS.Hanna Wendot who is a current Cabinet Secretary, Gender, Culture, The Arts and Heritage and in Kenya.creation of this page is currently restricted to administrators, kindly advice me on what to do.Thank you Ngangaesther (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ngangaesther: That title doesn't appear to be protected. Rather, it appears you are using mathematical bold characters rather than actual letters. This happens sometimes if you use ctrl+v instead of ctrl+⇧ Shift+v with formatted text. Please try Hanna Wendot Cheptumo instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

P.S., since your userpage says you work for the Kenyan National Library Service... If you know anyone who works on Parliament's website, you should tell them that they should be using <b>...</b> tags to boldface things, not mathematical bold characters as they have here. Doing it the way they're doing breaks a lot of things, as you can see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply; I am now able to create the article. Ngangaesther (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any restriction either, but if it still doesn't work try Draft:Hanna Wendot Cheptumo (or Draft:Hanna Cheptumo?). CMD (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review and Resolution Regarding Block on Mohegan-Pequot language Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(discussion in question can be found here)

Hello Administrators,

I understand and respect the need for moderation to maintain Wikipedia’s quality and standards, and I acknowledge that I have been blocked from editing the Mohegan-Pequot language article. However, I kindly ask for a careful review of the version of the article I contributed compared to the current one.

My edits were made thoughtfully and constructively. I extensively reworded and reorganized the article to improve clarity, accuracy, and respect for the Mohegan language and community. The repeated reversions by other editors seem more focused on undoing my changes rather than genuinely improving the article. This pattern of reversion without meaningful engagement resembles an edit war on their part rather than a collaborative effort. I am trying to enhance the article, yet I am the one being blocked.

I want to be very clear that I am not whining, not desperate, and not trying to start a fight. This is not about me wanting to cause conflict or undermine others. My sole intention has always been to help improve the article with accurate, respectful, and up-to-date information. I understand there have been accusations that I am acting entitled or unwilling to compromise, such as claims that I want to “delete all of it” or that I “just can’t learn how to take a loss.” These statements do not reflect at all any of the language I have been using througout this. I have given clear, respectful, and factual responses throughout. I am open to discussion and collaboration, but what I have encountered instead is repeated reverting of well-sourced improvements without meaningful dialogue. This isn’t about silencing anyone or disregarding existing content; I just want to make sure the article reflects the best available knowledge and honors the community it represents.

If the other editors genuinely care about the quality of the article, I would expect them to build upon or refine the work I contributed instead of reverting it back to a less accurate and less clear version. This lack of cooperation and refusal to engage constructively is discouraging—not only to me but potentially to future editors wishing to improve this topic.

The article receives around 60 views per day, so maintaining outdated or inaccurate information misleads readers seeking trustworthy knowledge about the Mohegan language. Given my background and close involvement with the Mohegan Language Reclamation Project, I am deeply concerned about the continued presence of such content.

I am willing to accept if the administrators decide to keep certain information that I consider outdated or inaccurate. However, the ongoing undoing of my constructive edits without any attempt to improve or discuss the content is problematic and unfair.

Therefore, I respectfully request reconsideration of my block and a review of the article’s edit history with these concerns in mind.

Finally, I do not just want to be unblocked—I want this issue resolved in a way that prevents ongoing reverts if the block is lifted, as I anticipate that the same pattern would likely continue. I am open to any suggestions or mediation to find a constructive path forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

—Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP operates on a WP:CONSENSUS model. This means that, if there is a disagreement, then instead of reverting to your prefered version, you need to discuss things and come to a consensus on the article talk page. It is uncool to remove a large swath of existing material from the article without first discussing it, but expect others to merely refine your work. Multiple people reverted you; you can't say everyone else is edit warring and you aren't. This was explained to you in a warning on your user talk page, which you removed, so I'll link to that page again: WP:Edit warring. What should prevent future reverts is you not reverting to your prefered version without getting consensus first.

I think it would be better for you to open a discussion on the article talk page (which you are not blocked from), and depending on how you act at that discussion, we could then talk about unblocking you from editing the article. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lost access to all my account

Moved from WP:ANI § Lost access to all my account

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I am User:Linkin Prankster. I lost access to my account as well as other account User:Roman Reigns Fanboy as Wiki is asking me to enter the verification code they sent on my email address. Problem is, I don't remember the emails for either of the account. I have messaged Wikimedia yesterday, but still haven't heard back. Please get my accounts restored to me. Supreme Rankling (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to know that’s your account? I don’t know if admins can help you, but it’s a security issue if they can. I’d recommend creating a new account. Cinaroot (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Supreme Rankling: We can't help you recover an account; only the WMF can do that, and sadly they often aren't able to help if you don't know your email address. Did you ever email anyone through Special:EmailUser? If so, they'll know the email addresses you registered the accounts with, so you might want to reach out to them. All the admin team can do right now is give you back extendedconfirmed, and that's only if you have some way to prove that you are LP/RRF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Email is generally the only viable option. However, Special:EmailUser only works if you have an Email address(es) with those accounts. I agree with Cinaroot. You're probably better off creating a new account. Pibx (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well they don't need to create a new account because this is the new account. Although I guess they can still create a new new one if they don't want this to be their permanent username. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's true. In fact, now that I think about it, the only thing that matters is EC. A User may request EC before meeting 30/500 if they have another account that is already EC. But if they cannot access the older account, and the older account doesn't have an Email Address, there's generally nothing much that can be done. Pibx (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well you can check my IP address. It'll turn out to be the same as Linkin Prankster. I don't know how else to prove I'm the same person. Supreme Rankling (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I request an EC btw? Supreme Rankling (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

OP, try sending an email via "email this user" to the lost accounts; at least LinkinPrankster has email enabled. I don't know how many email-adresses you got, but there's at least a chance you will receive a push-message that "you've got mail". Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Check this: Extended confirmed users. Since Email is enabled, there's a chance it can work. Pibx (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I've put a request there. Supreme Rankling (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Supreme Rankling: Are you sure your IP address hasn't changed? Per MW:Help:Extension:EmailAuth and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 219#Now need to use email code to login?, most likely you are only getting these emails since you're trying to login with a new IP. Maybe even with a new user agent. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm using the same mobile networks I always have. Vodafone Idea (Vi) and Airtel. Check the IP ranges of Linkin Pranskter, and you'll find I used the same mobile networks there too. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Try emailing [email protected]. I believe they have an account recovery procedure. I don't know if you qualify, but it's worth a shot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Did that yesterday, no response or acknowledgement. Supreme Rankling (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It will generally take a few business days. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

They did reply now, they rejected my request. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

My request to restore the account has been rejected. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I sent emails to both accounts for which you do not have access.

If receive the emails, you still have access to the accounts. If you do not have access to those emails, then you best forget about them.

If you do gain access to your old accounts, you should deactivate all your accounts except for one, as per WP:MULTIPLE. Peaceray (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember the emails for any of the accounts, there's no point in sending the emails. Supreme Rankling (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't have access to the original email accounts at all anymore? And you don't know of any other accounts on other websites that you might have signed up with using the same email accounts? --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't even remember if they had an email to begin with. Supreme Rankling (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't even sure if there is an email associated with these accounts and, even if they did have one, you can't remember the email address (and so probably can't log into it), then I see no way forward here. You'll have to accept that those accounts are gone but also list them on your new User page. If it helps, you should know that this same problem has happened in the past with editors who have been active for much longer than you. Just remember with your current account to enable email account and write down that account's information. Do it right now if you haven't already done it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Supreme Rankling, I agree with Liz that there unfortunately doesn't seem to be a way to recover your previous accounts. I recommend using a secure password manager to record your passwords and emails going forward, which would prevent this issue from happening again. — Newslinger talk 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is Scorpions13256 editing under his new account. Up until I came across this thread, I had no idea that the WMF could recover accounts. On my original account that I created in 2010, I accumulated 200,000 edits. My email in this account and my other two accounts was simply (Redacted) this entire time. I sent emails with all of them. Oshwah also has access to technical information verifying that Scorpions13256 and Scorpions1325 are the same account. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion at the village pump that concerns the administrator inactivity policy and recall process and might be worthwhile for the community to chime in to. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ban request - Luikerme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Luikerme (talk · contribs) is indeffed - I see that @Dbeef: has recently tagged them as a sock of Guilherme Gava Bergami (talk · contribs). They are a persistent socker - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Luikerme. Socks have been blocked by @Discospinster, ScottishFinnishRadish, Lofty abyss, Jake Wartenberg, and Rusalkii:. Their MO is claiming that living people are dead. I am posting here to a) raise awareness of their editing style and b) request a ban. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not needed as they're already considered banned under WP:3X. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They're already globally locked and blocked. Banning them would be like taking the brain out of a decapitated head. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Still, I think it's useful to inform other admins about them if they are prolific sockers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KingCrazii344

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone talk to User:KingCrazii344 who is upset and thinks I'm disrespectful for revdeling his contributions at Aragats BT - a club he says he now co-owns. He obviously doesn't want to hear from me again. Nthep (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you need verification KingCrazii344 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As I stated before I am not going to change my stamens I want to know who I need to reach out to. So I can avoid these type of issues KingCrazii344 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Artificial intelligence used by user?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@PRDM 9: seems to be translating content from other wikipedias (French, Spanish etc.) on pages relating to Peru, but, like on Pachacuti, he seems to not pay attention to the article he's editing. He added information already in the article and added two sources, one was a review of the source he wanted to cite, the other is weirdly formatted. He seems to translate very slowly, one paragraph takes several edits. Early edits seem more "human" though, before a weird change occurred. 80.187.83.20 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have notified them about this discussion. 2001:8003:B15F:8000:B596:595D:94E2:529E (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and my area of interest is topics related to the people and countries in Latin America, (including Peru). I have never used nor will use artificial intelligence in working with Wikipedia. The joy of the work is to do the work and translate sentences myself.

By the way, of the two sources that IP has provided, one is not available, and the other I had already included in the text.

I appreciate your interest in my edits. PRDM__9 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I can believe you now that you have answered my concerns, and am sorry for having doubted you were a human editor. However, I didn't provide any sources. I just changed some things to your added sections (and you were the one to add the two additional sources, one is a very negative review of the source you apparently wanted to cite, the other is wrongly formatted). 80.187.74.1 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for unprotection of Dananeer Mobeen

• Dananeer Mobeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page to be unprotected: Dananeer Mobeen Type of unprotection requested: Full unprotection (or user-level pending recreation)

Reason: The article was previously deleted in 2023 following a sockpuppetry case, which also led to its protection. However, Dananeer Mobeen has gained significantly more notability since then. She has emerged as a prominent actress in Pakistan's entertainment industry, with major acting roles in television dramas, brand endorsements, and consistent media coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Given her increased coverage in reputable media outlets and the sustained public interest in her work, I believe she now meets the general notability guidelines and notability criteria for entertainers. I would like to draft a new version of the article based solely on reliable, independent sources.

Requesting that the protection be lifted, so the article can be recreated through the Articles for Creation process or directly in mainspace for review.

Thank you. Behappyyar (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Requests for unprotection should be at WP:RFPU. The article has been deleted five times. Can you identify a couple of sources for a new article? Answer that in an unprotection request, not here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Callanecc, I see you protected Draft:Dananeer Mobeen, if you want to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Even though it's protected, you can still work on it in your own sandbox, then ask again. That way, we'd know what you're planning to publish to that name. It'd help us in making a decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Question(s) regarding my rights on Wikipedia

Hello! Before I ask/request my thing, I want to say that if I’m in the wrong place, feel free to move my message to the correct spot or whatever works best.

Now, onto my question:

I am wondering if it’s possible to give me user rights to give me the ability to delete, move my userspaces without leaving a redirect? It’s annoying having to WP:RFD/WP:CSD each time I don’t want a redirect or something. I think I had another question or more but I can’t remember.

Nevertheless, is this possible without giving me full admin rights? Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 00:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You can apply for Wikipedia:Page mover. Read that page, then go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover to make the request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Tonkarooson, you have to show a need for advanced permissions to be granted one and right now, it doesn't seem like you are doing much page moving. You spend most of your time on your own User pages. But should you be more active in the future on tasks like Patrolling, you might find the Page Mover right helpful to have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the reason why we don't automatically give people admin rights in their own userspace, as far as I know, is because it would create a loophole of users being able to move any page to their userspace and then delete them. It is actually listed in our perennial proposals. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. So, would the better option just to keep doing the speedy deletions I’ve been doing? Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 01:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unban request for ZagrosianSigma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor accepted the terms of the standard offer last September, tried to request unblock in November, and since then has gone the full standard six months without being caught with their hands in the laundry bin. However, they cannot be unilaterally unblocked due to WP:3X (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Combatuser1), so I am bringing the request here. Their original block, in September 2023, was for disruptive editing (see User talk:Combatuser1). Yamla has found no recent evidence of block evasion. Verbatim request below:

Hello dear Admins, I'm writing again to ask for another chance on Wikipedia in the past I wasn't familiar with the rules and I didn't know that making more than one account (sockpuppeting) wasn't allowed and I also didn't understand that editing without proper sources was serious and is considered vandalizm, I now realize these were serious mistakes that I've done and I regret them.

Some of the things I did was also out of frustration, there were users who kept interfering my edits just undoing them without even reaching out and helping with that what I did was against the rules and most of them were specifically targeting Kurdish related topics on purpose, they tried removing the term Kurdistan in many articles which no one said anything about and I was the only one who was enforced the rules on, I know and understand that the way I responded was unethical and wrongful and I regret every action that I've taken which were against the rules and policies. I've taken time to read the policies and understand them better and if I get another chance to come back to the community I will follow the rules carefully and willingly and I will stay respectful even when I disagree, I just want to contribute positively and help improve articles in a right way. Here is a list of the Sockpuppets I've used that Admin requested me to write them down (These are the only accounts used by me the others are not mine): - User:Combatuser1 (My first account which I've forgotten the password and I can't access it) - User:ImInLoveWithWiki - User:CombatA11 - User:Yeszzzz - User:BeetleJuice0 - User:ITylon - User:FortressKnight - User:KurdianA - User:Victor MacTavish - User:Sarxr - User:Manganese1 - User:RîzgarîKurdîstan - User:HalloKurdish - User:Hihowareyoymate - User:ReconRaptor - User:ZagrosianSigma (My Current Account) I know that it's many and I'm not proud of it, I want to make a new page and I would appreciate it if you guys reconsidered, thank you for taking the time to read this. Best Regards,

ZagrosianSigma

Thanks for your consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I would, however, like to see examples of edits ZagrosianSigma would make if unblocked. JayCubby 17:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  In my view, that is not likely to be helpful since ZS was blocked before they could really become an experienced editor, and so they've never really had much of a chance to learn how to make "good edits". The more relevant question is whether the community believes that ZS has reconsidered their approach and is now willing to learn. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  TBAN seems a good alternative condition then. JayCubby 03:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• A commendably open request. It may be best to strongly advise the avoidance of WP:CT/KURD as part of the unban. CMD (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, although it may be simpler just to make that a TBAN from Kurdish topics an explicit unblock condition, appealable later, rather than potentially inviting edits in a fraught topic before they've built up a track record of constructive editing elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I don't think the conduct was awful enough that we should worry too much about WP:ROPE, but since I believe unblocks ought to designed in a manner in which it's more likely there won't be a reblock, I support this on Rosguill's suggested condition of a topic ban on the Kurdish people and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Even in the unblock request, there are aspersions being cast about the motivations of others in Kurdish topics, so I would be a categorical oppose without the topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, conditional on a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurdish people, language and culture, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support provided the following:

1. the user is given a topic ban on Kurdistan, Kurdish people, and their language and culture (broadly construed),
2. they give examples of edits they'd make, and
3. they make an effort to learn how to become a good editor.

They should know they will be on a tight leash if they do get unblocked, but if they're OK with that and the conditions I listed out, I see no reason why we shouldn't give them a WP:LASTCHANCE. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as the last chance. There is no issue with the topic ban. Orientls (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Following some conversation on their talk page, they've agreed to abide by a topic ban: Im okay with accepting the topic ban for the time being. I’ll focus on editing in other areas, build some experience, and hopefully return to that space later with a stronger track record. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Following the discussion at User talk:ZagrosianSigma leaves me unable to support lifting the ban. ZagrosianSigma is, frankly, exhausting and self-admittedly doesn't handle matters appropriately. It was like pulling teeth to get them to accept a topic ban and this doesn't give me hope they've truly reformed. I'm just one voice and I expect the consensus will end up lifting the community ban and imposing a topic ban and I sincerely hope this is sufficient. I just don't think it will be. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support with tban. I hadn't intended to !vote but I feel the need to be a counterweight to Yamla's oppose, because I've been part of that same conversation and more or less agree with Yamla on the diagnosis, but disagree on the prognosis and next steps. Six months from now, I am sure that we will see either another unban request (if this one fails) or a request to raise the tban (if this unban succeeds). I am also sure that no unban request will succeed unless it is conditional on a tban. I do not think that six (or 12, 18, 24, etc) months of not editing Wikipedia will make this editor a better Wikipedia editor than six (or etc) months of editing while tbanned would do. And since I do not think their behaviour was so egregious that it would be dangerous to allow them to return to editing topics unrelated to Kurdistan, I think we ought to lift the ban, and allow them to learn. We may get a productive editor out of doing so; if it turns out that we don't, well, we can always reblock if they cause further problems. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it acceptable for any user to remove material from a page with the 'explanation' "Was this edited by someone with a learning disability?" published in this history? Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That "explanation" was not used to justify the removal of the content you're complaining about. If you're going to make accusations about other people, it helps to get your story correct first. I removed the attendance info from 2024–25 United Rugby Championship because it accurately fits the definition of WP:FANCRUFT. The edit summary you're complaining about was a glib remark about how badly and inconsistently the article was presented, which I have now fixed. If you're the editor of the article and you don't have a learning disability, that's all you have to say. – PeeJay 13:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PeeJay, if you take a moment for reflection, can you see any issue with an edit summary like that? Do you intend to use them more in the future? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PeeJay, we need your attention here, rather than on routine editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No, you have my assurance that I won't make any further comments like that. – PeeJay 13:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That is a completely unacceptable edit summary[61]. Fram (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And doubling down here is even more unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't say I'm too keen, either, on disability jibes, 'glib' or otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. Is this an isolated incident or is therean endemic problem that we have to address? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for three months due to a history of such comments while obviously knowing better. The duration is a longer than I'd normally use because their extensive block log demonstrates that they're willing to sit out blocks and not adjust their behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The subject of the ban, and the bigoted ablist comment that caused it, 'PeeJay', appears to have come straight here to try and remove this notice, which in the circumstances of a block for what turns out to be a repeat offender who clearly doesn't intend to change, seems an unacceptable challenge to the authority of the block Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken. No one has tried to remove this notice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Mpjmcevoybeta removed a legitimate comemnt by PeeJay. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I did, unintentionally. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, apologies all around. ~~ Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, an error with my browser misled me. Sorry, guys. ~~ Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any more that needs saying here. Can someone who knows how please close this before any more mistakes are made? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LeoKrupp19!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• LeoKrupp19! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Inappropriate content; just look. Tried to place it at AFD. PawPatroler (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @PawPatroler: Several points:

• Discussions on whether a user page should be deleted go to Miscellany for deletion, not Articles for deletion. I have procedurally closed your AfD nomination as being in the wrong venue.
• That user page is the kind of bog-standard self-promo for which speedy deletion under criteria WP:U5 and/or WP:G11 were designed--I have tagged the page as a U5.
• As per the big orange box which you should have seen when editing this page, reporting a user here requires that you notify them on their talk page. This was not done, but this seems minor, as the issue did not appear to merit being brought here.

Hope I'm not being too WP:BITE-y here--hope this helps. Thank you for checking. --Finngall ^talk 23:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question re: alt account

I've created an alt account, AlsoPonyo, to use when I don't have access to my 2FA authenticator. Can I assign it advance perms (i.e. EC and rollback)? Or is that verboten and should be requested at WP:PERM?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Go for it. Or, if you're nervous that you're violating Rule 47 Part 111(a)X, I'll do it. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did EC and rollback, but I'm re-engaging the cloaking device soon. I really think you can do similar perms yourself if something else comes up. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Floq. Much appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not for bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake but I appreciate you being transparent and forthcoming about a new alternate account, Ponyo. It helps avoid questions down the road should they arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Added Autopatrolled to the alt account's perms, since your main account has it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In general, as long as you're a user in good standing, nothing wrong with anything like this. Appreciate you being transparent. qedk (t 愛 c) 19:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem but you should declare the alt account on your user pages, as this discussion will soon be buried. Zero^talk 14:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I have an alt account with PCR and rollback rights. Admittedly I created it quite some time ago, but I'm sure it'll be fine to assign perms. I declare all of my alts on a subpage, also. Patient Zero^talk 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Ponyo did, before opening this discussion... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Please review

Hello Admins,

I was hoping you could review a certain user. For context, please refer to my Talk Page. As I mentioned on Explicit’s, "this user referenced a few editors and pages, but after checking, they don’t appear to exist. I also attempted to search for them manually, but with no success."

As noted in Explicit’s response, "it appears that a single person is trying to intimidate you by posing as several different editors—they certainly don't exist."

Since they’ve questioned my edits, I will refrain from making further changes to these pages and will leave the matter in the admins' hands for review.

On April 22, I also reported two users, one of whom has editing patterns very similar to 76.154.111.229. I could be wrong, but if you could check, it would be much appreciated. Both of these IP users have almost exclusively focused on editing Peebles-related pages.

As much as I would prefer to ignore this user, they attempted to intimidate me by referencing a list of non-existent admins and pages, which Explicit has since confirmed. Even ExplorerofSpace flagged this editor’s activity as potentially vandalism.

I would truly appreciate your help in reviewing this matter. Thank you for your time and attention. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

These two edits made by 76.154.111.229 [62][63] are clearly some kind of harassment. (Non-administrator comment) Toadspike [Talk] 20:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Axeia.aksaya's reasoning. I think that IP 76.154.111.229 is harassing other users saying that they are breaking policies such as WP:PAID or Wikipedia:COI when that user is the one who is actually breaking Wikipedia:COI. Good evidence is seen in User:Toadspike's comment "These two edits made by 76.154.111.229 [45][46] are clearly some kind of harassment.". I think User:Axeia.aksaya is in the right. Also, just look at this IP user's edit history. ExplorerofSpace (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Just posting a note that this is the second time edits from IPs surrounding this Peebles articles have arisen, they were brought up in April in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive371#Request for Review. I have issued protection for a week on Peebles Corporation because something is up here with a variety of IPs. I can't tell if they are pro or negative but they are definitely seeking to rewrite the article going back for about 6 weeks now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI - discussion at WP:VPT regarding the use of AI-generated summaries

at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Simple_summaries:_editor_survey_and_2-week_mobile_study. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Being late on this coast, I could only skim through this discussion right now but it's a very interesting conversation where the interests of WMF might be in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia editors regarding the use of AI on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Need AfD closures of mass nominations by a sock

Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala's new sockpuppet made many AfD nominations. [64] I suggest closing those that have not received any input from others to contain the damage. Orientls (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Orientls, can you provide a link to their account or list of contributions? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Here you go. Was about to close them all, but I realized G5ing might be a better idea. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:LilianaUwU, much appreciated. I already closed a number of them that were coming due yesterday as Speedy Keeps as the nominator was a blocked sockpuppet and there were no "Delete" arguments but I thought that was the extent of it, I didn't know they had opened even more AFDs. I'm heading to bed now but I can check on this in the morning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I had a block of time to get a few more. SPK seemed easier than G5 and article cleanup, but no objection if someone decides nuking, including my closes, easier. Star Mississippi 12:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

cloudfront.net links

These links in the following edits look questionable to me, I did not click on them [65][66]

What the policy with respect to external links such as this, both with respect to security and content? Bogazicili (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

See Cloudfront. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And why would we need cloudfront links in Wikipedia?

Anyone can upload a pdf there, correct? Even for a high quality source such as a journal article, you can't know if it's the same version, some preprint version or etc. There could also be copyright implications of links to full pdf's if it's not an open access article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Putting "cloudfront.net" into Special:LinkSearch returns a lot of legitimate links. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What about copyright issues? Bogazicili (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The New York Times is copyrighted, no? Worgisbor (congregate) 20:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A link to NYT would be fine, but screenshotting an entire NYT article and putting it on Cloudfront, and then linking to that Cloudfront link would not be fine. Bogazicili (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Diannaa: here since I often see them dealing with copyright issues. Bogazicili (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's possible that the original turkishpolicy.com site's content was held on and delivered by Cloudfront, but the domain has been usurped and the website extinguished (they may have shut down, it could be a careless failure to renew domain registration, it could be malicious, whatever). These links might then have been a short-lived remaining way to reach that original content on Cloudfront, which Cloudfront would soon stop serving. NebY (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This links are time limited and so are now broken. The old link is dead, but was backed up by the wayback machine.[67] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I still don't see the use case of 3rd party hosting sites such as cloudfront in Wikipedia overall.

Wayback machine is a much more legitimate alternative. If something is open access, and the link is not broken, that is what should be linked. If cloudfront contains media such as pictures with acceptable licence, it should be uploaded to Commons and then a commons link could be used.

But this is a larger topic for WP:Village Pump perhaps. Bogazicili (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Pro-ISIS editor?

The account "184.170.166.2" has removed alot of Information about ISIS/Jihadist wikipedia articles. they claim that the Information is "False"

Just alot of Vandalism. JaxsonR (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

JaxsonR, you should probably report the editor at WP:AIV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this might be more complex than AIV can look at. It might be better if someone(s) awake could take a look. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this as obvious vandalism, and it wasn't "unexplained removal", despite the warnings some users posted at their talk page. That said, there is evidence of POV-pushing and lack of communication. I've partially blocked Special:Contributions/184.170.166.0/27, which has similar issues going back years, from article space. Hopefully we can get some explanation. I've notified the most recent IPs used of this discussion and of WP:GS/ISIL. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

1998–99 Hull City A.F.C. season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

would love to talk to the person that wrote the article for wiki if possible. I have somthing that may be of interest Thank you 31.54.171.205 (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

If you check the the page's history and go all the way to the oldest edit you can see who created the article. In this case it was User:Dalbster. You can talk to them on their talk page. This noticeboard isn't meant for these kinds of queries, btw. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted)

WT:Football, Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

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

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Kansascitt1225

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to WP:ANI § User:Kansascitt1225

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Bbb23 for Bbb23 to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 11:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [68]

Reasoning: I appreciate the closer's efforts in handling this complex RFC. I understand that it takes considerable time and effort to read through such a lengthy discussion. However, I believe that issues of this complexity may benefit from review by multiple administrators. Additionally, I feel that some concerns raised by myself and other users regarding the RFC closure remain unaddressed. First, there are procedural issues. The RFC opened with a non-neutral statement, which is a violation of WP:RFC. More importantly, WP:FRINGE is a policy concerning fringe theories, but it does not specifically address fringe organizations. If there is no existing policy defining what constitutes a fringe organization, then designating an organization as fringe is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies. We cannot declare an organization to be fringe without first establishing a clear policy that defines what that means. It was suggested that the amendment be developed at WT:FRINGE, where there was a discussion without consensus about possible changes to the policy. However, it is not appropriate to apply the "fringe" label to an organization first and then determine the policy framework afterward. Such designations must be based on pre-existing policy, not determined retroactively. Another concern relates to the substance of the RFC question itself, which stated that SEGM "only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints." However, on the same board, we had a separate RFC, split from the main one, on whether the medical recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children outside of medical research was WP:FRINGE. There was a strong consensus that this position is not fringe. [69] This means that SEGM’s main position, as outlined in [70], is not considered fringe. How do we reconcile the consensus that SEGM's main position is not fringe with the statement that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views? Note that the question was not whether SEGM promotes some or mostly fringe ideas, it explicitly asserted that EVERY idea SEGM promotes is fringe, and that claim has been disproven. If SEGM’s main position is not considered fringe, it is logically inconsistent to conclude that the organization exists solely to promote fringe views. Such a conclusion disregards the consensus from the RFC on puberty blockers. In my view, and I believe this sentiment was shared by other editors who commented on Dr vulpes' talk page, these concerns were not adequately considered in the closure. In light of that, I would like to request a closure review from the community. Please see Dr vulpes' talk page for the relevant discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Dr vulpes)

Non-participants (SEGM)

• I'm waiting to see the response from the closer, but I have to say I'm concerned about the procedural integrity of any RFC where those responding can write "per nom". Also, after a quick perusal I see around half a dozen responses I would have removed from consideration altogether which swings the support percentage significantly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish Sorry, this is my first time in an appeal. Should I just expand on my rationale for the close? I wrote a longer version but I didn't think anyone wanted to read a mini thesis. In hindsight I might have cut it down a little much. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Dr vulpes, I recommend reading through this discussion and commenting on the points editors made about your closure, what it did right and what it lacked according to those editors who found it lacking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I normally try to respond to the issues raised in the challenge itself, and any concerns raised in the uninvolved/non-participant section.

My major concerns are the procedural issue with the RFC, which was raised by several of those responding and led to responses such as Yes Per nom and Multiple reliable sources per nom but not mentioned in the close and no discussion of weighting of responses. There were also a lot of responses like:

• Yes, it's a blatantly fringe group. That is obvious to any good-faith editor.
• Yes - Seems pretty straight forward.
• Yes, definitely fringe.
• Very much fringe
• Fringe is the politest term for it.
• Yes, fringe. Pretty unambiguously
• Yes, fringe. Pretty unambiguously

So, raw numbers we're looking at ~30 to ~10 which does look like a slam dunk but that's not taking into account the large number of responses that are based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue or the non-neutral RFC which was sufficiently non-neutral to be quoted by those supporting the position of the RFC. I'd like to see the reasoning for discarding the procedural concerns, and an rough explanation of how you weighed responses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

SFR, can I check with you about the notification duties of someone challenging an RFC? I don’t see any effort to publicise this challenge to participants in the RFC. OsFish (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Good, the closer of this discussion should essentially ignore the opinions of those involved in the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support closure. I don't find the "not fringe" !votes or responses particularly compelling. I don't see how else this could have been closed. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Void if removed, who raises some concerning points about the SPLC 'designation', among other things. JayCubby 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure The consensus in that disccussion is clearly that this organization presents a fringe perspective. Those arguing it wasn't fringe were a smaller but vocal minority opinion. This appeal is not to continue the discussion and the points made in it but to assess the closure. I thought the closure was understandable and overdue since this RFC was opened in early February! Thank you to the closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn, suggest panel closure This closure is lacking in several areas. I agree with SFR's comment about procedural integrity. For such a long discussion this was a very short closing statement. Some closings can reasonably be viewed as weight of numbers. Others should be seen agnostic to the numbers and focus only on the relative merits of the arguments. This is a merits case. Both sides made a number of reason based points and counter points. It wasn't clear that either side ultimately had the better of the debate. A significant point which was not adequately addressed in the closing is how the FRINGE guideline should be applied to an organization vs ideas and what it means in terms of article space editing that the organization is "Fringe". How does this closing trickle down into article level content? If this were a "fringe idea" it would be obvious. However, as a "fringe organization" what does the RfC ultimately mean? This is potentially a precedent setting decision and that shouldn't be handled lightly. In reading the close it appears that the closer put most of their emphasis on weight of numbers, but, as SFR noted, a number of the !votes may have integrity issues. Concerns regarding the impartiality of the actual RfC also joined a long list of unaddressed items. Regardless if this is ultimately the correct outcome, to be fair to the process and the participants, the closing must properly address these neglected issues. For all these reasons this closing should be overturned and ideally given a panel closure. Springee (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure. This RfC is a bit of a mess, but I don't really see how it could have been closed in any other way. Some of the Yes rationales were weak, but equally some of the No rationales (as Liz says, a "vocal minority") were unconvincing and were really trawling the Internet for references to the SEGM that weren't negative. In the end, the major point being made is that this is an organisation that supports such pseudoscientific nonsense as ROGD and are far too close to being a political organisation rather than a medical one and I think that viewpoint is better made than the opposing one. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• There are really two questions here: Do the participants consider SEGM to be a "fringe" organization in the colloquial sense? And do the participants consider SEGM to be, as clarified by YFNS four days into the RfC, an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints? Only the second question is suitable to settle via RfC, but, per SFR, it's clear that quite a few supports were more about the first. However, a number of opposes were also weakly-reasoned, with a lot of people talking past each other because they were talking about different aspects of what SEGM advocates, which have different levels of currency in different countries. Ultimately I cannot see how a consensus can come out of this RfC in any direction; but at the same time, that should not be taken as a repudiation of any past consensuses, which have been pretty damning against SEGM. Overturn as no consensus, being clear that this does not delegitimize existing consensuses about SEGM's reliability or the fringiness of any of its views.
  Instead, I recommend the following to participants:
  • FTN is a suitable venue for further discussion of specific POVs on transgender healthcare.
  • Questions about the full scope of SEGM's unreliability, e.g. whether it extends to articles sponsored by SEGM but published by generally reliable sources, belong at RSN.
  • Advocacy to include content already ruled unreliable or fringe in a contentious topic area belongs at AE. So, of course, does any rhetorical dishonesty or other disruptive editing in either direction.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  I remarked to someone the other day that comments by participants in close reviews backfire more often than not. This review is a good illustration of that. Comments like If an RFC is based on a fact about the world, and you look it up and go 'yep that's sure a true fact about the world', there's not a lot extra you can say reënforce my perception that the discussion's participants thought they were !voting on the question of whether SEGM is on the political fringe, not whether to endorse any specific determination about how SEGM should be treated on Wikipedia. I guess we could say that there is a consensus among Wikipedians that SEGM sucks, but that wouldn't really be an enforceable consensus. Fortunately for the supporters, we don't really need an enforceable consensus here, because we already have RSN consensus on SEGM's unreliability and FTN consensus on some of its most controversial claims. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since it's me being dunked on here, let me quote WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

  Oh look, what WP:FRINGE means is based on facts about the world, and therefore what I said is in fact how you determine whether something is fringe. I want to say your argument is very bad but I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to argue. Do you think that WP:FRINGE is some sort of jargon term that is totally disconnected from the ordinary sense of the word? Do you think that whether SEGM says things that are scientifically ridiculous is completely irrelevant to whether or not they are a WP:FRINGE organization? What do you actually think is the problem with what I said? Loki (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Tamzin said what you said reënforce my perception that the discussion's participants thought they were !voting on the question of whether SEGM is on the political fringe (which they seem to agree is a fact of the world: being clear that this does not delegitimize existing consensuses about SEGM's reliability or the fringiness of any of its views) , not whether to endorse any specific determination about how SEGM should be treated on Wikipedia (which they seems to think the RfC did not produce a consensus about and the closure does not adequately address). Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Tha does help me parse the argument, so two things:

  1. Whether SEGM is FRINGE pretty obviously is a determination about how it should be treated on Wikipedia. The fact of being fringe and the determination of being WP:FRINGE are inextricably linked, that's why I made the comment about it not just being a jargon term.

  2. I, and I suspect many other people who supported, don't think that SEGM is politically fringe, and that's the problem. It's politically fairly mainstream but scientifically nonsense, so we should explicitly say it's WP:FRINGE to avoid supporters trying to cite it. Loki (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  We have the fact of it being fringe, the determination of it being Fringe. The question and concern is what does it mean if SEGM is Fringe, and whether you and the participants discussed that. (And now that you point it out I do wonder if Tamzin made a think-o when they typed "political fringe".) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I retyped that several times looking for the right word, and I guess didn't find it. "is on the fringe, generally speaking" might have been a better way to put it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support closure The closure as written was a fair evaluation of where the discussion went. This appears, more than anything else, like an occasion to have the same arguments again. Having now read over the whole mess myself, I find Black Kite's comments above to be apropos and essentially accurate. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think we are going to need to start "hatting" portions of this discussion that are just continuing the RFC discussion and aren't focused on the closure itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure As other's have said, quite a bit of this has just returned to the original issue the RFC asked, instead of the actual closure in question. Besides that, it seems that the rest of the arguments hinge on forgetting that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Multiple concerns people bring up are covered in WP:BURO: With regards to whether we can consider an organisation WP:FRINGE if there is no explicit policy within FRINGE that talks about organisations, Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. With respect to whether it is appropriate to consider SEGM a FRINGE organisation while people are discussing policies/guidelines specifically dealing with FRINGEORGs, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. That there is now discussion about FRINGEORG does not preclude us from coming to a consensus now that SEGM is considered FRINGE, in fact it should help inform the creation of FRINGEORG hereafter. As for procedural concerns, A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. It also still meets WP:RFCNEUTRAL (the main concern regarding procedure), the question and heading are neutral, and RFCNEUTRAL explicitly states There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a Discussion subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Meh I see no violation of RfCNeutral per Loki below and no reason WP:Fringe prohibits calling an organization Fringe. The nominator's argument that certain theories—that youth should not get puberty blockers—not being Fringe precludes SEGM from being Fringe did not gain sway within the RfC. I do see an explanation of what it means for SEGM to be treated as a Fringe organization in the third paragraph of the close:

  What does this mean for SEGM here? SEGM’s publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC. This is supported by both WP:VERIFY and importantly WP:MEDRS. On the topic of peer reviewed papers funded by SEGM those papers can still be cited and should be handled on a case by case basis. As a personal aside as someone who studies meta-analysis and systematic reviews I did look over the BMJ article and it looked fine.

  This outlines the repercussions: A Fringe organization funding a peer-reviewed paper alone does not impact that paper's reliability (they should be handled "case-by-case"), but scientific information cannot be contradicted by claims cited to such an organization. @FactOrOpinion responded to me pointing this out that If editors want to be able to refer to fringe organizations, there needs to be a community discussion of what that means. This was a project-wide RfC, and I see nothing wrong with a consensus from this discussion forming precedent for treatment of Fringe organizations.
  However, FactOrOpinion also pointed out I'm not talking about an essay, which any editor can write and need not represent consensus. I agree with this contention. I don't see anything in this paragraph that evaluates the discussion's consensus regarding how to treat Fringe organizations or SEGM being Fringe. Without that, while this paragraph addresses the concerns, it is just an essay. While I strongly doubt that Vulpes didn't evaluate the consensus when writing this paragraph, closes of such large RfCs need to explain how the closer arrived at the conclusion that this was the consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  You should move your comment to the section below, since you participated in the RfC. I'll respond to the substance after you've moved it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't participate in this RfC. I did participate in another FTN RfC on the theory "gender dysphoria is caused by mental disorders" thanks to Yapperbot, but that didn't discuss SEGM. I also participated in the discussion on Vulpes's talk page but I don't think that means I'm participant. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  My mistake re: your participation. A side point: when you excerpt someone's comments from a discussion on another page, I encourage you to link to them, so people can read the excerpt in context if they wish, not that I expect most people to follow the link. (Those two excerpts came from my comment here.)

  Re: "This was a project-wide RfC, and I see nothing wrong with a consensus from this discussion forming precedent for treatment of Fringe organizations," there was no way that people project-wide would have known that there was any attempt to define "fringe organization." The statement that appears in RfC listings is limited to the text that appears in between the RfC template and the first signature, in this case "Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization?" The RfC was only labeled {{rfc|sci}}, so it wasn't advertised under policy or proposals. YFNS also didn't advertise it at WT:FRINGE. WhatamIdoing raised it there, but not in the sense of "this RfC will help establish the meaning of FRINGEORG." In the WT:F discussion, a few of us workshopped possible text, at least one person disagreed that such a concept was wise, a bunch of questions were raised about the implications of designating an organization as a FRINGEORG, and more than one person thought that it should be taken to a Village Pump for broader input if there was actually going to be any broader adoption of this concept and corresponding guideline text. The discussion there eventually petered out (as seems to be the case with many such discussions). So I don't agree that the discussion of FRINGEORG was "a project-wide RfC", or that this RfC should serve as a "precedent for treatment of Fringe organizations," though I'd have no problem if someone in a broader discussion wanted to use it as an example pro or con in a project-wide discussion of FRINGEORG. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. Tamzin said it best. I will note that this whole thing seems to be an unnecessary use of our time - both the original RfC and this close review. As Tamzin correctly says, no matter how this is closed there is virtually no change - they are already considered unreliable and many of their claims are correctly considered fringe. As Tamzin also correctly stated, the discussion's participants thought they were !voting on the question of whether SEGM is on the political fringe, not whether to endorse any specific determination about how SEGM should be treated on Wikipedia. Bluntly, that's a clear WP:NOTFORUM violation - and as Tamzin correctly states again, the same sort of discussion is happening here.
  Also as others have stated, WP:FRINGEORG is correctly a redlink. The place to try and apply an unwritten and novel guideline/policy is not an individual RfC about one organization - if people think there should be a "fringe organization" guideline, then they are free to draft one and put it to a site-wide RfC to get approval from the wider community. I doubt that would get wide approval, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an organization similar to the SPLC that is in the business of declaring organizations "fringe organizations" or not.
  The lack of a clear guideline on what is considered a fringe organization to follow doesn't just mean this was a bad RfC, in my view, but that it can't have a consensus found either way because of that lack of specific guidance. Having read through the !votes in the original RfC over the course of the past day or two, I notice that there's significant disagreement among !voters on both sides as to what they think qualifies as a "fringe organization". As pointed out, this led to the RfC question having to be altered to try to clarify it 4 days in. If there's no consensus on what a fringe organization even is, it's not proper to say "we don't know what it is but this is one of them". It would be akin to a judge allowing the prosecutor to come in and say "we don't know what we're charging you with but we know you've broken the law so you're staying in jail until we decide". And that just does not happen in the developed world, for good reason.
  I want to make it very clear that I am not faulting the closer for their attempt to find any consensus here. I think their close was generally well reasoned and was a very good attempt. However, the fact that there is no guideline on FRINGEORGs, and because of that there was significant disagreement over what a FRINGEORG should be and what it would mean, in my view was not taken into account by the closer enough. It does no good to close something saying "it's a FRINGEORG but there's no consensus on exactly what the guideline is for that or what it means for them", which would be how the close would have to be changed to satisfy me. Because it would do no good to alter the close to clarify those two things, I think the only valid result is a flat "no consensus" result, while imploring anyone who wants to create new guidelines to follow the proper procedures to do so, rather than trying to do that at the same time as applying that new guideline. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Adding to my comment - this was (mostly) not pointed out (by those supporting) at the original RfC that I saw, but I think it's very important. This RfC was started on 2 February - and Whatamidoing (not pinging since my comment isn't about them) correctly pointed out less than a day later on WT:FRINGE#FRINGEORG that this is something that would need a larger community consensus first. Within a week multiple people - including the person who started the RfC (7 Feb) - had commented in that discussion that was about whether FRINGEORG should be a policy (and pointing out the discussion on WT:FRINGE). As far as I can see none of the people supporting the RfC's conclusion even addressed the fact that there was clear contention over what a FRINGEORG designation would mean, or whether policy even allows such right now. The fact that multiple people supporting the RfC question knew about the discussion ongoing and how contentious it was and didn't even address it in the RfC - even after people (including FactOrOpinion on 11 Feb) pointed it out in their !votes... that alone makes this closure untenable.

  Not addressing a concern is not the same as saying "it's wrong and here's why". Whatamidoing made comments replying to people to try and explain their concerns, and nobody had a valid counterargument for why this should not be taken to the community to approve a specific policy or guideline first. Ultimately, this looks more and more like (possibly unintentional) forum shopping the more I look at it - not in the traditional sense of the word, but in the sense of a denial of service attack. Make people reply in two (or more, given ongoing discussion on various talkpages related to this subject) places at once so their arguments get mixed up and/or they get overwhelmed. Well, I guess people have succeeded in getting others to be overwhelmed so they just give up, if such a strong argument of "there's no policy or guideline for this and that should be determined first" can be basically thrown out just because editors were intentionally trying to ignore it during the discussion and because enough editors made drive-by comments supporting the RfC question.

  In other words, I still agree with Tamzin - but looking through this again, even two days after I made my initial assessment, I am convinced that there is some internal soul-searching needed from everyone involved in the discussion. That is only strengthened by the fact that many of the "support" comments in this RfC were short and didn't actually discuss concerns at all. To be very clear, I do not necessarily think everyone, or any specific person, are intentionally pushing a POV. But similar to unconscious biases, people can also have unconscious POVs that they are pushing, even if they don't see how they're doing that. And yes, many of these people remain perfectly civil while expressing their POV.

  That's why our consensus model is great - because people are expected to explain their viewpoints - which is supposed to prevent outcomes like this from happening. Specifically, the outcome of "legislating from the small noticeboard" - forming new policies/guidelines during a discussion over a specific entity that the PAG would apply to. People who virtually spit in the face of our consensus process because they simply agree with the POV are arguably more damaging than those who openly push a POV - because they are much harder to spot and correct. And ultimately, if a discussion like this can result in a virtual new PAG being created without any actual proposal for the PAG, and over the concerns about this being the right forum for such a PAG to be formed, then it's either a failure of our consensus model or a symptom of it being insufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support closure - Per Black Kite and Liz, I don't see how the 'not fringe' !votes were more compelling than the 'is fringe' !votes. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure. From what I can tell the "overturn" coments here boil down to "FRINGE isn't about organizations". Which seems to me to have been kind of the point of this RfC. They also boil down to, put frankly, the majority of the 'overturners' not liking the closure/not being satisfied by it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure - Looking at the arguments without thinking about the issue itself, I don’t see any flaw in the close. The preponderance and quality of the arguments suggest we should not make SEGM’s statements appear more notable or more widely accepted than they are. That is the purpose of a WP:FRINGE finding and where the RfC landed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure I went through most of the work of closing it myself, but life interrupted and I never got back to finish it. My closing result would have been substantially the same. I see nothing wrong with the close, procedurally or otherwise. I would find it quite abnormal for any re-closure to reach a significantly different result. The org has already been found unreliable at RSN, the vote was fairly overwhelming, all indications are that the supporters are reasonable responsible editors making reasonable arguments in good faith, and I found no argument among the opposition which would remotely warrant quashing the majority result. In fact disputing the fringe status of the org is an entirely untenable position, as the org positions itself as fringe. The org itself states that it is seeking to overturn consensus science, and that it is in opposition to the prevailing medical establishment. The org thinks it's right, the org thinks the medical establishment is wrong, but that is immaterial. The fact that the org states they are in opposition to the medical consensus and medical establishment is to acknowledge their fringe position. The only noteworthy quibble here is the objection that 'fringe' is usually applied to ideas rather than to orgs. That is nothing more than desperate wikilawyering. The primary result of the RFC is simply to avoid repeating those thousands of words every time the org is discussed. There is a community consensus that the org is fringe, and anyone tendentiously trying to argue otherwise would be disruptive. Simple, and necessary to enable editors to return to productive work. Alsee (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  In your closing how were you going to address the question, how do editors work with a FRINGEORG topic on Wikipedia? The RfC suggested everything SEGM says is fringe. Does that mean if they adopt a clearly mainstream position that position becomes fringe? Conversely, if in the future they get a peer reviewed article published, do we presume the journal is no longer credible? It's fine to say they are an unreliable source. It's fine to say they push fringe treatment X or idea Y. The problem is what do we do with a "FRINGEORG"? That isn't clear and the RfC asked people to declare something that doesn't exist within Wikipedia. How would your closing have addressed that issue? Springee (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Does that mean if they adopt a clearly mainstream position that position becomes fringe? if you mean any one individual position - Climate change denialists accept that the Earth is round. That hasn’t caused Wikipedia to have a problem continuing to treat climate change denialism as fringe, nor has it led to challenges from editors that the world might actually be flat. Much in the same way that Hitler’s alleged abstention from eating meat doesn’t discredit vegetarianism. We just don’t need to use them as sources to represent that position. If on the other hand, the question is “what if SEGM abandons all of its fringe positions and becomes recognised by experts in the field as reliable” - then it would make sense to have an RFC about that. But that’s a bridge to cross once it comes into view.OsFish (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes: a claim is not necessarily wrong just because SEGM said it, but we can't use SEGM to source that a claim is correct. (And SEGM's involvement often but not always renders sources of ambiguous provenance suspicious, same as if the National Institute of Homeopathy was involved in something.) Loki (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, prior consensus at RSN already said that SEGM is not a reliable source even if we independently can show something they advocate is true/MEDS aligned. OsFish's failed to see the issue with this RfC. After it was started the intent was clarified that 100% of what SEGM says is fringe and that is the purpose of the organization. If that is shown to be untrue of at least part of what they have published in the past or in the future then the answer to that specific question has to be "no". For this RFC question to be true, per the goal setup by the original question, the organization must exist only to spread fringe information and if ANYTHING they say isn't fringe then the logical answer to the question must be no. That is why this RfC was problematic and why there are many !overturn votes. Those editors can see the difference between "not reliable and spreads fringe ideas" and "100% of everything they say is fringe". All it takes is 1% "not fringe" to falsify the question. Springee (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  After it was started the intent was clarified that 100% of what SEGM says is fringe That isn't true. Sean has just claimed it was, but I'm afraid, it's simply false. The RFC uses the word "generally" not "exclusively". I haven't misunderstood anything. I have invited Sean to strike his false comment.OsFish (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  From the RfC, "..the clarifying statement that by "WP:FRINGE organization," I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints." If the organization exists only to promote fringe viewpoints, logically if they promote a non-fringe viewpoint the answer to the question must be "no". It seems that you either weren't aware of the question or didn't understand it since you are saying "generally". Note that "generally" doesn't appear in the RfC question. This was a bad RfC question in addition to trying to use FRINGE in a way it doesn't support. Springee (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, that doesn't follow. Imagine an organisation wants to promote fringe views. Its goal is to get those fringe views promoted, and this has been recognised by multiple appropriate expert sources. If, by espousing one single non-fringe view, it could enable its supporters to come to Wikipedia and successfully argue that no, actually, it's a reliable source and not at all fringe, that would be pretty damned silly, wouldn't it? In fact, it's a real world tactic by fringe groups when arguing for their non-fringeness in real life. Anti-vaxxers, for example, will often hijack ideas about vaccine safety in order to make themselves appear reasonable and non-fringe. The RFC says "generally", which is not the same as "exclusively". That should be the end of it.OsFish (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Based on your comments then you should oppose the RfC because the plain language is clear. The plain passage is exclusionary hence the word "only". You also provided a red herring, "successfully argue that no, actually, it's a reliable source". If the group expresses 6 ideas and 5 are fringe we treat those 5 as fringe regardless. We are would say, right or wrong the source isn't reliable for the 6th, non-fringe idea. This illustrates one of the problems with this RfC. What does the result mean? Springee (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The close of the RfC didn't say there was consensus for such exclusion. It said there was consensus for the view Loki supports. The RfC question (and thus whether that's diametrical to the consensus position) doesn't matter as long as the close summary correctly represents what the participants found. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  So the whole RfC is based on a the question? The group is considered fringe but how does that affect editors any more that the previous "not RS" + XYZ ideas are fringe, RfCs? Either this is a massive waste of time to give us what we already have or it extends beyond the previous consensus in which case it is critical to understand what being a FRINGEORG means. That would likely require a VP discussion. Springee (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The group is considered fringe but how does that affect editors any more

  The third paragraph of the close explained that. YFNS's first statement in the RfC already explained why the RfC was needed. You don't need a guideline for participants to find a consensus on what this means for SEGM. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  That is YFNS's opinion. It also shouldn't have been part of the RfC as it makes the question non-neutral. As for the 3rd paragraph, what does it tell us that wasn't true before this RfC? What does this mean for SEGM here? SEGM’s publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC. This is supported by both WP:VERIFY and importantly WP:MEDRS. On the topic of peer reviewed papers funded by SEGM those papers can still be cited and should be handled on a case by case basis. As a personal aside as someone who studies meta-analysis and systematic reviews I did look over the BMJ article and it looked fine. There was an issue raised about how the organization had some legitimacy because they funded studies that were published in peer reviewed journals. Funding a study does not give an organization any legitimacy, it only means that they have money. For example tobacco companies publish research and I don’t think many people (or reliable sources) would see them as legitimate health resources [4].

  SEGM isn't a RS so it can't be used to contradict RSs That's not new. Does it now mean something published by SEGM or a SEGM member in a RS is no longer reliable? That would violate the idea that the publisher (assuming it's not an OpEd) not the author is the source of reliability. So if a SEGM related author published a peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine, it would be the NEJoM, not SEGM's reputation that established reliability. Basically it does nothing, other than note the BJM article is an example where the reliability question is carried by the publisher, not SEGM. Thus it would be wrong to discount it due to SEGM association. Note that also applies to studies funded by SEGM. If they are peer reviewed and published in a legitimate journal they are still legitimate. In short, this RfC has changed nothing and people can still argue about including SEGM ideas or what is/isn't fringe. Springee (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The point of the RfC is to cement the consensus within the third paragraph. For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't WP:FRINGE and won't drop the stick. I'd like outside input here and a centralized FTN thread to point to. NPOVN has found it FRINGE[5] and RSN has found "It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here."[6] So yeah, it doesn't do anything new except also have consensus at FTN to point to. It would not have been necessary had it not been for people who argue over the third paragraph.

  It seemed to me that that was YFNS wanted with this RfC (whether she would've liked things beyond the intention of the RfC is a bit too tangential) was this third paragraph and something to cite from FTN as people have tried to sidestep (a procedure that does not exist) prior consensus by arguing SEGM's not Fringe and thus (parts of) the third paragraph doesn't apply. And you did have a handful of participants (the "vocal minority) argue SEGM's not Fringe instead of "FringeOrg doesn't exist".

  If you agree that all this Fringe designation does is the status quo (third paragraph), isn't that all the more reason to not overturn the close?
  (@Dr vulpes, do you agree that this paragraph is all SEGM's Fringe designation means, and nothing else?) Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  But people can still argue that specific positions SEGM takes aren't fringe and even the closer just said the BMJ paper looks good. So basically nothing had changed. Springee (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  What changes is they can't argue for including SEGM's own publications and position statements and claims that are just sourced to SEGM quotes anymore. I mean they still can just as including such was found generally unreliable by RSN, but they can't repeat that's because SEGM isn't Fringe as they did in the RfC instead of arguing that FringeOrg doesn't exist anymore. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  If SEGM isn't reliable then why include their claims? Conversely, if a claim SEGM is making isn't fringe (and per the RfC it appears some aren't) why use SEGM as a source? In an article about SEGM it still would make sense to present their views. Also, once again there is a logical gap in this RfC. If the RfC is true that "all" SEGM claims are fringe (and that is what the clarification says) then it shouldn't be hard to show the specific claim in question is fringe. However, if not all SEGM claims are fringe then the answer to the RfC should be "no" and inclusion of those non-fringe ideas should be acceptable where DUE. Again, what does this RfC actually show other than a lot of editors have opinions about the organization and that we have created wp:FRINGEORG without an agreement on what it means. This is becoming circular. Other than putting SEGM on double secret Wiki probation it appears that nothing has changed. Springee (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ask the vocal minority. people have tried to sidestep (a procedure that does not exist) prior consensus by arguing SEGM's not Fringe

  And I said it has nothing to show except said vocal minority can't use the "it's not Fringe" argument anymore. I don't see why you're repeating yourself or why you're !voting to overturn based on this. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  But they can still say "idea X that SEGM has" isn't fringe because the RfC doesn't conclude that any and all ideas from SEGM are fringe... unless you are now going to say the RfC ruled that any and all ideas from SEGM are fringe. In which case the RfC logically must be "no" if any idea promoted by SEGM isn't fringe. That's your catch 22. The FRINGEORG issue is only one of my reasons for objecting to the closing of the RfC. So long as we are talking about FIRNGEORG, is it ever possible to become unfringe? If some of the SEGM proposals become adopted while others aren't does that mean they weren't fringe after all? I mean this FRINGEORG thing really opens up so questions that likely weren't contemplated by the limited detail in the close. Springee (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see what your point is. Everything says some things that are true. This just adds Fringe treatment (which doesn't reach beyond the existing limitations except certain people can't argue against it in this way) to SEGM's own publications. I've said what this has cemented. (Also, I don't think that's a Catch 22 since the reasoning is not circular.) The full extent of the implications have already been restricted and set by the third paragraph, and the questions you pose all seem pretty obvious:

  is it ever possible to become unfringe?

  Of course? It is unFringe whenever the community is satisfied with it.

  If some of the SEGM proposals become adopted

  I feel like this was discussed during the RfC. That only counts if it becomes mainstream science. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Could you outline your argument? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  See Bon Courage's every below. They do a nice job summarizing the issue with this close effectively creating FRINGEORG. Springee (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Based on your comments then you should oppose the RfC because the plain language is clear. No. I have explained very clearly with examples that I think the exact opposite. The language of the RFC is clear. It says "generally promote FRINGE viewpoints", not "only promote FRINGE viewpoints". It stretches credulity that someone could think I meant the opposite when I pointed that out the first time.OsFish (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think the two of you are talking past each other a bit. The text "an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints" has two parts. The first part is about the organization itself (it "only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints") and the second part is about people who are members (they "generally promote FRINGE viewpoints"). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think you are correct. I will note that the question has an AND which means the answer would be 'no' of either the members don't "generally promote" or the organization doesn't "only exists to promote". This is actually a very restrictive set of criteria. Springee (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think it depends in part on how one interprets "only exists to promote fringe viewpoints" I see some interpreting this as: fringe views are the only views it promotes (i.e., 100% of the views it promotes are fringe). I see others interpreting it as: the reason it exists is to promote fringe theories, even if it also promotes some non-fringe views (i.e., if it didn't hold fringe views, the organization never would have come into existence). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  That falls on the person scoping the question. FRINGEORG has no definition so the pain who opened the RfC set the bounds of what defines a FRINGEORG. That circles back to what does a "yes" consensus even mean. Without that being clear what can this RfC do? For example, if this org publishes a paper in a peer reviewed med journal would it still be treated as unreliable? Would such a paper, if aligned with their historic views automatically overturn FRINGEORG? This appears to be a poorly considered question but it got a lot of support because SEGM people are bad people. Springee (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't see any supporters interpreting this as anything other than "the reason it exists...". Aaron Liu (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I admit I have no idea why we should simply ignore the word “generally” as if it isn’t there, in the precise clause it needs to be, making clear the RFC does not mean it exclusively promotes fringe beliefs. Can you explain it to me? It really seems like very strained wikikawyering.

  The thing is, this specific tactic was addressed to death in the RFC, when defenders of SEGM attempted to portray the organisation as having as its main goal the least fringe position it supports of the many that it does. The argument failed to persuade participants. OsFish (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't suggest that it be ignored. I put it in bold, which is the opposite of ignoring it. Again, there are two parts to YFNS's characterization: the first part makes a claim about the organization, and the second part makes a claim about the organization's members. You seem to be focusing on the second part (which says "generally"), and other people are focusing on the first part (which says "only"). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies for not being clearer - I didn’t mean you, FOO, were asking us to ignore the word “generally; I meant Springee, Sean and others who make this argument are. No one has said the members only exist to do this or that. (The members exist because they were born.) Organisations, on the other hand, are formed with purpose in mind. Moreover, these editors are specifically referring to the promotion of ideas, not why certain human beings exist. They specifically point to the least fringe positions held by SEGM, not the least fringey members. Rearranging the words in a sentence to say something different isn’t a valid approach on here, is it?OsFish (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since you are naming me, what are you actually talking about? You seem to be inventing things you think I've said to create some sort of strawman. Did I or Sean say the members of SEGM are ethereal and don't actually exist? As for ideas, I'm not sure I've pointed to any specific SEGM idea. If you are going to suggest I'm making a specific argument please outline it clearly and include quotes. Springee (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you think OsFish is saying you said SEGM members don't exist? If we're misrepresenting your argument, please outline yours. It seems to me you're saying the RfC asks if SEGM only promotes Fringe viewpoints when the RfC only asks if it(s members, same thing) generally does. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well this certainly suggests as much, "The members exist because they were born”. Perhaps it would be better to ask then to clarify their thoughts. Springee (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Did I or Sean say the members of SEGM are ethereal and don't actually exist?. I plainly didn’t claim you or he said anything of the sort. You are now being disruptive. I suggest you stop, and step back from this discussion. OsFish (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that you failed to make a clear point isn't disruptive. You are welcome to step back from this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am not enthusiastic to engage "what if Hitler says 2+2=4". Nonetheless I will explain some of my thinking when I nearly closed this myself. I had not finished deciding what to include in my closing statement, but one angle I was contemplating was that the RFC was not calling for any particular concrete action.

  I have not participated in, or even seen, the primary debates on SEGM. In theory, in an ideal world, the RSN consensus should have resolved pretty much any issue here. As a closer I saw a clear consensus that the existing RSN consensus was insufficient to address ongoing disruption. As a closer I saw a clear consensus that having a consensus on the fringe status of the org itself would be a useful. If I may speculate, I would strongly guess that some editors believe SEGM is right and have been tendentiously pressing inappropriate arguments, attempting to twist or evade the RSN outcome to the "right" result. Proving such arguments rise to the level of sanctionable-disruption is a painfully difficult burden. To the extent that an argument could be effectively countered by simply saying "There is a consensus that SEGM is fringe", I found there was a clear consensus that we can and should end that argument in that simple manner. In most cases being able to cite the consensus itself is an effective message, with sanctions being a latent path making the message effective. If anyone were to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT themselves into tendentious argument that SEGM isn't fringe, it would be comparatively easy to sanction them for warring against formal consensus. Alsee (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  In and of itself, seeking to overturn consensus doesn't distinguish between fringe vs. minority views. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The RFC question asserted that EVERY position held by SEGM is fringe. However, there was also consensus on the same board that at least one of SEGM’s official positions is not fringe. This raises a critical issue: how can we justify the claim that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views if we also acknowledge that not all of their views are fringe? Supporters of the original closure have not adequately addressed this inconsistency. There is a clear logical contradiction in asserting that SEGM promotes only fringe positions while also conceding that at least some of its positions fall within the international mainstream. That is in addition to the procedural issue that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "fringe organization" under Wikipedia policy.

  Additionally, the claim that “the organization itself states that it is seeking to overturn consensus science and is in opposition to the prevailing medical establishment” is inaccurate. The international consensus on this issue has already significantly shifted. As mentioned by others, the World Health Organization (WHO) has acknowledged that the evidence supporting the health benefits of gender-affirming care for minors is limited. As a global authority, the WHO typically reflects the international medical consensus, and its position is diverging from that of most U.S.-based medical organizations. The U.S. medical establishment no longer represents the global consensus, which is moving toward a more cautious approach to the medical treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. It has been widely argued that the United States has become a global outlier on this issue. [71] SEGM advocates for bringing U.S. practices in line with this more cautious international trend, a position that has drawn criticism from some, though not all, within the U.S. medical community, as well as from activists like the SPLC. It is also worth noting that SEGM receives little to no criticism from medical professionals outside the United States. This reflects a broader issue on Wikipedia: the tendency to frame medical topics primarily through a U.S.-centric perspective. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The RFC question asserted that EVERY position held by SEGM is fringe. This is simply false. May I invite you to strike the comment? OsFish (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  No thanks, my position remains. The RFC question was precisely this: "an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints". If the organization exists only to promote fringe viewpoints, then it means that every viewpoint it promotes is fringe. I see no other reasonable interpretation of the question.

  If even one viewpoint were not fringe, the organization wouldn't be ONLY promoting fringe viewpoints. Therefore, the interpretation that all of its promoted views are fringe is the only valid one based on the wording. Any other reading would contradict the exclusivity implied by "only". Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, it means that promoting nonsense is the point of the organization (always, even when it's not actively engaged in promoting nonsense), and that generally it does in fact promote nonsense. There are two clauses and you're misrepresenting the first clause as the second one. Loki (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  This whole "one drop" argument seems to have been invented whole-cloth to deny that any organization can have a generally fringe goal. It would be like if someone said the Flat Earth Society didn't have generally fringe goals because they decided to endorse the AuthaGraph map projection. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints. You're leaving out an important word there in your analysis: "exists". The orginazation only exists to promote fringe viewpoints. If it weren't for the fringe viewpoints, it wouldn't exist. The fact it may or may not promote some viewpoints that are not fringe doesn't change that fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Put it better than I could have, I was thinking something along the lines of "just because a clock is right twice a day doesn't mean it's not broken". Weirdguyz (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is not the correct interpretation of the question. The crux of this issue is in its direct interpretation, not in the slight or buried semantics. If we are to create a precedent for a fringe organisation, it needs to be based on very clear grounds. If the organization "only exists to promote fringe views", then it promotes nothing but fringe views, as that is the sole purpose of its existence, its raison d'être. The question does not imply that the organization exists to promote both fringe and non-fringe views, or mostly fringe views. It claims that the organization exists only to promote fringe views and nothing else. And that claim is false. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in having a FRINGEORG section in WP:FRINGE, I encourage you to join the discussion of that at WT:Fringe theories § FRINGEORG. That discussion petered out a couple of months ago, but seems worth reviving in light of the RfC's close and the discussion here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a sign the community has got way out over its skis on this. First designate an "organisation" as WP:FRINGE, and then try to retrofit the WP:PAGs to explain what a WP:FRINGEORG is!? Sheesh, a lot of editors who really should know better need to give their heads a wobble over this. Wikipedia is for summarising published material that properly reflects real world knowledge; it's not for making broad assessments about entities in the wider world as some kind of proxy for a battle of POVs. There's a whole load of WP:NOT in play around this, in my view. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Retrofit? You mean amend to better reflect current practices?

it's not for making broad assessments about entities in the wider world

What is WP:RSP than broad assessments? We're fine deprecating news organisations, journals, even countries as sources, but SEGM is special and needs protection for some reason. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

but SEGM is special and needs protection for some reason ← this seems to be exactly the sort of bad faith silliness that is bedevilling this topic. If you want to deprecate a source (FWIW) there are well established mechanisms to get stuff into RSP. RSP is not part of the WP:PAGs and is mainly a kind of lies to children thing for newbie/clueless editors in any case. We have WP:PAGs for dealing with WP:FRINGE content, we have WP:PAGs for dealing with fringe sources. We don't have WP:PAGs for taking a stance beyond that about organisations because however much editors might agree than an organisation (say ILADS, SEGM or whatever) is a bunch of loony grifters, frauds and charlatans, it simply isn't Wikipedia's job to be taking a stance on that as it is nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia; it's about prosecuting an off-wiki dispute on-wiki, and it's sucking up a lot of time and making otherwise-sensible editors write shit like "for some reason" in their first interaction because they're so deep into the WP:BATTLE. Bon courage (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Declaring an org fringe is basically saying "hey, be careful when using anything coming out of it." Even FRINGE opinions and generally unreliable sources can be acceptable and DUE depending on context.

Furthermore, the RfC was specific in which topic area the designation applies: "an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare" I understood that to mean that in the topic area of trans healthcare SEGM is an unreliable source.

Ironic that you accuse me of "bad faith silliness" when those who want the RfC invalidated are WikiLawyering so hard they could get Lee Harvey Oswald exonerated. Not to mention the whole "generally? what does that mean?" or "omg! you want to declare a whole org fringe? AAAAAAA Wikipedia is about to explode!!" Meanwhile policies such as WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA exist, with wording such as Concerns have been repeatedly raised by editors regarding the quality of reporting by Nigerian news organisations, even that by historically reputable newspapers.

So declaring every newsorg in a whole country as unreliable is fine, but declaring an organisation unreliable is impossible and an affront to what Wikipedia stands for? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There are already mechanisms for evaluating sources. This is an attempt to go beyond that and have Wikipedia take a stance on aspects of an organisation other than its text production; hence the subsequent need to try and invent WP:PAGs to cope with this. If what you say is correct and all that is meant is "hey, be careful when using anything coming out of it" then that is already addressed at the most basic level by the WP:PAGs, such as WP:RS saying we need to base articles on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Bon courage (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an attempt to go beyond that and have Wikipedia take a stance on aspects of an organisation other than its text production

You mean like taking a stance on a theory, which is what FRINGE is about. How is a theory not an aspect of an organisation? If an organisation exists to prove magic is real, isn't it FRINGE? Do we have to wait until those theories are put down on paper?

hence the subsequent need to try and invent WP:PAGs to cope with this.

Invent PAGs? As opposed to waiting until they are faxed down from Heaven? How do you think the rest of the PAGs appeared?

we need to base articles on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

Fringe theories do appear in scientific journals that are considered RS, which is why the WP:FRINGE guideline was invented. Or was it discovered? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like trying to "win" rather than help, but if an organisation's publications have a poor reputation they aren't RS. That doesn't require any new WP:PAG. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

if an organisation's publications have a poor reputation they aren't RS.

But that's the thing, a "publication" may not be the only thing the org engages in, there's conferences, bulletins, newsletters, interviews, guest contributors and so on. Instead of litigating every single source coming from an org separately, it is easier to just say the whole org is fringe and that anything coming from them needs to be scrutinised. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Published material is the only material Wikipedia can use. We say the publications from many, many origins are not WP:RS without having to invent new WP:PAGs about "organisations" beyond their publications. It could be asked at WP:RSN whether the publications of any group are RS. There was no need to invent such a policy to deal with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for example.[72] Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Bon courage, FWIW, my understanding is that one motivation behind the RfC has to do with reducing repetitive talk page discussion (e.g., is SEGM notable for its promotion of fringe views, or is its notability linked to both fringe and non-fringe views? do we have to spell out every single fringe view it promotes?). This has some implications for the article about SEGM (e.g., for assessing whether a source needs to be rejected because it's inside the fringe ecosystem; or if it also holds a mainstream or minority view, but that view isn't key to what it promotes, can we conclude that discussion of that view isn't DUE, or do we have to have a separate discussion of that?), but it's not solely about the SEGM article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural Overturn, suggest panel closure This closure is lacking in several areas. I concur with SFR's comment about procedural integrity. Likewise, many people have brought up the fact that we don't have a WP:FRINGEORG definition. This RFC is malformed from the beginning. The claim that it's an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints is demonstrably false. Lastly, much of this seems to rest on the SPLC's characterization of the organization...that should be highly suspect. Buffs (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to bad RfC; refer to Arbcom. We're now in a position where the battle on transgender issues is threatening to backwash into the WP:PAGs themselves. Wikipedia should WP:NOT be making sweeping pronouncements on real-world entities, though of course it is interested in the narrower question of organisations as publishers of content that may be used to build an encyclopedia. This RfC, and the corresponding WPATH/"gold standard" one[73] overwhelmed WP:FTN for weeks and the fall-out now seems to be a sneaky driver for proposed policy changes. While the chief protagonists have been by-and-large civil, an Arbcom case to examine their conduct in relation to Wikipedia's goals could help damp down the spreading fire. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Are you saying that an RfC cannot find that a specific organization can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC. This is supported by both WP:VERIFY and importantly WP:MEDRS. On the topic of peer reviewed papers funded by SEGM those papers can still be cited and should be handled on a case by case basis. without going through the PaG process? Which part of WP:Not are you citing? Are you aware of WP:RSN's constant pronouncements of real-life entities' reliability? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  The category error in your question show the issue nicely: on Wikipedia, how can "a specific organization ... be used to contradict well sourced scientific information"? An organisation's sources can, but not the organisation itself. Obviously I'm aware of RSN, and it's for discussing sources (why it is so named). That this RfC did not get asked at RSN, and that it aims to pronounce about an organisation itself and not (or not just) the sources it publishes, is the nub of the issue, and why there is now a push to invent new PAGs to support the concept of a fringe "organisation" (we already have a need for WP:FRIND sourcing). The part of WP:NOT that applies if WP:BATTLE: Wikipedia is not the place for taking real-world positions and however worthy of criticism of SEGM – or any of a vast number of dubious organisations – may be, by veering Wikipedia into a community that issues judgements on organisations we are straying from the job of building an encyclopedia. An RfC asking Wikipedia to take a position on an organisation itself is out-of-process, and it predictably created a massive timesink and is now backwashing into requested changes to the PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  It creates a time sink because of the behaviour of editors supporting fringe positions. It’s not like this is a new issue for Wikipedia. The RFC’s purpose was openly to reduce the time sinkage as has been done in other areas of the encyclopedia. OsFish (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  You were a participant. Wikipedia has established mechanisms for dealing with fringe sources. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  And sometimes, those mechanisms, such as with Race and Intelligence, or Climate Change, are more than the normal processes in order to solve a protracted problem of fringe editing. OsFish (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  You were a participant, and should not be commenting here. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  OsFish put their vote and reasoning in the appropriate participants section. I am not aware of any restriction of participants discussing in the non-participants section, otherwise many several editors on both sides would be in trouble. Weirdguyz (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC) amended 15:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you.OsFish (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the organization's own publications is what I'm pretty sure that means.

  That this RfC did not get asked at RSN

  It did. That's mentioned in YFNS's !vote. According to many "yes" !voters that didn't stop a vocal minority from challenging that this year using Fringe, and it would be great if @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (or maybe @LokiTheLiar?) could elaborate on that but her availability currently seems taken up by real-life hassles and an AE thread.

  Wikipedia is not the place for taking real-world positions

  Indeed; it is for evaluating the position of reliable sources, and in this case the medical community. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your last statement is exactly the crux of the biggest problem with this "FRINGEORG" RfC. FRINGE is about positions, not about organizations or people. While sure, there are some people who have historically only ever peddled theories/"facts" (that aren't facts at all) that meet the fringe theory requirements, that does not stop them from turning around tomorrow and publishing something that is 100% factual and based on very strong evidence.

  Wikipedia isn't here to judge an individual, group of people, organization, etc unless doing so is clearly in line with our encyclopedic goal. For example, judging a source as reliable or not, and keeping a list is fine, because the goal of that list is to comply with our reliable sources PAGs. Those PAGs are about the source, not an individual publication of the source.

  As much as people are trying (now re-opening/continuing a discussion for what, the third time after it petered out) to make WP:FRINGEORG a blue link, there is zero encyclopedic benefit from declaring a person or group to be "fringe". Individual ideas, yes - that's why we have WP:FRINGE, and if someone tried to make a WP:FRINGELIST or similar, I'd support it if it was along the lines of RSP and just listing the ideas, theories, or concepts that have been determined to be fringe by the community.

  But ultimately, the close of this RfC did not adequately take into account the people who commented that this sort of RfC was not the place to start a FRINGEORG policy/guideline, and the strength of that argument based on our longstanding consensus procedures. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to repeat myself again on why the RfC is needed despite technically not doing anything new.

  FRINGE is about positions, not about organizations or people.

  All the RfC asked was whether SEGM is an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints. I again don't see why we must have a PaG to make a consensus RSN-esque judgement on how existing PaGs apply to a source's publications in general.
  And yes, we are judging the source here. As the third paragraph of the close statement mentions, just like before, it's only SEGM's own publications that are affected.

  Wikipedia isn't here to judge an individual, group of people, organization, etc unless doing so is clearly in line with our encyclopedic goal.

  Indeed, but I feel like there's something you're confused about: That means Wikipedia is not to make such judgements itself, not that we can't summarize the judgements from reliable sources. This is explained in WP:RightGreatWrongs, which you linked: Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: [...] * Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, [...] ...you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. And that's what most participants did. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Because there is no PAG about a source as a whole being "fringe" or not. RSN is based on WP:RS - which has specific guidance based on the organization as a whole and their overall reputation. WP:FRINGE is about the concept, idea, theory, etc - not based on who published it - and as has been pointed out, FRINGEORG does not exist. While FRINGE is in line with our encyclopedic goals, we are not a judge of organizations except when it is to further a PAG, as it is for RSN/RSP which collect consensus about the reliability of sources.

  It's not just about what we do in our articles - it's about what we do at all. If it's not to specifically further our encyclopedic goal, then any such discussion is a NOTFORUM violation. Since there is no PAG on what we would do with a purported FRINGEORG, there is zero encyclopedic value to saying "well, this nonexistent policy/guideline applies to this organization"/"this is a FRINGEORG".

  My argument is not about article content - it's about the administrative side. This "designation" as a FRINGEORG means nothing if there is no PAG that would be applied differently to them - which there isn't, because FRINGEORG doesn't exist. And since it means nothing, it's not an appropriate designation to be making, since it doesn't change anything. Editors are free to propose a FRINGEORG policy/guideline for community approval. But until that, such a label is a clear NOTFORUM violation since it does nothing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Aaron, the actual RfC question was: "Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization?", posted on February 2. YFNS did not add "...the clarifying statement that by 'WP:FRINGE organization,' I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints" until four days later, on February 6. ~60% of the respondents added their !votes before YFNS added that clarification. We don't know how they were interpreting "fringe organization." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I just did a !strawcount discounting the 7 support and 1 oppose !votes that pretty much had no rationale: There were 19 who cast their support and 5 who opposed before the clarification. Out of those, 10 supports and 2 opposes participated after the clarification, while 4 other supports managed to basically say the same thing as the clarification before it was issued. In the next month, there were five new "fringe" !votes and 3 new "not fringe" !votes. After that, there were two more on both sides. So discarding the 5 supports and 3 opposes that didn't interact after the clarification, you still have 21 !votes in favor and 7 !votes against, and I didn't weight arguments/consensus yet beyond discarding those that did not provide one or just said things like "it's obvious". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  You just discounted a bunch of !votes that were relevant to my point: we don't know how those editors interpreted the question. I wasn't talking about the ratio of !votes before and after. I was pointing out what the actual RfC question was. The clarification wouldn't even have shown up at WP:RFC/A in terms of editors deciding whether the question interested them enough to participate (though I have no idea what percentage of editors learn of RfCs there). FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I get your point, but mine is that the close would come to the same conclusion only seeing participants who did read the clarification. I'm fairly sure RfC participants would read the two opening lines. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• support closure I disagree with the notion that this was a particularly complex topic that needed panel closure. We can make discussions as complex and messy as we want them to be but that doesn't make the actual topic more complex. I also don't think the closure was unreasonable in any way. The organisations argument in particular does not strike me as relevant. Publications can be called fringe and I am confident that they are called fringe frequently and with zero hesitation by every single participant in this discussion. A publication is a type of organisation that regularly publishes reports or other written documents, like (news)papers or magazines or compilations of academic papers. When we consider a publication unreliable, what that means is that we don't trust the things they, as an organisation, publish. I fail to see how that cannot apply here. PS: Can we stop dragging every major closure on a GENSEX RFC we don't like* to AN for revieuw? I don't think it's a particularly productive use of anyone's time. _{*= in other words: every single one}--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  A publication is a type of organisation ← this literally nonsensical assertion nicely illustrates the problem area this gets us into. Bon courage (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  How is it nonsensical? It's clear what the sentence refers to. See e.g. the RSP entries for WP:ALMANAR: As a publication of Hezbolla, WP:BLOOMBERG: Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable, WP:CHINADAILY: China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party., WP:EPOCHTIMES: Most editors [...] consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact.. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Err, it is nonsensical because of what "type of" means in English. Bon courage (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I don't quite get what you mean. Publications are indeed organizations and a subset of organizations, therefore they are a type of organization to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is nonsense, sorry. Bon courage (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think you're conflating organizations that publish things and publications. Publications aren't organizations. The NYT Company is an organization, and The NYT is a publication. The SPLC is an organization, and their reports are among their publications. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:COUNTERPUNCH: the publication has an editorial board Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Shocking that a WP information page might have somewhat infelicitous wording, this has never happened before. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  (I mean like obviously someone can use the phrase "the New York Times" to mean either the publisher or the publication, but it's also obviously the case that the publisher and the publication are not literally the same thing, and trying to win a pedantry fight about that is so stupid.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well it is obviously the publisher here. I thought there would be something more from Bon Courage's argument like some insight on how many arguments brought forth so far don't apply to "illustrate the problem area this gets us into". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  You said that you didn't understand what Bon courage meant, and I was trying to explain. People may think of some publications as organizations (perhaps especially when the two share a name), but I think it's pretty easy to come up with publications that no one would ever call an organization (e.g., Romeo and Juliet, a tweet, a Mozart symphony, a YouTube video of a dog skateboarding, an episode of American Idol, a specific CounterPunch article). But I will step out of this exchange. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Good grief. When it's necessary to explain at the level of basic word meaning and logic we're really into WP:CIR territory, but the point is: if editors are saying that "publisher" and "organisation" sorta kinda really mean the same thing, then there is no need to having a special new way of designating an organisation as "fringe" because Wikipedia already has well-established mechanisms for dealing with unreliable publishers (treating then as a "source"). Since SEGM has already been established, by consensus, to be an unreliable source (for good reasons) the push to go further and label the organisation itself, its staff and its motivations as fringe really looks like editors trying to jockey Wikipedia into being an entity with an on-the-record stance on SEGM beyond anything required for building an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well yeah, that would be why I think the organisation argument doesn't bear any weight. To me this is just yet another "Is [clearly unreliable organisation] clearly unreliabe" RFC and frankly I am not sure why so many words are being wasted on something so obvious. Keep the current close and be done with it.

  Anyway, I would appreciate it if you don't call my writing "clearly nonsensical" when you appear to have simply not understood what I was actually saying. One is a failure of communication, the other is a value judgement. Same goes for accusing people of violating WP:CIR. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  But SEGM was already established as an unreliable source at RSN, as the RfC said. So this must be something else super-added to that. What that "something else" is, nobody seems sure; hence the scramble to try and devise some new WP:PAG text. Bon courage (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is what YFNS told me when I asked her to clarify the purpose of the RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I see the difference being alleged as a distinction without a difference, so I am not particularly swayed by the idea that something "else" is being done here. To me, this just looks like the bazillionth RFC that is mostly here to kick in an open door, or rather, board up an already closed one. It's not like we have never wasted millions of editor hours repeating the same discussion about an invariably unreliable source over and over and over before. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am not particularly swayed by the idea that something "else" is being done here ← are you aware there is discussion at WT:FTN proposing this means that the existence of any single FRINGEORG-affiliated author in the author list of an otherwise top-level peer-reviewed MEDRS (e.g. a review article in The BMJ) would disqualify that source? Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is a falsehood. It was made abundantly clear to you that this is NOT the proposal. Why have you posted this comment? OsFish (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support close. To editors saying "but FRINGEORG is not in the PAGs": Policies are a reflection of best practices and can be changed and amended at any time. WP:P&G: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, and Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. There is a discussion underway on how to amend policy to reflect this RfC. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  That discussion may well end up deciding that nothing should be added to the policy. Yes, "The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors," but I don't think we have any idea whether most editors behave in ways that suggest they think in terms of "fringe organizations," much less how they conceive of them if they do think of them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  We have an idea that most editors who participated in the RfC think that designating an organisation as fringe is viable/possible. As I pointed out in another comment editors think a whole country can be designated as unreliable, see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. I don't see how designating an organisation as fringe is the end of the world. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC was never advertised as affecting a guideline, and there's no evidence that the editors who did participate thought it would impact the guideline, much less was there an effort on FTN to figure out text for the guideline. More than one person who did participate in discussing potential guideline text thought that it shouldn't be changed without the issue being raised at VPP. WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA doesn't designate a whole country as unreliable, it says something much more limited than that. No one said anything about the end of the world. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is a very good point. Had people known that this may have resulted in a new PAG, they may very well have opined differently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn The close contains some descriptive elements regarding SEGM that are probably correct (at least in the sense that it summarizes what participants stated). There was consensus that SEGM mainly promotes, and indeed primarily seems to exist to promote, views that are regarded as fringe by mainstream science. This is more or less in accordance with the revised OP (albeit several days after commenting started). However, I'm not seeing any clear consensus for the parts of the close that go on to say what this means in terms how SEGM related content should be treated. The majority of comments either didn't go beyond saying whether they considered it fringe or not, and I don't see any kind of agreement as to how this should be implemented in those that discuss the implications. This lack of consensus re whether FRINGEORG should exist or what it should mean if it does is reflected in the related equally fraught discussion at WP:FT which involves many of the same participants. It is true that PAG should be updated to reflect editing practice, but only where there's established consensus. The closer has made a good faith attempt to try establish what it means practical terms if an organization is designated as WP:FRINGE, but this shouldn't have done within an RfC that didn't ask that question unless there's truly overwhelming and explicit support for a particular approach. Scribolt (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, I would also like to see @Dr vulpes explain how he arrived at consensus for the third paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse close there is no way the closer could have chosen not to classify the group's beliefs as fringe other than by a super!vote, and the arguments against the fringe classification are nowhere near pervasive enough for a super!vote. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  A key factor that I believe may have influenced the way many users voted in the RFC is that the article about SEGM was deliberately created as an WP:ATTACK page. While reviewing evidence at AE, I found that the Wikipedia article on SEGM was originally created by the RFC nominator with the explicit intent of portraying the group in a negative light and boosting negative coverage of them in Google search results [74]. Since its creation, the article has undergone little substantive change and continues to reflect almost exclusively critical perspectives, often drawn from advocacy organizations such as the SPLC, which is cited 21 times. In contrast, authoritative sources such as The New York Times, Associated Press, The Economist, BMJ, Medscape, Undark, and others frequently seek SEGM’s input on topics related to medical transition for minors and do not describe the organization as fringe or in any other negative terms. Moreover, the article fails to accurately represent SEGM’s key official positions. For example, one of their core views is that there is limited evidence for the benefits of gender affirming care for minors and that hormonal treatments should be limited to clinical trials. This position is not represented at all in the article. Over the years, many users have raised concerns on the article’s talk page about its overwhelmingly negative portrayal, but these concerns have been consistently dismissed. There are four extensive archived discussion threads in which users questioned the article’s imbalance, yet these did not lead to any substantive improvement. Additionally, a notice has been placed on the article’s talk page that discourages further discussion of its negative tone: Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine/FAQ. It appears that a number of RFC votes were based on a cursory reading of the article, which presents exclusively negative coverage, rather than on independent research into the subject. When the article lacks balance and fails to accurately represent SEGM’s views, many uninvolved users are left without the necessary context to make an informed evaluation. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I was going to write a reply to this as a first-time reader of that article's talk page, but I feel like this would veer us off-topic into a tangent far more suited for the NeutralPointOfViewNoticeboard instead of discussing the close. As far as this applies to the close, I doubt that participants did not read the extremely detailed oppose !votes. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Looking at when Legobot tagged the RfC ID on 2 February and when Legobot removed the RfC tag on 2 March, the RfC statement does comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL throughout the duration of the RfC's listing. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Creating an RfC (WP:RFCST), the RfC statement is the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first signature (or timestamp if unsigned). In this RfC, the RfC statement is "Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization?", which is "neutrally worded and brief" as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RfC starter's comment above the RfC subheading is not part of the RfC statement, and any editor was free to post a reply directly underneath that comment at any time with the understanding that it would not be evaluated as part of the consensus in the RfC unless the editor linked to it or referenced it within the RfC subsection.
  The WP:FRINGE guideline already addresses the result of this RfC (and RfCs that ask similar questions as this one) in a couple of ways. WP:FRINGE § Parity of sources (WP:PARITY) enables editors to use reliable sources of similar or better quality for criticism of claims attributed to fringe organizations; for example, a marginally reliable source would be able to be used to contest a claim that is attributed to SEGM. Also, WP:FRINGE § Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE) disqualifies fringe organizations from consideration when evaluating the notability of a fringe theory; content directly published by SEGM would not count toward the general notability guideline for any fringe theory that it promotes. — Newslinger talk 23:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Participants (SEGM)

• Support Close SEGM is described by the SPLC as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group [75] and the SPLC points out how SEGM's "research" is heavily used by other extremist groups to marginalize trans people. This is far beyond simply the question of whether a medicine designed to slow puberty should be used only by cis children. In the case of any other hate group, targeting any other subaltern group, there would be no doubt that their publications would be deprecated. We wouldn't use the KKK to talk about race relations in the United States. We should be treating this hate group no differently than we would the KKK or any other SPLC-designated hate group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your opening can be seen as misleading. The linked article is about the group "Focus on the Family", not SEGM. Deep in the article the wirer makes the unsupported claim that SEGM is a hate group yet offers no evidence and the SPLC didn't appear to have them designated as such. Thus your comparison to the KKK is unsupported. This also illustrates one of the issue with how editors use the SPLC. An unsupported claim, deep in an article about a different group, taken without context is used as evidence that a group is a 'hate group". Note that one of the consistent concerns with the SPLC raise by people off Wikipedia is they are motivated as much by politics rather than facts. This certainly looks like such a case. You have closed your argument by stating they are a SPLC designated hate group. Where is your evidence? Springee (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  The article said what itcsaid about SEGM - that it associates SEGM with Focus on the Family is kind of my point here. This is a hate group. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Do you realize that's bad logic? Ford built the car that Bonnie and Clyde liked. Is Ford responsible for robbing banks? You are exercising the guilt by association logical fallacy. Springee (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  See below. Even if we accept the premise that the SPLC calling SEGM a hate group explicitly somehow doesn't count if it's in an article about Focus on the Family, there's a whole article describing SEGM as a pseudoscientific anti-LGBTQ+ group that exhaustively details it as a key node in a network of anti-queer disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Is SPLC now a reputable source for medical information? Either way, that's shifting the goal post. Again, this is why the SPLC is a questionable source. Springee (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  They're a reputable source for hate groups. And this is a hate group. Per the SPLC. You are the one moving goal posts to try and make the fact that we are discussing a hate group into some sort of non-issue. I've said my bit. We are done. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Then where is the page designating them as such and explaining why? You (and your SPLC source) have used a guilt by association claim. What you have done is illustrate why the SPLC is a bad source for politically charged topics like this. Springee (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  The first page that I shared literally calls SEGM an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group. That is a direct quote. The second page I shared extensively documents that this hate group operates using pseudoscientific attacks on that community. Are you even reading these articles or are you just saying "nah" without doing so? Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  This really isn't the place for this argument. This discussion is whether the reading of consensus in that discussion was correct, not if you agree with arguments made or to continue making those arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is circular. By this reasoning, SPLC are an RS on absolutely any subject they write about. Void if removed (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  But here's another article from the SPLC that nails SEGM to the wall [76] Notably, American College of Pediatricians was a key node in an earlier iteration of the anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience network, having initiated its anti-LGBTQ+ activism from its founding in 2002. The other organizations in the figure were founded between 2016 and 2022.
  Examining the network over time demonstrates how SEGM became a prominent hub of information. and The sample of authors also includes several members of and advisers to the anti-LGBTQ+ group American College of Pediatricians (a group whose founding predates all other groups in this author network). Namely, Andre Van Mol, Miriam Grossman, Paul McHugh, Paul Hruz and Michael Laidlaw are or have been members of the group. Laidlaw was also a member of the working group since its inception in 2018 and served as medical consultant to Kelsey Coalition after it was founded and promoted by Heritage Foundation in 2019.[29] J. Michael Bailey and Lisa Littman also helped develop web content for the Kelsey Coalition in 2019, according to leaked emails. and By 2020, the old- and new-guard authors cited in the most recent legal challenges to LGBTQ+ health care institutionalized their research agendas and connections in several organizations. SEGM, Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics (ReIME), and the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR), for example, promote the anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience research agenda, as examples. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  I presume these are arguments raised in the original RfC. Having read over that RfC there were solid arguments on both sides. The SPLC's biased opinion just muddies the water with guilt by association claims rather than factual evidence. Springee (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  In what way is the SPLC biased here? Is there a conflict of interest? OsFish (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that we should equate "hate group" and "fringe organization." For example, the SPLC also characterizes the American College of Pediatricians as a hate group, but some of its views are quite mainstream, such as being anti-abortion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's not what Fringe means in the Wikipedia context. Lots of people can believe a Fringe belief and it's still fringe. A state can build policy on a fringe belief and it's still fringe. Fringe designations have to do with the reception of those ideas by the relevant academies. The academic consensus among social scientists, legal scholars, historians and doctors, all of whom have relevant academic experience is that abortion bans are harmful. Therefore an anti-abortion stance that suggests abortion bans are beneficial is fringe even if it is popular. Likewise ROGD, conversion therapy and denying trans people healthcare are things well recognized by social scientists, legal scholars, historians and doctors as being, you know, bad for the health outcomes of trans people and for society. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm aware of what WP:FRINGE means. I'm also aware that there is no definition for "fringe organization" as contrasted with "fringe theory." And you didn't address my main point: I don't think that we should equate "hate group" and "fringe organization."

  (As for anti-abortion views, I don't think it makes sense to get into a real discussion of it here. I overgeneralized re: "mainstream," as it need not have the same status in the various relevant fields. I'm not aware of any field in which it's fringe rather than minority, and in ethics, my sense is that both pro-choice and anti-abortion stances are mainstream. If you want to discuss it further, we can do that on my talk page.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Anti abortion might not be fringe as a philosophical or ethical position but it's definitely fringe as a medical position. I don't know about the ACP in particular but most medical aligned organisations with anti abortion positions are known for spreading fringe claims about abortions because there's simply no medical reason to be anti abortion. In theory they could oppose it solely for medical-ethics or philosophical reasons but most seem to want to convince people there are medical reasons to oppose abortions when there aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  The point is partly that a given view might be fringe in one relevant field and not fringe in another relevant field. WP:FRINGE (e.g., "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") seems to assume that there is a single relevant field. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  ACP is a medical organisation. Their positions on medical issues are what matter, and if these are fringe this is strong evidence that they are fringe. And it wasn't hard to confirm they are indeed fringe on abortion. E.g. this definitely makes a number of fringe medical claims about abortions [77]. Google also suggests they once published a press release that said "Abortion treats no disease and carries a significant risk of harm to women and their future children." and "American College of Pediatricians Alerts Women to Abortion Breast Cancer Link During Breast Cancer Awareness Month," both are which are so clearly fringe medical positions I didn't even need to find the archive links to tell [78] [79]. Note that it's quite likely these disappeared not because of ACP realised how terrible their press release was but simply some sort of re-organisation. So if you wanted to make a point about some hate groups having main stream positions you chose a terrible terrible example. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Medical ethics are a medical issue. My main point is twofold: some groups that promote fringe views also promote non-fringe views (whether majority or minority), and a single view might be assessed differently (majority/minority/fringe) depending on the field of study. For example, the first page you linked to starts off with "human life begins at fertilization." There is no agreement among biologists about when human life begins (here's a great discussion of the different views). ACP's view is among the views held, and is not considered fringe. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Climate change denialists typically start from the premise that the world is round and has an atmosphere. Does that make climate change denial non-fringe? Of course not. The idea that one drop of non-fringe makes someone or an organisation non-fringe is obviously a non-starter. It would be a crank’s charter on here.OsFish (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I invite you to link to a climate change denialist site that explicitly promotes the views that "the world is round" or "the world has an atmosphere" as one of their positions. Then you shift from a view (climate change denial, clearly a fringe view) to a claim about organizations, assuming that there is some agreed-on definition of "fringe organization" (and how many "drops of non-fringe" it would take to pull it out of the fringe organization category), when that is a key issue being questioned here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Here’s the Heartland Institute saying greenhouse gas emission rises are bad. Perhaps you’re not familiar with how these organisations work. They’re not people who happen to have the wrong theory. They’re people pushing a political agenda and engaging in tactics to portray themselves as mainstream. So a one-drop rule is simply a wikilawyer loophole for these organisations. We’re perfectly capable of having discussions about where the balance lies. We have such discussions all the time. OsFish (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't introduced a "one-drop rule." I haven't seen anyone else introduce a "one-drop rule." What I'm doing is pointing out, again, that there is no agreement among editors about what a fringe organization is or whether it even makes sense to work on achieving consensus about that (and then adding some text to WP:FRINGE about it) rather than just focusing on fringe views, notability for fringe views, and RSs outside the fringe ecosystem. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you haven’t seen anyone else argue that because SEGM holds one position that isn’t fringe, then it cannot be considered fringe in general, may I invite you to re-read the RFC where this argument was made very forcefully? YFNS addresses on this page too. OsFish (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you want to characterize what those other people said as a "one-drop rule," OK.

  It doesn't change the fact that there is no agreement among editors about what a fringe organization is or whether it even makes sense to work on achieving consensus about that rather than just focusing on fringe views, notability for fringe views, and RSs outside the fringe ecosystem. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  What else did you think “one drop” meant? OsFish (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I honestly do not want to get into a discussion of how I interpret the back and forth among a bunch of editors about how YFNS defined "fringe organization." It's a distraction from what I see as the main issue (described above), where the primary discussion is occurring at WT:FRINGE § FRINGEORG, not in the RfC, and not limited to one specific organization. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus I think it is tough to overturn a 3:1 vote, but I don't think enough weight was given to criticism of the sources - especially given the citations used by the closer, the fact that this hinges on unsettled medical controversies with a range of different legitimate positions in MEDRS, and the unprecedented nature of declaring an organisation FRINGE without ever settling what that means or which supposedly FRINGE theories this covered.

• The closer cites two sources. One is a social science paper (so not competent to make any judge of biomedical claims itself), the other is a piece in the French-Canadian press that interviews the author of the social science paper. So these aren't actually independent sources.
• A significant source that has been used over and over (also quoted in that popular press coverage) is WP:SPLC. This is a partisan lobby group with a narrow scope of reliability on the US-based far right who are specifically noted as requiring attribution for their labelling. It seems astonishing that a label from SPLC will require attribution in text, and yet a label from SPLC - in a biomedical area they have no expertise in, and when referencing subjects they are opposing in court - can be taken as so influential when deciding their legal and political opponents (some of whom are outside the US) are FRINGE.
• The closer gave inadequate weight to neutral/favourable coverage in reputable, independent sources like the BMJ (which repeatedly quotes SEGM, and happily publishes press releases announcing systematic reviews they commissioned and funded). FRINGE organisations don't typically get this kind of treatment.
• Many of the "yes" votes gave no reasoning at all. Not even "per nom".

Frankly, this is a bad precedent for relying so heavily on SPLC and that source alone should have been discounted from the outset - because as things stand we are channeling the partisan, non-independent and unattributed opinions of SPLC on a biomedical topic into a strong policy like FRINGE. We are now in the untenable situation where peer-reviewed RS and MEDRS in reputable journals face a constant uphill battle on talk because a US-based lobby group used the right kind of hyperbole about its political opponents. Remove that source and all the sources that depend on it, and this whole thing looks a lot weaker.Void if removed (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• In a biomedical area they have no expertise in, and when referencing subjects they are opposing in court - can be taken as so influential when deciding their legal and political opponents (some of whom are outside the US) are FRINGE. - As you keep ignoring, the SPLC in those cases is supported by dozens of MEDORGs, since every MEDORG in the US opposes trans healthcare bans.
• As you keep failing to mention, that particular BMJ author has been criticized by the British Medical Association[80], UK's LGBT doctor's union[81], and the Royal College of Surgeons' LGBT chapter[82] for biased and imbalanced articles which systematically ignore how trans people experience their healthcare. That article itself is entirely devoted to complaining that American and international MEDORG's don't think the Cass Review represents the be-all-end-all of trans healthcare.
• That press release literally just notes that they were the ones to fund a paper. But even the researcher they hired to do it thinks SEGM is full of bullshit:
  • But Guyatt also expressed ambivalence about SEGM’s approach, although he said he knows little about the field of gender medicine. As children move through adolescence towards their late teens, he said, their autonomy demands respect. Withholding care entirely, or even limiting it to the context of clinical trials, is not the correct path. As Guyatt sees it, SEGM places a low value on children’s autonomy. In medicine, Guyatt told Undark, much of clinical practice has a limited evidence base. “That doesn’t mean we don’t do it. So, I’m saying ultimately, it’s a value and preference decision.” ... Guyatt suggested that SEGM is trying to have it both ways. “On the one hand, they haven’t made up their minds,” he said. But on the other hand, “they’ve made up their minds” by taking a position against gender-affirming care until more evidence arrives.[83]
• which supposedly FRINGE theories this covered. - claiming ROGD is real, arguing trans identities are frequently caused by mental illness, supporting gender exploratory therapy, opposing bans on conversion therapy, etc.

So your evidence they're reliable is 1) a reporter who multiple MEDORGs consider incredibly biased and 2) a press release that mentions they funded some research - but not that the researcher they've hired has gone on record calling out SEGM's position as making up they're mind while claiming they can't.

How would you reply to the spokesperson for the Endocrine Society saying "[SEGM] is a relatively small group that has been making the same arguments for a number of years, and they are very much outside the mainstream[84] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you move your out of order vote down after mine please. Void if removed (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As a social scientist myself I can tell you that Wuest & Last are more than capable of the analysis they did. The paper goes into a lot of depth and the included appendix has over 70 pages of reference material to SEGM. I know it's behind a paywall but if you have access to WP:LIBRARY you should check it out. It's doing a lot of lifting. As for the news article I included it because I knew some people might not have access to the paper. As for the SPLC source again this is a source that people can access and relate too, I don't expect everyone to go into the weeds into Wuest & Last 2024. Also I didn't think/know I had to list every single source, I can do it if it'll help but I assumed that with such an active discussion that people had read the provided material.

This paper addresses two related questions about how scientific uncertainty claims have been produced. First, what scientists, clinicians, and political organizations have lobbied for and legally defended GAC bans for minors in the U.S.? Second, what kinds of scientific arguments are advanced in litigation defending those bans? As a representative case study, we analyzed federal litigation over Arkansas's Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act of 2021. ... To answer the first question, we identified the political and scientific agents involved in creating and defending SAFE and many similar GAC bans for minors. To answer the second question, we created and qualitatively analyzed a dataset featuring 375 unique citations referenced throughout federal litigation over SAFE to identify the scientific arguments made by ban proponents. We conclude that such arguments concerning scientific uncertainty have created significant divisions in federal courts over the legality of GAC for minors.

— Wuest, Joanna; Last, Briana S. (2024). "Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors". Social Science & Medicine. 344: 116533. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I have read Wuest & Last at great length many times as it has come up across many talk pages and the issues are too numerous for this discussion, which is already overlong - but I'll give a quick overview.

FRINGE, for our purposes, applies to theories. Wuest & Last call SEGM a "fringe" organisation, because in their view they espouse positions outside the medical mainstream. However, at no point in this paper do they establish that - nor are they a competent source for doing so for the purposes of Wiki, because establishing what is "the medical mainstream" requires MEDRS sources, which this is not. The appendix you cite is entirely unpersuasive, as it just lists a bunch of citations and kind of asserts there's some misinformation somewhere without showing any. For example, on one of the few entries about SEGM they point to a systematic review commissioned by NICE and say:

This systematic review was commissioned by the National Health Service England and Improvement to investigate gender identity services for children and young people. It concluded that the evidence for hormonal replacement therapy across all measured outcomes is "of very low certainty" according to GRADE, if there was evidence for an outcome. [...] Critics cite this as evidence that gender-affirming healthcare is mired in uncertainty and experimentation.

Where's the misinformation? Where's the fringe theory? There isn't any - and Wuest & Last was written prior to the Zepf et al. update to this systematic review which found the exact same low-quality evidence three years later, and about a dozen other systematic reviews subsequently also finding the exact same thing - including two commissioned by SEGM in partnership with McMaster University and published in the BMJ this year. It also predates the respected neuroscientist Sallie Baxendale's systematic review, which is still the only systematic review of puberty blockers to include animal studies - and which was first presented at a SEGM conference.

Wuest & Last relies on asserting misinformation over uncertainty where actual uncertainty exists. It is already significantly behind the curve on the evidence base - and this is an evidence base we require MEDRS sources to judge. Frankly, the paper is one extended begged question.

This is a controversial subject that is simultaneously playing out in the medical literature - with some strong and legitimate differences of opinion - and in the courts in the US, and those who are party to that litigation - like SPLC - have a vested interest in saying their science is good, and the other side's science is bad. SPLC are not competent to make this claim about biomedical matters, and even within their narrow area of expertise require attribution.

And the problem is in this RFC the claims about the group being fringe are inseparable from the claims about the science being fringe. But the science is not fringe and the uncertainty is genuine. If republican lawmakers exaggerate it for political ends, then that's on them. If ADF try to make disingenuous hay in court with this that's on them. But exaggerated claims by partisan bad actors in court are not the limits of what's being addressed here.

What's being claimed is that SEGM - who hold minority positions that may be unpopular here but are demonstrably (and increasingly) within the spectrum of the global medical mainstream and are getting legitimate papers published in reputable sources that meet our standard for MEDRS - are FRINGE because all their positions are actually wrong and bad (without ever substantiating that) because SPLC say so. And it just so happens that they have to be wrong in order for SPLC to win in court. This is effectively giving SPLC a supervote over MEDRS, which is absurd.

I think it is quite wrong that rather giving weight in the RFC to the argument "respectable scientists co-author work with SEGM in respectable journals or present at their conferences, therefore they are probably not FRINGE", what we now see on talk is the argument "SEGM are FRINGE, therefore those scientists aren't respectable", on the basis of non-independent, partisan sources like SPLC which should have been weeded out from the discussion at the beginning. Void if removed (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Dr V, if you are deciding based on your own reading of material vs arguments made in the discussion, how is that not a super vote? Springee (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Close This closure review seems to just be a relitigation of the RFC and rests on some faulty premises

• More importantly, WP:FRINGE is a policy concerning fringe theories, but it does not specifically address fringe organizations. If there is no existing policy defining what constitutes a fringe organization, then designating an organization as fringe is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies. We cannot declare an organization to be fringe without first establishing a clear policy that defines what that means - As the close notes, In review, SEGM is a fringe organization. The core criteria in WP:FRINGE are met, and reliable sources characterize SEGM’s work as pseudoscience and misinformation. WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS there for support describing SEGM in such terms and handling the views expressed by SEGM with caution and minimal weight if any. It is important to take a moment and note that this is not a case of Wikipedia editors imposing a label on SEGM; it is a reflection of what reliable sources have called SEGM.
  • This is an organization that RS specifically call "fringe", purveyors of misinformation and pseudoscience, etc. An Endocrine Society spokesperson has addressed this organization to say it's far far outside the medical mainstream. Every RS that covers them in any depth calls out this nonsense.
  • This goes back to the reason for the RFC, people strenuously argue that this organization is not known for all that and try to use OR to contradict what RS say about them, as we see here.
• this means that SEGM’s main position, as outlined in [7], is not considered fringe.
  • SEGM is known for pushing views that we have had RFCS already find are FRINGE, namely claiming that ROGD exists[85] and that trans identities are frequently/usually caused by mental illness[86] (the latter being their position from which all others stem)
  • No source says this is SEGM's "main position", not even SEGM, who is being cited for that claim, make it

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this SEGM position is its main one, it is an official stance, explicitly framed as “it is SEGM’s position that…”. The corresponding RFC did not consider this position fringe, which undermines the claim that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views. So far, no one has addressed the inconsistency between the outcomes of the two RFCs: one concerning SEGM as a whole, and the other concerning restrictions on puberty blockers. Even if the position on puberty blockers is not SEGM’s main stance, it remains an official one. If not all of SEGM’s positions are fringe, it is logically inconsistent to assert that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's say for example there was an organisation who's sole existence was to deny trans people medical care and promote conversion therapy, this organisation would only exist to promote fringe views. This organisation would also argue against puberty blockers in minors as they are medical care for transgender people. These 2 positions are logically consistent. I hope this shows how it's very possible for an organisations existence to be to promote fringe views, yet they would still argue for alt/minority views. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. I don’t think we can really decide what counts as a fringe organization when there’s no policy defining that. In fact, the RFC is in violation of WP:FRINGE, since that policy only covers theories, and not individuals, groups, or organizations. The SPLC is a very partisan source and not reliable for statements of facts, yet it’s cited over 20 times in the SEGM article, including for statements of facts. The SPLC has long been criticized for frivolously slapping the "hate group" label on political opponents, and sometimes even on random people or groups, apparently to boost fundraising. Here's one of such critical pieces, by journalist Ken Silverstein in Harper’s and its blog: [87]. There's also this Politico piece that gives a detailed look at how their labeling process actually works: [88]. I don’t think the SPLC’s labels mean much when it comes to medical topics, where they are not experts. Personally, I find it hard to see how a group of doctors questioning puberty blockers and transition surgery for minors qualifies as a hate group. And how could SEGM be an "anti-LGBTQ+ hate group" when their president Roberto D’Angelo is openly gay? In any case, SPLC labels have nothing to do with whether certain views are scientifically or politically fringe. We have no policies that fringe views are determined based on labels by radical political advocacy groups. To determine whether all of SEGM's views are fringe, we need to examine each one individually or list them all and evaluate them together. So far we’ve only thoroughly discussed one of SEGM’s views, and it wasn’t found to be fringe. In fact, their stance on puberty blockers is quite mainstream and aligns with the policies of a number of European health authorities. When SEGM states that there are "significant uncertainties regarding the long-term risk/benefit profile of "gender-affirmative" hormonal interventions", it aligns with the position of the WHO which refused to include children in its guideline on the health of trans people because "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". [89] According to Undark: “On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.” "This emphasis on psychological support aligns with current health policy in several other countries, including Sweden, Finland, and the U.K." [90] How can SEGM's views on these issues be fringe, when they align with the health policies in those countries? This hardly makes them a group that exists just to push fringe ideas.JonJ937 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  It has been explained many times in the RfC that states can hold fringe views. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Those are points that were made during the RFC and were considered during the close. What about the closure was flawed? This isn't a second bite at the litigation pie. With that, you should expect your current argument to be discounted entirely by whoever closes this. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Close it's clear to me that the nominator just wants to relitigate the RFC. Every single point they made here they made at the RFC, people answered them and the closer made a decision which included them. To me the main reason for this review seems to be I don't like the decision the closer made, rather than anything substantial actually about the close.LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to BADRFC. The RfC was started by asking if an organisation was WP:FRINGE. After a few days, dozens of !votes and thousands of words of discussion, the nominator clarified that a "WP:FRINGE organisation" should be taken to mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints. We can't know how many of the original !voters returned to take this into account. It's also possible that they may simply disagree with this definition, it not being found in any policy or guideline.

Beyond the lack of clarity (expressed during the RfC) about what participants actually meant by WP:FRINGE organisation, it's even more unclear what the implications of a WP:FRINGE designation means for how editors should treat an organisation, its views or its output in different contexts. Does it affect all their output or only that which concerns WP:FRINGE viewpoints? Does it affect material they publish themselves, or also material citing or referencing the FRINGEORG in RS? If content by a FRINGEORG member is published in a reliable source, is there a presumption for the reliability of the source or the fringeness of the org? Disputes on these lines occurred during and now after the RfC. The close simply rules on these topics - and worse does so ambiguously - without showing how a consensus was reached.

The close should recognise that most participants didn't specify what a FRINGE organisation is, or what that designation means. No policy or guideline specifies this. The idea that we'd therefore determine that:

(a) SEGM is a WP:FRINGEORG;

(b) because of a brand new definition of a FRINGEORG in closer's first paragraph; and

(c) the rules of how to treat a FRINGEORG in closer's third paragraph;

is unworkable. To find (a), there needs to be consensus on (b), which plainly doesn't exist. And for the RfC to mean anything, there needs to be consensus about (c), which even if there had been (there wasn't) is surely beyond the scope of a discussion about a specific organisation, and is the domain of WP:VPP or this section.

I don't ask the closer to repeat every point made in the RfC, but this was a sufficiently basic and important issue that without it the close can't stand. I should say that I think the closer took on an unenviable task and deserves our gratitude regardless. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support close We're just going to be relitigating this over and over, aren't we? This is the same usual attempts by fringe promoting editors to relitigate any decision that closes with a determination that a subject or issue is fringe. It just keeps getting pushed at over and over again. Every single overturn to no consensus argument above is 100% just relitigation of the RfC subject itself, just arguments copied and dropped over here instead. Silverseren^C 01:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  fringe promoting editors is an aspersion. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

We're just going to be relitigating this over and over, aren't we? Yes. Yes, we are. We shall never know peace. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support Close As others say, this appears to be a straightforward attempt to relitigate the RFC. Far from the complainants' points raised not being answered, the points were repeatedly addressed but there was a lot of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT with the same fringe claims repeated over and over in the RFC despite others producing multiple MEDRS contradicting them. That's why the RFC took so long. There was ample opportunity to persuade the preponderance of editors who !voted (and a lot !voted), but that attempt clearly didn't succeed. As happens in RFCs. No procedural problems exist.OsFish (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Problematic RfC There is no WP guideline on what it means for an organization to be a "fringe organization," only a guideline on fringe theories. This RfC actually prompted a discussion on WT:FRINGE re: whether there should be a FRINGEORG section in WP:FRINGE, and if so, what it should say. I think that the community should sort that out before characterizing an organization as fringe or not. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support closure. The close was detailed and thoughtful. It reflects the discussion fairly. Procedural issues should have been dealt with back in February. As to whether it needs further clarification as to its ramifications, I do not know, but I'm not seeing how overturning the result and having to do the whole damn thing over again helps Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support closure. The discussion was overwhelmingly in favor of SEGM being fringe. As such there was really no other reasonable option but to close this way. Loki (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Also, wait, I have no idea what procedural issues SFR is talking about. It's very common for the nominator of an RFC to support one side or the other; in fact I would say it's almost always the case. WP:RFCNEUTRAL says that the opening statement must be neutral, and the opening statement here was Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization?, which obviously is neutral. YFNS then !voted that SEGM was FRINGE and explained her reasoning, which is allowed and expected.

  Besides that I also disagree that short statements without separate argumentation are inappropriate here. If an RFC is based on a fact about the world, and you look it up and go "yep that's sure a true fact about the world", there's not a lot extra you can say. Loki (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Re: the procedural problem about the nomination, it is a fairly flagrant violation of RFCNEUTRAL/RFCBRIEF to write a paragraph of argumentation for one side, and then open the RfC with a short statement directly under it. If that's allowed, then the requirement for a brief/neutral statement is meaningless. You're incorrect to say the reasoning followed the opening statement, it clearly precedes it (and YFNS' !vote just reads: Obviously FRINGE per the above.

  Beyond that, perhaps the more substantive procedural issue is that "WP:FRINGE organization" is in fact not something that can simply be established at an RfC because WP:FRINGE is about theories. If somebody went to RSN and said "Person Y is unreliable and should be deprecated because of all these occasions they've lied", even if editors overwhelmingly agree, there would be massive questions as to what the meaning of such a discussion is and whether it's in fact practicable. If a person were to be declared WP:GUNREL and then wrote in a GREL source, for example. This is directly analogous to editors (such as yourself) arguing against the use of GREL sources because of SEGM connections - and tenuous ones in some cases. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Can you explicitly point to us where in WP:RFCNEUTRAL it disallows "writ[ing] a paragraph of argumentation for one side, and then open the RfC with a short statement directly under it"? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  The initial RfC statement, by plain reading, is the initial statement in the section containing the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know that, why are you saying it to me? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, and the statement you're talking about is actually *above* the RFC header. So it's not the initial statement, it's before the initial statement. And to quote WP:RFCNEUTRAL: There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a Discussion subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent. Loki (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support close - Looks like a pretty straight forward read of consensus. Concerns about people voting per nom or saying that a clearly fringe site is fringe without a more detail rational are just silly when it is this overwhelming. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support close. Aside from the overwhelming numerical majority, there were clearly detailed and well-reasoned arguments stating that it is fringe; while I obviously believe the arguments that it is fringe were stronger and more soundly grounded in policy (and noticeably so), it seems absurd to suggest that the arguments against it being fringe were strong enough to overcome such an overwhelming majority. As far as procedural arguments go, I think they are entirely without merit - I'm generally baffled by the objection to "per nom" !votes. A nominator making a brief neutral statement followed by a lengthy first !vote where they give their rationale is entirely normal and is a procedure specifically suggested by WP:RFCNEUTRAL, as people have noted above. The nominator, in their !vote, linked to their extensive arguments and discussions prior to the RFC; the two (!) people who cited that "per nom" were obviously referring to that and not to the brief nominating statement. "Per the arguments presented by the nominator" (in the appropriate place for them, which was their !vote) is an entirely reasonable response to an RFC and in no way reflects procedural issues. But even if it did, the deeper issue is that the appropriate time to make procedural arguments is during the RFC (particularly early on, when they can be corrected); bringing them up after an RFC that has run for four months and come to a three-to-one numerical conclusion as an argument to overturn the entire thing is not appropriate. The RFC shows a clear consensus; rerunning it purely because of procedural complaints would only result in an affirmation of that consensus four months from now when the new RFC is eventually closed. For allegations of procedural issues to overturn an RFC you have to be able to credibly argue that they affected the result, and this one is so lopsided, and the allegations of procedural issues so weak, that it's simply not credible. (Indeed, it's fair to point out that this was a hotly-contested RFC that ran for four months, yet nobody, in the massive oceans of text that were spilled in it, raised any issues over the initial statement at any time. If there was even the slightest whiff of a genuine RFCNEUTRAL issue with the initial statement, it would have been thoroughly litigated during the RFC itself.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  You're mistaken that "nobody ... raised any issues over the initial statement at any time." More than one person (including me) raised the issue that WP:FRINGE does not address, much less attempt to define, what a "fringe organization" is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think Aquillion was talking about the very existence of a non-neutral statement above the RfC header (WP:RfCNeutral) there, not the content of the RfC question. I do think respondents here should address the concern you mentioned though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the argument that the header was non-neutral (which was suggested above; I'm not seeing it but either way it's something that can't reasonably be raised four months after the fact to invalidate the entire RFC.) As far as the question of whether an organization can be WP:FRINGE, that was extensively discussed in the RFC, was one of the core disagreements between the RFC's parties, and therefore clearly rapidly became one of the things the RFC settled; it was something reasonable people could disagree on during the RFC but I don't see how it can be reasonably raised in a review, since that's basically relitigating a core component of the RFC itself. That would be essentially arguing "the people arguing the position the closer took for the RFC interpreted policy wrong" and framing that as a procedural issue. For that sort of argument to be viable in a close review the policy at hand (ie. whether organizations can be declared FRINGE) would have to have an unambiguously clear-cut answer of "no" to the point where arguments otherwise can be safely disregarded, and that's obviously not the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. FWIW, you're also mistaken that no one addressed the non-neutrality of the header. There were a few comments about it, including: "this RfC opens with a non-neutral statement," "I'm also very unhappy with the opening statement from YFNS. It is both non-neutral ...", "although I recognize that this was not initially conceived as an RfC, it's a problem that there's a very non-neutral paragraph above the RfC".

I disagree that "the question of whether an organization can be WP:FRINGE ... was extensively discussed." In all of the !votes and huge discussion in that RfC, the terms "fringe organization" and "FRINGEORG" only appear ~40 times (excluding the RfC question and the comments from the closer), and more than half of those instances were people voicing concern about characterizing something as a "fringe organization" or asking what a designation as a fringe organization implies. ~60% of people added their !votes before YFNS even clarified what she meant by it. Can people choose to designate organization X as a "fringe organization"? Sure. But the issue is: is there a consensus about what calling X a "fringe organization" means/implies? From my reading of the RfC and the WT:FRINGE discussion it provoked, the answer to that is no.

Re: "the policy at hand (ie. whether organizations can be declared FRINGE)," there is no policy on whether organizations can be declared FRINGE. The phrase "fringe organization" doesn't even appear once in WP:FRINGE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

nobody, in the massive oceans of text that were spilled in it, raised any issues over the initial statement at any time - Tell me you didn't read the RfC without telling me you didn't read the RfC. It's also funny that we have people supporting the close while claiming that all the procedural arguments were made during the RfC and shouldn't be relitigated, and you saying that they weren't made during the RfC and it's now too late to bring them up. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support closure. The day that Wikipedia starts allowing its sourcing to come from right wing lobbyist groups wearing the thinnest veneer of medical credibility, is the day that medicine on Wikipedia begins its death spiral. As it stands, the closer's criteria for what SEGM being a FRINGEORG meant seems perfectly reasonable. He did not go overly far in which sources fall under this umbrella, for instance he said the papers funded by SEGM would be evaluated on case by case basis (the current status quo). In general I think it was a fair closure that reflected the thread consensus well. Snokalok (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support closure reasons above. also suggestion that using a non-neutral statement in RFC is enough to disqualify it insults intelligence of participants and rigorous debate that was held. all participants knew what they were talking about. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (SEGM)

Comment from RFC creator: I'd like to address some issues raised by the overturn voters:

• 1) We don't have a WP:FRINGEORG policy / WP:FRINGE only covers theories and not individuals or organizations WP:BLPFRINGE says There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. and describes how to handle them. Apart from the fact that only a slim minority made this argument, its entire premise is that our longstanding FRINGE guidelines on how to handle individuals famous solely for fringe views either 1) don't exist and can be conveniently ignored or 2) will fall apart completely if we apply the same standards to groups solely famous for fringe views.
• 2) SEGM's main position is restricting puberty blockers to clinical trials: No source describes this as their main position, not even SEGM, who is being cited to make this claim.
• 3) SEGM's FRINGE views aren't identified: This is transparently false (and worse, being argued by people who participated in these debates)
  • SEGM claims that ROGD exists. We had an RFC concluding that ROGD is nonsense[91] Before somebody claims that the RFC said there is no consensus to describe it as "fringe", the RFC said that there was no consensus to do so in wikivoice, but that consensus was it's not scientifically supported
  • SEGM claims that transgender identities are frequently caused by mental illness. Our recent RFC on that concluded very strongly that this view is FRINGE[92]
  • SEGM argues that bans on conversion therapy shouldn't cover gender identity change efforts/gender exploratory therapy - a position that no MEDORG in the world supports (as they all say the opposite, that it absolutely should)
• 4) People who voted early did not know what "fringe organization" meant in this context: Plainly false, most of the responses prior to the clarification still touched on exactly the same issue: multiple sources have identified it for creating misinfo, They're transparently a group whose purpose is to advocate for WP:FRINGE theories, they're clearly committed to pushing a fringe perspective per the massive amounts of external coverage to that effect described above. etc. They clearly discussed the topic at hand
• 5) Per nom's shouldn't count: In my initial statement, I reference multiple RS that characterize it as known for misinformation and give examples of misinfo. People pointing to that are pointing to a set of evidence that SEGM is known for its advocacy of FRINGE views because they found it convincing. I have never seen the argument that an RFC should flat out discount "per XYZ votes" - I'd thought it was actually generally encouraged so not everybody is repeating the same argument.
• 6) This is solely about the SPLC: There are dozens of RS, ranging from news articles to academic articles, describing them as FRINGE. Almost any source that delves into their activities notes that their views are considered fringe. The spokesperson for the Endocrine Society has gone on record stating "[SEGM] is a relatively small group that has been making the same arguments for a number of years, and they are very much outside the mainstream.[93] I'd describe trying to frame this as purely about the SPLC designation as facetious at best.
• 7) The RFC was malformed: It was not originally intended to be an RFC, just a noticeboard discussion[94], somebody recommended I create one so I did very shortly after.[95]

Frankly, I find it very depressing that we're seriously relitigating whether a group who MEDORGS and RS describe as fringe, misinformation pushers, a hate group, etc, is indeed notable for its FRINGE views, after a 3-1 consensus it was and 4 months after the RFC opened. If this is overturned, I predict it will be taken by WP:PROFRINGE editors as a vindication of their behavior and most likely lead to issues across GENSEX that will cause more headaches for everyone. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

As one of the people who falls in category (1), your claim that "its entire premise is that our longstanding FRINGE guidelines on how to handle individuals famous solely for fringe views either 1) don't exist and can be conveniently ignored or 2) will fall apart completely if we apply the same standards to groups solely famous for fringe views" is a false dichotomy. I very clearly wasn't assuming either one of those. It also moves the goalposts a bit: the section of BLPFRINGE that you just quoted is about notability, when you did not frame the RfC in terms of notability, and hardly any participant in the RfC discussed notability. Had the RfC been about notability, the question would have been something like "Is SEGM notable only because it promotes fringe views?" without introducing the term "fringe organization" at all. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Medscape article YFNS cited: it was published in 2021, and since then, there have been significant developments in the field. For example, several countries have restricted or banned medical transition for minors. Joshua Safer, spokesperson for the Endocrine Society and a member of WPATH’s board of directors, stated at the time:

“Asked about Malone, SEGM, and their concerns about rushed affirmation of transgender youth, Safer says, ‘This is a relatively small group that has been making the same arguments for a number of years, and they are very much outside the mainstream. It is not that there is a debate within organized medicine with equal numbers of people on both sides. Dr. Malone is outside of those arguments; he is not in the mainstream.’”

However, Safer’s statement reflected the context of 2021, and the landscape has clearly changed considerably since then. There is now active debate within organized medicine, particularly following the release of the Cass Review, and SEGM’s views align with the policies or recommendations of many national health authorities, as reported by reliable sources. Furthermore, SEGM has validly raised criticisms about WPATH’s handling of scientific evidence, an issue that has been covered by mainstream media outlets such as The Economist [96]. This also raises potential concerns about conflicts of interest, given Safer’s dual roles as WPATH board member and spokesperson for the Endocrine Society.

Whether SEGM’s position on puberty blockers is its main position is ultimately beside the point. It is an official position nonetheless, and there was a clear consensus in the related RFC that opposition to puberty blockers for minors is not a fringe view. Since the RFC on SEGM framed the question as whether the organization only exists to promote fringe views, it is not accurate to assert this when one of SEGM’s official positions has already been found not to be fringe. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The Endocrine Society and WPATH are two international WP:MEDORGS. They are more weighty than an advocacy group, and an anonymous op-ed doesn't change that. Trying to argue that we should discount the views of MEDORGs because an advocacy group doesn't like them is WP:RGW. Trying to argue that MEDORG representatives have a COI in their field of expertise is also WP:RGW.

For example, several countries have restricted or banned medical transition for minors. - as has been explained repeatedly to you, the policies of a government don't have a bearing on whether things are medically FRINGE or not.

Whether SEGM’s position on puberty blockers is its main position is ultimately beside the point - on further examination, your initial claim is even more of a misrepresentation. What that source actually says is It is SEGM's position that the significant uncertainties regarding the long-term risk/benefit profile of "gender-affirmative" hormonal interventions call for noninvasive approaches as the first line of treatment for youth. If pursued, invasive and potentially irreversible interventions for youth should only be administered in clinical trial settings with rigorous study designs capable of determining whether these interventions are beneficial.

• This is not just about puberty blockers, but hormones as well. Which we did not have an RFC on. Their position is opposition to these as a treatment in general and only using them in clinical trials. But we do have the latest clinical practice guidelines saying no proven effective treatment alternative without body-modifying medical measures for a [person with] permanently persistent gender incongruence.[97]
• We have repeatedly established that SEGM supports gender exploratory therapy as the "first line of treatment" - a form of conversion therapy, since it's their position that gender-affirmation dismisses the question of whether psychological therapy might help to relieve or resolve gender dysphoria and provides interventions without an adequate examination.[98]
• We have established that the claim that trans identities are caused by mental illness to be fringe[99]
• A follow up RFC you participated in, Is psychotherapy as the first-line treatment for gender dysphoria in minors a fringe theory, was closed as just a repeat of that one[100]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the degree to which fringe belief advocacy groups are able to get fringe beliefs implemented in government policy/attain positions in government should factor in to WP:MEDRS evaluation processes encyclopedia-wide? If so, it may be worth starting a fresh RFC and tagging in editors from domains like fluoridation, vaccinination, autism, abortion, etc., because that sounds like it should be a much larger discussion given the potential impact.

If not, it would be probably constructive to start banging out some consistent criteria we can use to limit the elevation of political considerations to the domain of trans healthcare specifically and avoid collateral damage. Taking the time to do this right on the front end will save a lot of energy longterm, especially considering the rapid policy iteration of US HHS. Thatbox (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The European health authorities restricted medical transition treatments not for political reasons, but because they conducted their own research and concluded that the potential harms outweigh the benefits. These are legitimate medical concerns, shared by many medical organizations across Europe. It is not accurate to attribute these policy changes to political advocacy, especially in traditionally progressive countries such as those in Scandinavia.

Several countries, including traditionally more progressive nations like Sweden and Norway, are changing guidelines at least in part due to questions from some doctors about the risks of such procedures. The changes in Europe are occurring more often at the health care policy level initiated by medical professionals, rather than through new or adjusted laws pushed by legislators, and experts say they haven’t been politicized to the extent they have been in the U.S. [101]

More sources: [102] [103] It is not just national MEDORGs, for example, the European Academy of Paediatrics stated that 'The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested'. [104] Which basically refutes Safer's claim from 4 years ago that there is no debate in the organized medicine on this topic.

In addition, per WP:MEDORG, we should give weight to guidelines and position statements from major MEDORGs, including the British National Health Service and the World Health Organization. The positions of both organizations regarding puberty blockers generally align with those of SEGM. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@YFNS. "gender-affirmative hormonal interventions" indeed could be both puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. We did not discuss the latter in particular, but it is obvious that if the question concerned both, the outcome would be the same, as the same arguments apply to both medications. In any case, it is clear that SEGM's position in relation to at least puberty blockers is not fringe. Neither is SEGM's position that psychotherapy should be the first line treatment as it is in the UK, Finland and Sweden fringe, unless we can call the position of medical authorities of those countries fringe. The separate RFC on that was closed as bad, as the closer deemed it should have been discussed within the main RFC, but I believe it is better to discuss specific ideas than entire organizations, because WP:FRINGE concerns ideas only. It is quite obvious that it is impossible to argue that all of SEGM's views are fringe, when some are clearly not, and there is a consensus about at least one of them not being fringe. Regarding gender exploratory therapy, it is just one of modalities supported by SEGM, as they support psychotherapy in general as the first line treatment. [105] But it is not correct to claim that this particular modality is conversion therapy. Major British MEDORG, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), strongly disagrees with such claim: [106] SEGM's position on this aligns with that of UKCP, which does not make SEGM's position fringe. Also, I find it quite disruptive that you keep referring to the Economist article as "an anonymous op-ed", when we had a consensus at WP:RSN that it is not an op-ed: [107] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

1) BLPFRINGE doesn't nearly cover the ground you're saying it does (quelle surprise). The actual content questions at play here are things like how to handle peer-reviewed papers in RS (or even MEDRS) with a SEGM connection (or indeed, various different types of connection - authorship, sponsorship, use of it as a source etc.) BLPFRINGE doesn't address these remotely.

2) It's already been raised by at least one person (before you wrote this) that if you take "main" out, the objection (this RfC/close doesn't say how to treat non-FRINGE viewpoints of a FRINGEORG) still stands, whereas this rebuttal doesn't.

4) This doesn't respond to the point. Yes, the early voters were responding about SEGM and determined to call it "fringe". That doesn't mean the terms of "what a FRINGE organisation means" had been set at the time they voted (it hadn't) or that the corresponding rules about how to treat it had been laid out (they still haven't, notwithstanding the ambiguous ones set out in the close, which have already been misused at least as far as the closer intended them, and which don't reflect the discussion anyway).

7) I think it is fairly obvious that the end-round to WP:RFCBRIEF/WP:RFCNEUTRAL is not to precede the brief and neutral statement with a paragraph of argumentation for what the answer should be. An editor of your experience knows how to start a new section.

Of these, (4) is the main reason I think we should overturn by the way. How can we possibly define an organisation as fringe without a policy or guideline explaining what that means? It's as if we expected RSN, instead of using GREL, MREL etc, to work by assigning descriptors to sources, after which we would decide the implications of those descriptors for how they're treated in wikipedia. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

1) I don't think I've seen a MEDRS that SEGM has produced. The only one is the Guyatt review - they sponsored it and he still called out their bias. SEGM is famous for pushing writing letters to the editor and trying to pass those off as real medical sources

2) Simple. If Organization X is set up to lobby for the criminalization of vaccines, claims vaccines cause autism and says we medically need an immediate moratorium on vaccinations, and says vegetables are good for you, that last statement does not stop them being WP:QUACKS or make them any better a source. If a view isn't FRINGE, you'd know because actual RS/MEDRS agree, in which case you'd cite those.

4) You ignore the quotations, multiple said ~"yes because a bunch of RS say it pushes fringe views." If you are seriously unsure if they'd change their vote then ping them. And I've said for months, a close can easily say "We don't define a fringe organization and so we won't use that phrase but there is a clear consensus that SEGM is known for its promotion of FRINGE views and disconnect from the medical mainstream."

7) If I started a new section, that statement would still immediately precede it, and the same charge would be leveled. If my first inclination had been to make an RFC, the first !vote would still be that statement, and I'm guessing the charge would be levelled. WP:RFCBRIEF is about the RFC question, which was neutral. The fact you didn't like the RFCBEFORE doesn't diminish that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure you have. And you've consistently argued against them on talk because of the SEGM connection, such as this narrative review:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-025-00404-w

Here's a couple more off the top of my head:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10398562241276335

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10398562241312979

Here's three systematic reviews - blockers, hormones and mastectomy:

https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/429

https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/437.abstract

https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/fulltext/2025/06000/mastectomy_for_individuals_with_gender_dysphoria.2.aspx

Or what counts? Which direction does this connection flow? How about this systematic review of puberty blockers they did not write but which was first presented at a SEGM conference, and whose author's credibility you have since challenged on talk because of that connection:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.17150 Void if removed (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

1) A narrative non-systematic review of a separate issue that cites an opinion piece, which you used to argue against systematic reviews.[108]

2) Narrative non-systematic review [109]

3) A commentary piece complaining that they think MEDORGS are wrong in Australia.[110]

4) A primary "reflection"[111] saying things like Further, when it comes to gender dysphoria, any attempts to explore the unconscious meaning and function of trans identification are mischaracterized as conversion therapy. and full of FRINGE speculation like Recognition that a child’s stated identity may emerge from a myriad of mental health or developmental problems, or the influence of trauma or social forces, may be psychologically threatening to a gay or lesbian clinician.

5-7) Already said the "Guyatt review" but had meant "reviews", those are actual MEDRS. Guyatt maintained independent and called them out on bias, those aren't the gotchas you think they are.

8) I contrast MEDRS and MEDORGS with commentaries from SEGM members - some GNG notable for FRINGE positions.[112] Per WP:FRIND The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, as such sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

9) That is a MEDRS, I'll grant you, though fairly outdated[113]

So 1 MEDRS, and the set that I mentioned who's lead author is heavily critical of them and has been critical of many of their FRINGE theories. In contrast to the other group of far-from-MEDRS sources you presented - commentaries and primary articles and etc written by SEGM/Genspect members, some notable for FRINGE views. WP:MEDRS already warns us from sources like those even without the WP:FRINGE aspects, which further warn us away. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the closing itself, please keep this to the RfC page. Springee (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to litigate this further, other than to correct the record that the lead author on those three systematic reviews is not Gordon Guyatt as you said, it is in fact Anna Miroshnychenko. The citation is eg. Miroshnychenko A, Roldan Y, Ibrahim S, et al. Void if removed (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

1) You responded to a rebuttal that BLPFRINGE does not in fact, as you claim, showing "how to handle" fringe organisations with: I don't think I've seen a MEDRS that SEGM has produced. It's a good distraction, because it's pretty brazenly false. We have discussed - literally in the last week - a review article in a top-tier medical journal that you have wanted to disqualify for being authored (in part) by an SEGM member. We'll add it to the list of misrepresentations about past discussions you've made (see @Tamzin's note above about dealing with rhetorical dishonesty, and perhaps consider your position). It also utterly fails to respond to the point. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Because you said The actual content questions at play here are things like how to handle peer-reviewed papers in RS (or even MEDRS) with a SEGM connection, I pointed out that SEGM doesn't tend to produce MEDRS. At our race and intelligence RFC, the discussion opens with Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? This would mean, in particular, that sources by Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Piffer, and Gottfredson are fringe. AFAICT, that RFC was not thrown out because people said FRINGE doesn't cover FRINGE sources/individuals. We have previously written off scholars/sources from them as FRINGE, and the enclyopedia did not burn, so I think we'll be fine handling SEGM being known for FRINGE as well.

• And that's a primary source being used to try and debunk statements supported by clinical practice guidelines and MEDORGS. Not MEDRS.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: FRINGE sources/individuals, WP:FRINGE does, in fact, cover both "the treatment of those [people] who hold fringe viewpoints" and sources that are inside "the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Current wikipedia policies do not allow for calling an entire organization fringe. That's the end of it, full stop. Local consensus cannot override policy. Jtrainor (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest this reply should be added to the uninvolved section above. Springee (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not call a project-wide RfC local consensus. See also what WP:ConLevel excerpts from an ArbCom decision: Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. WP:Fringe simply does not say what it means for an organization to be Fringe, which is a valid concern, but it is not in any way PaG-level consensus, global consensus, nor even consensus that organizations cannot be Fringe. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Policy reflects current practices. You made a good argument for amending the policy. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with any policy that disallows Wikipedia editors from calling an organisation fringe if they engage in the promotion of fringe theories. Would the people making the assertion such a policy exists kindly point me towards this policy? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The close has already been taken to mean that viewpoints published by reliable sources can be dismissed on the basis of the close.[114][115][116] Representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" is what WP:NPOV requires of us, and that policy states that it "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

That said, there is no policy that "disallows Wikipedia editors from calling an organisation fringe". If this close had said "there is a consensus among editors that SEGM is FRINGE, however there is no consensus on what that means" we would be fine. The close actually does spell out implications for calling an organisation FRINGE. There are two problems with this relevant here:

1. The close's decision on how to treat a FRINGEORG decidedly do not reflect consensus in the discussion
2. The way the close rules on the implications of a FRINGE designation are ambiguous, and can be (and has been) read as conflicting with actual PaGs like NPOV and RS.

That's why I'm for overturn. A narrow reading of the "FRINGE" consensus and acknowledgement that neither PaGs nor consensus at the RfC show how to implement it would have been fine. @Aaron Liu please take this as a response to your comment too. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm very happy to explain how I used the close in the two comments of mine you've cited here.

• In this one, on the talk page for Transgender health care misinformation the issue was that multiple MEDRS, including expert consensus statements, approvingly cited a paper's analysis of problems in the final Cass Report, problems which had also been echoed by several other MEDRS. Samuelshraga wanted that paper (and by implication all the mainstream MEDRS that supported it or agreed with its conclusions) given as an example of the spread of medical disinformation on the grounds that a single paper written by people outside the field of transgender health (except for one SEGM member writing as an SEGM member) had criticised it. This single paper's key points were:
  • a mistake in a footnote (Samuel failed to substantiate the claim that this supposedly dramatic piece of misinformation (a mistaken footnote) had in fact been spread.)
  • a claim that detransition rates at the point where people move from youth to adult transgender health services can be assessed - something which multiple published MEDRS agree on.
  • a claim that the "York" series of metanalyses that were part of Cass failed to include all relevant studies - something which multiple MEDRS agree on.

So faced with a situation where in-field expert opinion was pretty much all on one side (including expert consensus statements), with an SEGM-authored paper either quibbling a footnote (UNDUE) or challenging clear MEDRS consensus on the other, it did seem relevant to point out that the only in-field expert writing for this single paper that was clearly against MEDRS consensus was writing as a representative of a FRINGE group, and therefore it wasn't strong enough to argue that mainstream expert opinion was in fact misinformation. I would note that during the conversation, Samuel point blank refused to acknowledge that the paper he wanted to put so much weight on was contrary to mainstream MEDRS on these issues.

• In the second comment of mine that Samuel cites, I don't discount sources written by SEGM authors in established RS. The source being discussed isn't written by someone in SEGM, and it isn't being discounted. What is being discounted is the non-peer-reviewed statements of people from SEGM making unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing that do not appear to be backed up by the reported facts.

In both instances, I think I used the closing reasonably: where there is a consensus among high level relevant expert MEDRS, a single paper is not enough to label that consensus "misinformation", particularly where the only in-field expert author is writing as a member of a FRINGE group, and where there are allegations of wrongdoing against a mainstream expert organisation, we should avoid citing opinions of the members of FRINGE groups. OsFish (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The RfC is compatible with NeutralPointOfView. It finds that SEGM generally publishes insignificant viewpoints.

I agree that we really need more input from the closer on how he found this consensus on how to treat SEGM specifically. I personally think the third paragraph could be a reasonable reading of consensus, but without @Dr vulpes explaining how he evaluated this aspect whatsoever there is no way to tell. Unfortunately it seems that he has gone into hibernation again. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I am familiar with the WP:NPOV policy Samuelshraga, I don't see how it prohibits editors from determining something is fringe given it is the very basis from which the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline arises. From the policy, I will quote:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

     — § Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

There is plenty of information on what promoting fringe theories means in our policies and guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2025 India–Pakistan conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is already ECP protected. Given the high volume of edits that are being disputed, it may be appropriate to implement either a 1RR or enforced BRD restriction to this page. There is also a high volume of edits on the TP between a very limited number of editors that renders discussions TLDR and possibly comes close to bludgeoning as a general problem rather than identifying individual editors. It is not conducive to reaching consensus on a particular issue. What remedies might be available to make these discussions more productive? Limiting the number of posts per editor addressing a particular issue/section on the TP per day might be useful. This could exclude very minor amendments to an existing post. Limiting the word count (readable prose) per post might also be useful. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IntAdmin bot trial

A bot has been given a trial period for the purpose of syncing Git repositories to Wikipedia, which necessitates giving it interface administrator privileges for the duration of the trial (30 days or 30 edits). Any feedback, comments, or concerns should be expressed at the BRFA. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:Title warrior

• Wikipedia:Title warrior

I wrote a new essay, WP:TITLEWARRIOR, which documents common problematic behaviours I see at requested moves onwiki related to global conflicts. It's inspired by WP:GENREWARRIOR, which also describes an editor who wants to categorize things according to their preferred terminology, often using WP:SYNTH or other forms of original research.

Would appreciate feedback from admins or others on the content of the essay. I'm trying to get rid of unconstructive arguments in the Palestine-Israel topic area, and getting agreement that "yes, it's unacceptable to use one's own definition of a 'massacre' in preference to reliable sources" will make it easier for closers/others to ignore those types of arguments. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Chess, thanks for writing that. Similar examples have occurred within the context of the ongoing Arbcom case. See the first bullet point of asilvering's "Other notes" in Evidence, where POV-pushing editors glorify particular events by exaggerating a minor skirmish to be a "battle" or "siege". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I think at least some of that, wikipedia-wide, is something of a competence issue, so not quite the same. But absolutely some fall into the general idea of WP:TITLEWARRIOR. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is just something to monitor. I don't have enough evidence for a sock-puppetry investigation, so I'm not filing one ... yet (User:Tamzin/SPI_is_expensive). However @Avengers2025 is exclusively editing the page Michael Palance. This isn't odd by itself, but the subject of that article has had a recent incident that resulted in the ban of User:Mpalance and some associated IPs. After the ban, he tried evasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.17.170.99, and the page was subsequently protected. I try my best assume good faith, however it is suspicious that User:Avengers2025 exclusively has asked for edits to Michael Palance, this matches the editing pattern of User:Mpalance. Additionally User:Avengers2025 was created ~1 day ago. I'd be interested to see what an outside party thinks, I might be completely over-thinking this.

Cheers, GalStar (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Avengers2025 has submitted an edit request [117] to scrub the lead of the same criticism disputed by Mpalance [118], 12.6.219.27 [119], and 12.17.170.99 [120]. Perception312 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, that's enough for a SPI, filing. GalStar (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Like you mentioned @Liz it seems very suspicious that @GalStar has taken such a keen interest in this page. Avengers2025 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I should probably address my interest in this page. Before I continue I will note I have over 400 edits in the mainspace, most of them are about other articles. While this is my 3rd most edited article (at 8 edits), parts of that were reverts of User:MPalance and similar. I noticed the fact that the author of this article was consistently reverting criticism about them. I also notices the criticism was often poorly sourced, and indeed often very close to libel. I decided to fix this, both by raising awareness about the author reverting edits, and by researching and providing properly sourced criticism. After this, this page has remained on my watchlist, as a watch against vandalism, as such I noticed the recent requested edits and took a look. If you'd like to deny this allegation, I'll assume good faith unless the sockpuppetry investigation has concluded that you are indeed a sockpuppet. GalStar (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@GalStar like @Liz stated "This is a BLP, if you want to include accusations of misconduct you have to have multiple, solid references to do so. It seems like your primary goal on Wikipedia is to air your grievances over this person and you're going to keep submitting edit requests until this happens." Avengers2025 (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have not submitted an edit request to that page? GalStar (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

GalStar, I was referring to Avengers2025's edit requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious if a sockpuppetry investigation can be reopened if a new sock has been suspected. GalStar (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If an old investigation is closed, you can start a new one, with the same sockmaster name as before. -- asilvering (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self requesting block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Everyone I've just seen this account. I found the user is very similar to me in real life. I found its something called a clean start account and i also want to clean start. Please block me with everything disabled other than account creation and autoblock. Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 11:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You might want to check what WP:U1 says about user talk pages. Good luck with your WP:CLEANSTART, I assume you've read there how that works and what's expected of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about Indian government agencies trying to edit articles

I'm not sure where to post this so asking here. See [121] where I first reverted an IP saying they were official, then reverted and blocked the newly created account from article space. I have no idea if this is appening in other articles. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been quiet recently but there is the case of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT where the Indian military was directing members of various units to edit about them here. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Adding checkuser-temporary-account to rollbackers and NPP folks

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Adding checkuser-temporary-account to rollbackers and NPP folks. Sohom (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Close review of Talk:Abs district#Requested move 24 January 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Tiggerjay closed the move review as moved with the remark "Per consensus, that while district is part of the name, it doesn't make it a proper noun." With all due respect, that is just plain wrong. If a word is part of the name then the whole name is a proper noun. You cannot say that just because a word exists on its own as a common noun it can never be part of a proper name. This shows a gross misunderstanding of how the English language works. The move should be overturned and if a case can be made for moving individual articles (not based on bending the rules of English orthography) then that should be made on the Talk pages of those articles.

@Tiggerjay, Dicklyon, Abo Yemen, Tony1, Cremastra, and Useddenim: Pinging closer and participants of the move review. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I dont think that this warrants a discussion at AN, and I dont have any problems with the capitalization of the "d" in district. If anything, this should be discussed at MOS:ARABIC's talkpage 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This has to do with the English language. The closer said the consensus is that "district" is part of the name, but somehow that "doesn't make it a proper noun". That is not how the English language works. Rules of English trump MOS, per WP:CIR. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

(mos:arabic is pretty much about how Arabic words should be written in english) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Challenges of requested moves go to WP:MR, not here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Even if that move includes dozens of articles? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: I will take it to WP:MR. Feel free to close this thread. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review request at Talk:Reform_UK#RFC:_right-wing_to_far_right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

User requesting review: Cortador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified: 1

Reasoning: S Marshall closed this RfC noting two arguments: the one for the include side was, according to the closing statement, that Reform UK has be described as "far-right" by sources. The one for the exclusion side was that Reform UK is described by book sources as a "far-right" in the context of immigration. This latter argument was not made by any editor during the discussion. Outside of cited source names, the term "immigration" or "migration" is only used a single time by one editor who supported inclusion. When I asked S Marshall where in the discussion this argument was made and why he attributed enough weight to this single argument to warrant declaring there to be no consensus, they were (despite mentioning two editors) not able to point to to any point in the discussion were this argument was made.

Closing discussion based on an argument not actually made during the discussion is a failure to weight arguments properly and discard irrelevant arguments (which this argument falls under since it wasn't made by any editor involved in the discussion), and is effectively a supervote. The closure should thus be overturned. Cortador (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Closer (S_Marshall)

• As I've repeatedly tried to explain to this user, I'm open to rewording a disputed sentence, but "no consensus" was the only possible close there and nobody qualified to close that discussion could possibly have reached any other outcome.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Reform UK)

• The statement where this is made states Those advocating a "no" argue that where Reform UK are described as "far right" in a book source, the context is usually immigration. As I read this remark, it sounds to me that the closer was attributing the immigration context to the authors of the book sources, not to the arguments of the participants. The closure might still be a supervote, that's for consensus here to determine but I thought I'd comment on a phrasing that might seem ambiguous to different readers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I just read User talk:S Marshall#Reform UK RfC and see that I'm probably wrong here but I'll leave up my note anyways as I find striking longer comments visually distracting and just note my error. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. I have read the discussion and there was no consensus for one thing of the other. The policy-groundedness of the arguments and the intensity of conviction expressed in the volume of support on each side were matched. What the closer wrote in explaining how he dermined that no consensus has formed is of secondary importance. Of primary importance is: there was no consensus + the close says "no consensus". This congruence means that the close must not be overturned.—Alalch E. 22:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Am I to understand that Cortador is hoping the close would be vacated in favour of a yes outcome? Impossible. We have roughly even !votes by count, but the "no" votes are considerably better argued on the whole. The idea that some sources are not reliable on this question specifically, best articulated by Scope creep, would have needed considerably more support from other editors in the discussion to swing this any other way. There is very clearly no consensus for a change, and I'd say it's closer to a consensus for "no" than for "yes" by quite a margin. It looks a bit to me like some commenters in the discussion are writing their positions without keeping in mind that the closer is only going to read this discussion, and likely nothing else; if a conclusion seems self-evident to you because of previous discussion of the topic, a good RfC !vote will restate the things that make it evident. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the precise wording of the close, but a week or two ago I read most of the discussion with an eye towards closing it before deciding I wasn't brave enough, and had I closed it I would have likely closed no consensus as well. Rusalkii (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse While I personally find it absurd that anyone would even object to calling Reform UK far-right based on my long experience and study of political extremism and while I find there are clearly some misses as far as likely sources not used in the RfC this is irrelevant to a closure review. Based on the arguments presented, the sources presented and the relevant policies a "no consensus" closure is the only possible outcome. I don't have to like it to recognize that it was the correct decision. Furthermore this is, yet again, a situation where political orientation in infoboxes is at the locus of a dispute. I am increasingly of the opinion we should remove all such infoboxes as they tend to over-summarize. Simonm223 (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse One of the most thoughtful and carefully worded closes I've seen in a long while, clearly anticipating broad media scrutiny/reporting. The discussion was scrappy, there were a lot of assertions without proof and clearly some messing about with sourcing in the article during the discussion, which was obviously unhelpful. While I would be personally minded to see Reform as far right (and disagree that you have to find academic sources because media sources don't carry enough weight - that would tear WP apart if applied across the board), that is not the result of the discussion and the closer quite properly and very meticulously summarised and represented consensus - well, non-consensus. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse To avoid prejudicing myself, I conducted a de novo examination of the discussion prior to actually reading the closer's closing statement and easily arrived at the same conclusion as the closer (no consensus). As a general comment, this was a very poorly argued RfC (by the discussants) with numerous perfunctory !votes and waves of the vaguest variety. The closer invested far more time and energy into closing the discussion than the discussants could apparently be bothered to actually arguing their positions (though the appellant was a notable exception and argued their case well). Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I'll say from the outset that I have a strong negative viewpoint about Reform UK, and especially Nigel Farage, so you may want to discount my opinion on this. Anyway, I can't fault the close, it was very well written and explained things clearly and succinctly, and correctly identified the strength of argument from those opposing the RfC, refutation of sources, and the potential of canvassing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I appreciate S Marshall's clear explanation of the RfC process and agree with him that the discussion did not result in consensus. Sandstein 10:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and close per WP:SNOW. I can't see any possible conclusion here other than no consensus. I have sympathy for the label "far right" being overused by media with a leftist tilt (especially in America) to describe almost anything that isn't objectively far left, but that doesn't mean a consensus was reached here. It's appropriate to note what labels people use for them and the timeframe and that can be just as useful. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Reform UK)

• Endorse as a non-admin who participated in opposition to the proposed wording. S_Marshall's precise closing wording doesn't change the fact that this was clearly a no consensus (and closer to a consensus against the wording), and I'm not sure what OP is hoping to achieve here: as asilvering said above, nitpicking the wording in the closing argument wouldn't swing the outcome to a consensus to include. — Czello ^(music) 07:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Reform UK)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:109.52.32.201 / User:109.52.38.41: addition of unsourced claims (WP:OR, WP:BURDEN), use of WP:BLOGs, personnal attacks, edit-war

I believe it is the same user, as per WP:DUCK (see the diffs below).

User:109.52.37.40:

• Addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced information: [122]
• Personnal attacks, edit-war: [123]

User:109.52.32.201:

• Addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced information, personnal attacks, and edit-war: [124]

I think the use should be blocked, as the user is clearly here only to add unsourced or poorly-sourced information to this specific WP article. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Veverve,

I don't see that you notified these two editors about this discussion and didn't tell us what article you are talking about. All of those factors are mandatory and you are more likely to get a response here if you include them. Also, why did you post this at WP:AN instead of WP:ANI? I don't think this dispute needed the attention of the entire administrator community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have notified both IPs on their talk pages.

I meant to start the thread at ANI, sorry.

This Thread can be archived, I will reopen it at ANI. Veverve (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, great, thank you Veverve. There is a template to use when you move a discussion but I can never find the right template when it's needed. Maybe voorts or The Bushranger will know, they are regulars here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I use a userscript to move discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz I can't remember how to link to templates, but are you thinking of Template:Moved discussion to ? CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

CambrianCrab, do you have a link to a template? If not, I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The link-to-templates format is is {{tl|template name}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah thank you Bushranger! I was referring to {{Moved discussion to}} CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at the Battle of Agios Dometios page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The User:Chumash225 keeps editing (in a disruptive way) the page of the Battle of Agios Dometios by changing the result to a ‘’Greek victory’’ by simply just adding one sided, non-neutral Greek sources without having used the talk page nor having reached any consensus. I asked him to do so but he simply added everything back and then threatened me with reporting me because I reverted back his edit [125]. I clearly asked him before to use the talk page first, but he didn’t: [126]. He also very likely did the same three edits with three anonymous IP accounts before as two other users reverted back his disruptive edits as well here:[127], [128] and [129], [130], [131]. (IP accounts: User:46.199.2.49, User:2A00:1358:F010:B8C4:A50F:26E1:D451:3D8F and User:2A00:1358:E237:EC00:74B3:6266:DA08:201C). For the last IP account, a other user even asked him to use the talk page, but he still didn’t do so:[132]. And after all of this, instead of using the talk page on the page itself, he goes to mine own user talk page and threatens with reporting me once more: User talk:Woxic1589.

Could a admin please warn (or block if needed) this user for disruptive editing? Woxic1589 (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes the IPs are mine I wasnt able to log in, wasnt hiding it either as im literally editing the same page however I dont think me adding sources is the disruptive editing here. Chumash225 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Unbelievable… Despite all of this, you still continue editing without having used the talk page of the Battle of Agios Dometios.[133][134] You adding sources is indeed not disruptive editing. The disruptive part is that you keep editing without having used the talk page nor reached any consensus. Besides you also admitted having used IP accounts before to do the same edits without having used the talk page. You were also warned earlier by a other editor here: [135] Can a admin take action against this? Woxic1589 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Woxic1589,

All I saw on Chumash225's User talk page was a notice to come to AN. This is a new editor, where did you explain that they should go to the article talk page? Coming here is the last resort after other efforts to communicate and resolve differences with an editor have failed.

And why did you come to AN instead of ANI? This is not an issue requiring the attention of the administrator community. This is a new editor with 8 edits who is making mistakes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I don’t think you fully understood me then. The user admitted having used IP accounts earlier as mentioned twice above. He was already asked by a other editor to use the talk page earlier here: User talk:2A00:1358:E237:EC00:74B3:6266:DA08:201C. Me, and two other editors then reverted back his edits a few more times and asked him to use the talk page, again, which he ignored again here: [136], [137]. Despite this he ignored it and as of right now still continues disruptive editing on the exact same page. Surely this is a violation of something? Woxic1589 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

But I should have probably used ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead indeed. Can this be moved there? Woxic1589 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute with one party being a newish user. I believe this needs to just stop and everybody should go to the article talk page and sort it out. Courtesy ping @Chumash225. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Chumash225 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qatar's IP address

I just noticed that MediaWiki:Blockiptext doesn't have the IP address for Qatar. Why was it removed, and how can we put it back? I've browsed the history of this page, and {{Sensitive IP addresses}}, and Module:Sensitive IP addresses/list, and I've not noticed anything about Qatar except my own failed attempt (eight years ago) to add Qatar's IP address. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought Qatar had long since diversified its IP ranges? 82.148.96.68 (talk · contribs · block log) and 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs · block log) haven't been used since 2008. I don't know where their current usage is - this page shows some options. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for that. As far as I knew, they were still using just one address, but I only ever knew this because of the sensitive IPs thing, not because of any familiarity with the country's Internet services. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Qatar seems to have first been mentioned in a page about blocking IP addresses at MediaWiki:Blockiptext starting in January 2007 and it was also mentioned at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses starting in May 2007 . In 2016, information about sensitive IP addresses was consolidated per this technical village pump thread into Module:Sensitive IP addresses/list. By changing the date parameters in WikiBlame to exclude your attempt to add Qatar in 2017, I figured out that it was removed from that list in this edit in December 2016. Graham87 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Casting aspersions by another editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to WP:ANI § Casting aspersions by another editor

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to undelete prev versions of the file's history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[138] An editor suggested me to request undeletion of file history, so I'm here. Could I ask for this? I don't know how this works as well, if I did miss something please tell me, thanks! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 10:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

First, User:Camilasdandelions, you need to identify the file you are talking about. Secondly, I'd start by talking with the admin who deleted the file. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Sorry for my miss. I want to exchange a file from Non-free image file to Commons file. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png, I don't see any deleted edits with this file. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: I mean, I want to move non-free file's history to commons file history. Is it possible? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 04:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't work much with files except for files that have been PROD'd. My recommendation to you is to go browse through WP:FFD discussion and see which editors participate regularly in file deletion discussions. I'm sure they know more about file moves and merges than the average editor or admin. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions, I think you want us actually to move the edits from here to a Commons image. Is that right? If so, sorry, but that's not an option with our software. If you simply want us to copy content (whether text or files), that's not difficult, so if it's appropriate I expect someone can do it easily. Nyttend (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

PS, are you asking for the revision of 23:04, 18 June 2015, the 1000x1000 file? Liz, see the file history at the bottom of the page; someone revdeleted all but the latest version of the image, which is normal practice with nonfree images; you didn't notice this because they don't show up in the page history. Nyttend (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I still have difficulties understanding what is being asked, but surely we can not copy non-free material to Commons, if this is the issue. Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend, @Ymblanter: Hi guys, I tried to replace non-freen content file, [[File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png]] with free-content file, [[File:Meghan Trainor (feat. John Legend).png]]. Because the latter's size is 1000x1000.

But @MaranoFan said, You can request the original file to be exported to Commons. Nothing about the image itself requires reuploading & Yes, it is a bad thing to lose the upload history. Ask an admin to undelete the previous revisions of the original upload and the exporting tool should work. Here's Revision history of "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" article. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Since there's already a copy of the album cover at the Commons: File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (feat. John Legend).png, the local copy can be deleted as F8 if there's not enough creative authorship in the image to qualify it for copyright protection. There's actually no reason to retail the original upload log of the local copy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - but I still don't know what to do, I just believed MaranoFan because I'm unfamilar on this. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

To Expand on Diannaa's explanation, there is a process that is followed when dealing with images uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia and have also been uploaded to Commons (see WP:F8). Part of that process is to ensure that file history is maintained on Commons before deleting the local copy. This is to comply with any attribution requirements of the license. In this particular case, the album cover is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, and is thus public domain; no attribution is required for public domain works. But per the guidance at F8, the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended. @Camilasdandelions: As to what you should do next, you should tag it with {{Now Commons|File:name of file on Commons.ext}} to have it deleted under F8. No need for the FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yay! This is what I have wanted to find! Thanks! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 13:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's news to me that you can unnecessarily make a new upload of perfectly good files to Commons, and then completely get rid of the original uploaders/file while having the unnecessary reupload be the only one that survives. Oh well, you learn something new each day!--NØ 02:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: In general, uploading a file to Commons (assuming that it indeed fits their criteria) has the benefit that it can be used by all projects rather than just en.wiki. If you upload an image to en.wiki and want it not to be deleted if it is imported to Commons, you can use {{keep local}}. For files which shouldn't be moved to Commons, there's also {{Do not move to Commons}} which requires a reason. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerns regarding sourcing in the Assyrian people article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to raise a concern about the article Assyrian people, which appears to rely heavily on general book titles without providing specific page numbers, quotations or verifiable details. Several sources mentioned in the article seem to function as pseudo-sources as they are either:

1.Cited without direct relevance to the claims they are used to support 2.Not accompanied by concrete references (page no or quotations), 3.Or potentially taken out of context.

This makes it extremely difficult for readers to verify the Information and raises serious concerns regarding the verifiability and reliability of the article’s content. In some cases, the citations seem interpretativ rather than grounded in clearly referenced scholarship.

I believe a review by experienced editors or administrators would be appropriate especially regarding sourcing standards and whether certain claims meet the threshold for inclusion under Wikipedias policy on verifiability and reliable sources.

I encourage interested editors and administrators to review the article’s talk page as well, where an active editor on Assyrian-related articles has so far not responded properly to my inquiries.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this issue. Felixfelix22025 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

People are certainly responding to your questions on that talk page. Secretlondon (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that Assyrian identity is currently under a set of general sanctions due to recent on-wiki disputes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.