Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	48	48
TfD	0	0	0	9	9
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	6	7
RfD	0	0	0	19	19
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 78 sockpuppet investigations
• 31 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 13 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 9 requests for RD1 redaction
• 24 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 27 requested closures
• 32 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 39 Copyright problems

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for UtherSRG

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/UtherSRG for UtherSRG 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.

Staraction (talk | contribs) 09:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/UtherSRG for UtherSRG 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 him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator recall. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Appeal block

Hello, I would like to appeal my block.

I have taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and its policies. I have studied WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:GNG and will ensure to follow them. I commit that I will not publish userspace drafts to circumvent the block, and I will not create mainspace articles except through AfC. I will prioritize modern secondary sources, revise my existing drafts and use AfC before any move to mainspace. I am willing to present two drafts I have made for review if that would help. Thank you. Kolno (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain how your prior editing ran afoul of WP:FRINGE? Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Also have you stopped creating or promoting drafts of your work per the July guidance from @Doug Weller? Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding WP:FRINGE, I previously used fringe theories on two now deleted wikis and presented them almost as fact.

As for the second point, yes, I have stopped creating new drafts on the English Wikipedia. Kolno (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Very weak support After thinking about it overnight I am minimally satisfied by this although I do note that Kolno seems to have been seeking somebody to have a look at one of their old drafts not long ago. I could honestly be swayed one way or the other but I tend to lean toward WP:ROPE when someone has been under a block for a while. It's been five months. Let's see if they've learned their lesson. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support, obviously will defer to admins but I think this is a good appeal. Willing to AGF re creating drafts while blocked, seems like an understandable misunderstanding. I do have concern over some of their articles, for instance Zimbabwean–Portuguese conflicts which appears to be total WP:SYNTH, and some of the articles based on old/primary sources actually passed through AFC. I’d ask Kolno to take a look at WP:HISTRS, but happy for them to get a second chance. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Re-open discussion

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

---

pls reopen this discussion bc it is not about Palestine-Israel. It is about the source reliability and honest reporting. The source covers Pal-Is but this is not what we are discussing. Thank you. 176.28.144.44 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:ARBPIA. --Yamla (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Temporary checkuser privileges for 2025 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards EPIC (talk · contribs), Mykola7 (talk · contribs), and XXBlackburnXx (talk · contribs), solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2025 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for 2025 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• In any challenge to the closure of a formal discussion within the WP:GENSEX topic area, users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. (See details.)
• An uninvolved administrator may restrict participation in an arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) noticeboard thread to certain users. (See details.)
• Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.
• Raladic, Void if removed, and Sweet6970 are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
• Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Raladic, Void if removed, and Sweet6970 are indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed.
• Colin and Samuelshraga are indefinitely banned from transgender healthcare, broadly construed, and are admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.
• Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards and admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
• Aaron Liu is reminded to avoid bludgeoning discussions.
• These site bans and topic bans may be appealed twelve months after this announcement, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed

Accidentally moved user talk page to draft space

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

---

When moving a user page to draft space I accidentally moved the user's talk page too. Can anyone move Draft_talk:Alena_Vandaele back to user space? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechie  Done KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechie: For future reference, you can reverse a move yourself if no edits have been made to the redirect since it was created. Then just tag the new redirect (the one from the page you didn't mean to create) with {{db-g7}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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

I ask you to remove my block. Thank you.

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

---

I ask you to remove my block. Thank you. I think that don't nothing to compromize Wikipedia. Wanchope16 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

The arbitration clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for clerks rival that of arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you. Editors are also encouraged to reach out to any active clerk to discuss their suitability, the clerk's experiences, and any other questions that may be helpful to address.

For the clerks of the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait we have fezes? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 10:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

We have fezes now. Fezes are cool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

Strange long-term pattern at Kosem Sultan

I ended up with this page on my watchlist because there was a conflict there and I went in as a neutral party to try and de-escalate. As I do tend to watch pages about Asian history this kind of ended up lumped into that subset of my page-watching and I've noticed a very strange recurring pattern where, every few months or so, a new set of IP (or recently joined) editors will approach the article and try to revise the POV to minimize the influence this figure wielded. I am unsure whether this is a single person or group of people with a revolving IP or whether it's a collection of editors all of whom have concerns with the page. Generally, when I've seen this sort of comportment at the page of an historical figure, it's because of competing nationalisms. But I haven't seen any nationalistic project that would seek to reduce the historical relevance of powerful women in the Ottoman Empire. And I have looked. All this is to say that this has become both something where I suspect chicanery but where I find myself unequal to the task of figuring out exactly what is going on besides "something suspicious." I've been somewhat of the position of just trying to maintain the status-quo on the article since waves of IPs who seem to be motivated by a POV generally lead to instability but I'm not even sure if this is the best approach here anymore because I can't figure out what exactly it is that drives this POV. If the article is just wrong but for some reason only IP editors have any interest in fixing it... well that would be a very unusual circumstance but I can't rule it out. Anyway this is definitely not an emergency nor do I think it's something that could be resolved by sanctioning an editor. It's not vandalism and while there might be WP:LOUT going on I certainly don't know who the master would be. But also there's something weird going on here and I feel like there's something I'm not seeing. So I figured this might be a venue to at least get alternate eyes on it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Beshogur, anything you have an opinion on? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs

I recently proposed this RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs, and am providing notice to AN per this September 2023 RfC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement from SFR on the incident at WCNA

I’m writing because when I became an admin, and later an arbitrator, it was my intent to do everything possible to protect the community that I belong to and love. I work for that community, not for the WMF. Also, when I ran for the committee I committed to providing transparency whenever possible. The recent incident at WCNA 2025 has pushed me into breaking the ANPDP in order to make sure the community that I serve is safe, and has all the information they need to make informed decisions about their continued safety.

On February 20th, I blocked Gapazoid, who is Connor Weston, the person who brandished a firearm and threatened suicide at the conference. Any oversighter can look at their user page, which I suppress deleted at the time, to verify this. The Arbitration Committee is also aware of his name as he appealed my block to the committee via email. I blocked them for child protection/pedophilia advocacy. I also immediately emailed WMF Trust and Safety, seeking and expecting a WMF ban. The following day Risker pulled talk page access due to continued disruption. They were already blocked on Wiktionary for the same reason.

For the next several months I pressed with every tool at my disposal for a WMF ban. This included discussion on several Arbitration Committee calls with the foundation. My fellow arbs joined me in pushing for this ban. It was such a sticking point between the committee and the foundation that the WMF held a “Process sync” call on June 24th for us to explain how T&S makes decisions about WMF bans.

During this process, on April 25th, Weston sent an email to the info queue saying they were going to travel to the WMF offices to protest my block. The message states, in full:

<information redacted>

This email was forwarded to T&S who verified receipt. I am also aware that information regarding Weston threatening suicide was sent to T&S.

On August 11th they closed the case, along with a second child protection case, with no action. To quote the email sent to me personally in response to my initial report:

Having carefully weighed the evidence, we found no indication that Gapazoid’s contributions amount to advocacy or encouragement of illicit activity.

In their response to the Committee they said:

We recognize that taking no action in these cases may not fully align with what ArbCom expects or hopes the WMF's role to be in situations of child safety concerns, particularly given the importance and sensitivity of child safety matters on the platform and the fact that you, ArbCom, have been trusting the Foundation for years to handle these matters. The fact is, however, that while the community can sanction based solely on its own judgement, the Foundation must be able to legally defend our decisions to take action, including their consistency with our policies over time. This includes the need to have evidence of a risk of harm that violates our policies. We don’t think that either of the above two examples would be successful in meeting that standard.

This decision allowed a suicidal pedophile who threatened to travel in-person to WMF headquarters to protest a block to gain access to an in-person meeting of our community. Even if they didn’t plan on using a gun to end their life in front of all of us, this would still be unacceptable.

In the weeks and months leading up to the convention the committee and other members of the community brought up concerns about event security, and were assured that appropriate security measures would be taken. At the event there was essentially no security. No bag checks and no checks with a metal detector or wand. After the incident there was an increased presence of security personnel and bag screenings, but no additional searching or screening of carried belongings.

Every member of the community deserves, and absolutely must be given, the ability to make informed decisions about their safety within the community. The WMF is responsible for taking every reasonable action to keep our community safe. In this case, they made the unreasonable decision of not banning a suicidal pedophile who had made clear their intent to protest a community block in person, and in doing so explicitly allowed the incident at WCNA to occur. The foundation’s actions put everyone attending the conference in life-threatening danger. Thankfully, due to members of our community, the worst case was avoided, but this was in spite of the WMF’s decisions and actions.

From a personal perspective, before I left to attend the conference my wife expressed concern for my safety. She’s aware of the anti-abuse work I do, and the threats of harm and death that come along with that. I told her, based on the WMF’s assurances, that it was safe for me to attend, they planned on having enhanced security, and she didn’t have a need to worry. Days later I would be sending her messages after evacuating the conference due to a suicidal man that I’d blocked from Wikipedia months earlier charging the stage with a gun. As soon as he began speaking, I recognized with horror who it was. I immediately informed WMF employees on-site. I was not informed that Weston would be attending, and either T&S didn’t screen the attendees or screened the list and let this pass. Either situation is completely unacceptable.

Thankfully, no one was physically hurt. Due to heroism by members of our own community, the threat was mitigated, but that doesn’t mitigate the trauma we all suffered. It is essential that nothing like this ever happen again, and because of that the community must be aware of the extent of the failures that occurred. The community did everything right in this situation, from blocking a pedophile, reporting it to T&S, forwarding the suicide threats and intention to protest in person, and pushing in every conceivable way for a WMF ban, and due to systemic failures from the WMF we were almost all party to an incredible tragedy.

This statement is published with the consent of the majority of active, non-recused members of the Arbitration Committee.

With deepest respect for the community,

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Statement from SFR on the incident at WCNA

ECP being applied in mandatory-ECR areas

This is something that has tickled the back of my brain for awhile, and a recent RFPP request regarding WP:GS/KURD - which mandates extended confirmed restrictions for the topic area - for an article not currently being disrupted has pushed me over the edge to ask about this. As part of the protection policy, we are not supposed to preemptively protect articles, except within certain topic areas where it is permitted. One of these being the former WP:GSCASTE area, now part of WP:CT/SA, which explictly says articles within it may be preemptively protected, with the topic area being under ECR. The thing is, a topic placed under under ECR is under de facto extended confirmed protection. Is it therefore acceptable to "preemptively" place articles in a ECR topic area under de jure (actual) ECP? I would in a vaccuum say yes (again, ECR is functionally ECP, just with the added step of being "manually enforced"), but the CT/SA clause #5 specifically calling out GSCASTE as being permitted for preemptive protection, when it's also under ECR, makes me wonder, especially when WP:CT/IMH, also part of CT/SA, is not called out as such. I suppose this could be a case where multiple, unrelated remedies passed in the ArbComm case, but figured best to ask to be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want a definitive answer, I'd suggest ARCA. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't this basically the issue at hand in [1]? -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: It's related, but not quite - the locus there was All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. Which applies certainly to PIA, but what about WP:CT/IMH, WP:GS/A-A and WP:GS/KURD? @Voorts: I'd ask there, but some of the areas in question are not ArbCom-imposed ECR/ECP (A-A and KURD are both ECR-ified by the community GS, not the ArbCom CT). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That said, while looking up WP:BLUELOCK related to the thread below, I see When [ECR] is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection (echoed at WP:ARBECR), which I suppose answers my question and I feel silly for not having checked there first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It does for the CTOPs but not for the two GS ones, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

No but both WP:GS/KURD and WP:GS/A-A say "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." Possibly this was missed if searching since it doesn't use the word preemptive but it implies it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Welp, I guess I'm just blind, since I managed to completely overlook that. That does answer the question! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There are five tiers of permissibility for applying extended confirmed protection to articles, which depend on the applicable sanctions:

1. A page that is not under covered by contentious topics or community-authorized general sanctions
   • The protection policy is applied normally.
2. A page that is within a contentious topic or community-sanctioned topic area
   • The section WP:PP § Contentious topics is in effect: "When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. [...] Some community-authorized discretionary sanctions grant similar authorizations."
3. A page that is subject to the extended confirmed restriction (ECR)
   • From the restriction: "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required."
   • The WP:PP § Extended confirmed restriction section is in effect: "Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required".
4. An article that is subject to the preemptive protection remedy
   • Remedy text: "Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by [the topic area] when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption."
5. An article that is subject to the ECP by default remedy
   • Remedy text: "All articles whose topic is strictly within [the topic area] shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article."

When an article is subject to both ECR and the preemptive protection remedy (e.g. all articles about South Asian social groups), the preemptive protection remedy functions as encouragement to apply ECR preemptively, but does not require it. Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection § As arbitration enforcement provides an answer to your question: "Administrators may apply indefinite extended confirmed protection at any time to any page covered by ECR at their discretion, whether or not there has been disruptive editing on the page." (Disclosure: I recently updated the language on that page, but did not change this sentence.) According to this, your extended confirmed protection of the article People's Defence Forces is acceptable. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That needed a careful read-through, but I get the nuances a lot better now. Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Please close a bad RM

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

---

Talk:Donald Trump#Requested move 23 October 2025 proposes moving Donald Trump to Trump. I don't know to close that, or whether I'm authorized to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Another bad RM closure request

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

---

There's an RM on Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Requested_move_22_October_2025 to change Adolf Hitler to Hitler, which is universally agreed to be a totally pointless discussion; moreover it seems to be posted by the same person behind the recent Donald Trump RM brought up in a previous message on this page. A speedy closure would be appreciated. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 03:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 03:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

A rangeblock might be needed; 2A04:CEC0:C026:FDB:DC27:7CC7:1861:933D was blocked for being a sock, and a look at the /32 shows a fair number of requested moves that don't make much sense; see Talk:Sean Combs#Requested move 21 October 2025, [2], Talk:Pornography#Requested move 23 October 2025, Talk:Perversion#Requested move 23 October 2025, Talk:Human_sexual_activity#Requested move 23 October 2025; a speedy close on some of those would be helpful. IP range calculator said Special:Contributions/2a04:cec0:c000::/42 would be the range for all these IPs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears the merge proposal at Talk:Human penis#Merge proposal: Human penis to Penis and Talk:Penis#Merge proposal: Human penis to Penis have been reinstated, a speedy closure on those could also do good. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Rangeblocked the /42 range for a month, will start closing these other requests. Mfield (Oi!) 04:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Rangeblock, as the individual is likely not going to stop with these waste-of-time RMs. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Back again, (re-)creating more waste-of-time RMs. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay, what is the IP this time? Or a link to one of the waste of time RMs? I don't see anything looking at the /32 of the previous IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Sean Combs. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the previous talk page edits on the /42 of that IP were by this person; some of that stuff is revdel'd, so I'm assuming it was disruptive like this current one, and the non revdel'd ones are "trump is a racist" and "trump is a rapist"; the range to block should be the /46. Blocking the /42 isn't a bad idea either though, it doesn't appear to be that active. Swift closure of Talk:Sean Combs#Requested move 23 October 2025 is another thing to be done. An eye might want to be kept on the /32. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Another one just popped up within the /46 at Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks#Requested move 23 October 2025. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 for 72 hours and rv'd/hatted the RMs. I'm hesitant to hit any of the larger ranges just yet, since this is the first activity on the /46 since August. But if they do continue to use that /46, starting with maybe a month's rangeblock would be reasonable given the lack of collateral damage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Mathmensch, move to WP:CBAN

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

---

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

Mathmensch was blocked by Guerillero as WP:NOTHERE. This is as a result of this comment, which itself is the result of the incident described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement from SFR on the incident at WCNA. Mathmensch has contested their block. Two admins (myself and jpgordon) have declined the unblock request. I think the block is manifestly appropriate, especially given Mathmensch's complete unwillingness to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I therefore:

Propose a WP:CBAN (which happens automatically if this discussion upholds the block) and furthermore, propose revoking talk page access. Reasonable people may agree with the first and disagree with the second part of this proposal. --Yamla (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN and removal of talk page access. Having read the initial post in question and the talk page. User continued disruption on their talk page. They doubled down and refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK. They evoked "Free speech." (always a bad sign.) They are clearly advocating for pedophilia. (Anyone who wants to read a sad story-- email me.)---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable as the blocking admin. My block was also based on the lack of stick dropping after being warned. They were NOTHERE blocked from 2018-2023. Since they were unblocked, they made ~100 edits. Side note, the block was lifted with the condition "ONLY FOR EDITING MATHS AND PHYSICS ARTICLES" (emph. original). Trolling about child protection is outside of those bounds. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• (ec) Support both proposed actions. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support both. Per SFR, quote/unquote the original post was either trolling or the most tone-deaf post ever placed on Wikipedia. The persistent and continuing inability to DROPTHESTICK is certainly tone deaf, and their attempts at derailing the unblock process—including complaints of "heavy-handed suppression of dissent", that the blocking admin is NOTHERE, posting massive physics equations in unblock requests and bizarre references to Hitler and Stalin having mustaches—is either gaslighting, trolling or complete incompetence. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. If I see further disruption, I will remove TPA on my own. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Sidebar Could the account have been COMPROMISED?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's unlikely given the second unblock request. I haven't looked, though. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. On second thought, it might not matter. Whoever this is. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. And such could be handled (or the start of such could) at UTRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. Not here to constructively build an encyclopedia. I support ANY action you think of. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This is entirely antithetical to the project. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN and TPA removal --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support + TPA revoked per all above. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN and removing talk page access. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support both Wikipedia has zero tolerance for posts like the ones that user made. If they are unwilling to drop the stick, it's time we all collectively show them the door. This is the last thing we need after that incident. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks for opening this Yamla. I don't really vote in ban discussions, but I have no objections to this person being banned. They still seem to have no idea why what they said was the exact wrong thing to say at the exact wrong moment; instead they seem to think this is a "free speech" issue. Making such a comment at any workplace on Earth would get you quickly fired. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support both. In addition to the points raised above, their comments are blatant violations of their first and third unblock conditions [3]. They promised not to do this and they did it anyway. That is a serious breach of trust. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support both as per the above reasonings. The user's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support they clearly do not understand what they did was wrong.— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN I'm as a general rule opposed to banning people over one spat, so came across this expecting to either sigh or futilely oppose, but this isn't that; this is someone whose produced a lot more heat than light over their entire career. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Regardless of whether this user is sincere in their beliefs or if they're here to troll us, their postings have clearly been disruptive on multiple occasions and have been a drain on the community's patience, as their block log and talk page history indicates. I think they need a break from Wikipedia for a while. MaterialsPsych (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN and talk page revocation - Invoking free speech specifically to drop a comment that is blatant flamebait means you flunked reading comprehension of XKCD 1357. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive RfD listings

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

---

Could someone take a look at this? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#XfD The IP's behavior is very similar to a near-identical RfD last month that was procedurally closed due to sock concerns. Apologies if this is the wrong venue; I wasn't sure where to take this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 00:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Another editor has speedy-closed the discussion so maybe it's moot but there is a fishy pattern of behavior. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

see the spi. this is a returning sock with a habit of parroting stuff other people say, with the only consistent pattern being the end result being disruptive gibberish. they also nominated the redirect the last time as well. if someone could just get this over with, i'd be thankful

but really, the parroting got so out of hand that they repeated themself (and the rest of the sock drawer), fell into self-repetition (and of the other socks), and repeated its (and the fellow socks') own claims, what the hell is going on? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

also, they refactored other people's comments. this time, it was just mine. inconsequential overall since it was easy to revert, but annoying nonetheless consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Obvious WP:DUCK is obvious. Blocked 74.195.77.161 for six months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 🙏🏾 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

does it even count as a duck if it's a returning sock? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not a DUKW...more seriously, that's the entire point of the duck test, so yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and gaming from probable sockpuppet

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

---

Ghostedpepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been continuously reverting and adding to their sandbox. I think they are trying to game the system to autoconfirmed. As suspected, it has been more than 7 days since account creation, and they have immediately vandalized a protected page, Skbdisgma It is very likely that they are a sockpuppet. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias: Next time this happens you should simply move the page back instead of draftifying the redirect, which makes the problem hard to fix. For some reason, non-page movers are able to overwrite redirects if they do so quickly. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That was the first thing I tried to do, it didn't work for some reason. Probably something on my end if it usually works. Sorry, hope it was able to be resolved Aesurias (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It's fine, I also messed up a page move because I tried to clear the redirect by moving it to somewhere else. I haven't really looked into how MediaWiki handles pages moves but the logic is likely quite complex. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The logic is that if A redirects to B and has only one revision then you can move A to B as a non-page-mover. Page movers can bypass the "redirects to B" part of that, and move over any one-revision redirect (in addition to being able to vacate any title by moving it without a redirect). Admins can move over everything, of course. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. So if a vandal moves a page and vandalizes the redirect, you won't be able to move the page back? That does seem antithetical of being able to undo all actions easily. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's true as a technical matter. But I don't think it's a major problem; a vandal making enough of a stink can already force an admin to block them, or protect a page, or whatever so the fact that they can force an admin to undo their move isn't much worse. phab:T62383 and its many duplicates suggest people don't like that behavior, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed, the user has been blocked. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Unblock from filespace

I'm writing to appeal my block regarding filespace, as per WP:SO guidelines. I apologize for my past behavior and realize that I was overly strict and sensitive about file uploads and reverts.

In the past, I engaged in edit wars when others reverted or renewed my changes, believing that the files I uploaded were correct and problem-free. I also made improvements to other users' uploaded files, but when I was reverted, it escalated into further conflict as I continued to revert.

When others ignored my good faith efforts I reciprocated in kind. I should have stopped reverting and instead opened a discussion to resolve the issue. I take responsibility for my part in the escalation. My mental state was bad during that time until i ignore the Wikipedia rules due to my temper. It's so stupid of me to think it's fair. Over the block for 6 months, I've reflected on my actions, worked on becoming more mature, and committed to changing my behavior. I've used the time to read and familiarize myself with guidelines. I'm determined to be more responsible and open to discussion in the future. I promise to refrain from repetitive reverts. I'm committed to showing you a better side of myself moving forward and promise to behave more constructively in the future. I will also provide an edit summary. I apologize for my past actions that caused a burden to some users. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to see a longer baseline of unproblematic edits before lifting that restriction. I'd also like to know what you were doing in your sandbox with all those single character edits earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing... I was just bored and did that to relieve stress. I only did it this one time. If I'm wrong, I'm really really sorry, and I won't do that again. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Guess I'll throw the first bolded one down? This seems fine, honestly, and I don't see the problem with the sandbox edits. It's not like they're gaming anything with it, since they're already extended confirmed. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed temporary adminning restriction on UtherSRG

We've arrived at a situation without precedent concerning admin conduct during the admin recall process. UtherSRG has had a recall petition certified against him, and plans to seek reelection in the next admin elections (which means he will remain an administrator for at least 51 days), but during this pendency has again violated the same admin policies that led to multiple successive noticeboard threads [4][5][6] and ultimately the recall petition, and has refused to self-revert.

Namely, the main complaint in the recall petition was a series of WP:INVOLVED blocks, particularly regarding people Uther had content disputes with on species articles (a topic area he also was blocked a few times for edit-warring in long ago). One involved block that was overlooked in those threads (AFAICS) was that of 2605:59C0:20C0:3E08::/64, which came immediately after Uther reverted two of its edits to Pygmy rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article he has edited substantively starting in 2006 and continuing after his block of the IP. While the recall petition was ongoing, a different IP, 2601:346:900:C690::/64, made the same edit; two minutes after the recall petition was closed, Uther protected the article with the summary IP hopper repeatedly making the same reverted edit. (The edit had also been reverted once by Criticize with the first IP and once by Reconrabbit with the second.) Per GreenLipstickLesbian's analysis, while the reverts may have been justifiable, this was a content dispute concerning good-faith edits using a term found in reliable sources; while some kind of "communication is required" block or protection might have been justified, it would have needed to come from an uninvolved admin (and personally I don't think I would have done so). Sockpuppetry might bring the protection into "any reasonable admin" territory, except that the initial block was itself INVOLVED, and I'm not actually convinced the two IPs are the same person—Starlink geolocation isn't that reliable, but at face value it puts them on different sides of the U.S., and 2605 is near-exclusively species-oriented while 2601 isn't.

GLL has challenged Uther on this action, and his response does not show any understanding that this is yet another INVOLVED action, instead giving a response that blurs his role as an editor of the article and as an admin, and saying I find it very difficult to consider what people think about my admin actions vice providing stability to an article, which seems like a rejection of WP:ADMINACCT. Asilvering has seconded this challenge, and Uther has continued to edit without response. As such, I do think some kind of intervention is needed. I don't like saying that, because I've always had pleasant interactions with Uther, but this is a problem that does not seem to be stopping on its own.

If I were able to partially block Uther from making blocks or protections, I would, but that's not one of the available pblock settings. I considered a siteblock, and considered taking this to ArbCom, but I think the path of least resistance here is a temporary community-imposed restriction, to stabilize the situation so that AdE voters can decide for themselves in December. Therefore I propose the following:

Until the conclusion of the December 2025 admin elections, UtherSRG is banned from using the block and protect tools, except to reverse or reduce previous blocks or protections he has made. Any violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure how else to stop the involved tool use. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Need to patch the problem here, December is still a while away. CNC (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either this is worth taking to Arbcom for a WP:LEVEL2, or it can wait a month-ish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Such a restriction doesn't seem conducive to being able to accurately evaluate Uther's behavior between now and the admin elections, which is already under a lot of scrutiny and will probably continue to be as much. Protection isn't used often, and while the change to African pygmy mouse could be overzealous, the same to European mole seemed fine. -- Reconrabbit 19:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HOLES. We can always revert. Popcorn anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to note that Uther has ~48 days to get his act together until the discussion phase for AELECT begins, where his actions will be looked through for one last time until the vote phase, where his fate will be determined. (Non-administrator comment) fanfanboy (block_talk) 21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. The line of least resistance if an admin is running amok is an email to Arbcom for a level 2 desysop. Am not aware of evidence that Arbcom is too slow or unwilling to act when these kind of actions are warranted. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've forced Uther to make a request to remain an admin (We really need a word that encompasses retaining adminship via RRFA and EFA...) If he makes good blocks in the interim, why is it a problem? If he makes bad blocks in the interim, I don't think this makes it likelier for ARBCOM to desysop under level 2. I stand by what I said at BN, which is that a temporary desysop is the way around this. I'm working on such a proposal but won't be upset if I'm pre-empted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• I've been pinged, so I feel I ought to respond, but I'm of pretty mixed and ambivalent feelings. I'd like to be able to agree with Reconrabbit. I don't know that I can. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93. This proposal is not completely unreasonable, but it is speculative. What the admin is saying is a little troubling, but that's ultimately part of why they have been recalled. The admin has done essentially nothing since being recalled. As others have said, should that change, a block or desysop would be available. Arcticocean ■ 12:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as above - sensible proposal in theory, but let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA... GiantSnowman 12:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't understand the process, here. If he's been recalled, then why is he still an administrator? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  @GoodDay see WP:RRfA. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: Because he has time to resign the bit or to seek reconfirmation at an RRFA or to stand in an election. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sorta defeats WP:RECALL's purpose. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's the equivalent of telling someone they're fired but giving them time to clear out their desk. Versus the Arbcom route which fires you and then has security escort you out. -- Euryalus (talk)|

  It doesn't in my book. For my area, the first half of RECALL is a petition and the second half is an election. Someone creates a proposal and passes it around in an attempt to get the signatures required for the proposal to appear in the next election. If it succeeds, then (as long as the state legislature does not intervene) the proposal is added to the next scheduled election to be voted on. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's a fair enough interpretation, and I guess is what happens on de-wiki which our model is based on. On observing the way recall works on en-wp the petition itself is the definitive step. No problems with that: different wikis different customs. But apologies for sidetracking this overall thread, this is probably better discussed at the recall talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: yes please, may I? I'd love some popcorn. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Short version: successful recalls require the admin in question to commit to a re-election within 30 days. If they don't, at the end of the 30 days their tools are removed by the bureaucrats. In Uther's case, as the December adminstrator elections are only a very short time after the expiration of that 30 days, there's a general mood in the community that they would be allowed to run for (re-)election as part of it instead of a seperate RRfA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. While the opposes above make reasonable arguments, my counterargument is thus: let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA - we already have. The recall was because of repeated instances of this exact behavior; enough WP:ROPE has already been expended to tie up a small elephant. They have demonstrated, thoroughly, that they either do not intend to change their ways, or cannot; while requesting an emergency dysospping as suggested might be an option at this point, until or unless that is done, this is still a viable, and sadly reasonable given the demonstrated behavior, option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support - mostly for his own sake - as The Bushranger says, we've been here before. And, I don't know, maybe I've been influenced too much by the afterschool specials of my childhood, but at this point I'm convinced that the only way UtherSRG will be able to admin in the future is if the community forces him to spend a bit of time relying on his words when dealing with editors he doesn't agree with, rather than letting him take shortcuts with advanced permissions. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards support for the sake of ensuring that the block/protect tools can no longer be used while they are under the cloud of the recall, but given how we are about a month from the election, I'm not sure how effectively this proposal will be in practice. Even if this RFC is able to find consensus for support (which given Bush and GLL's !votes above I could see happening), that could take days or a few weeks to form, which closes the gap until the election when the community would decided whether they still trust their tool use. In the event that we need to invoke this and bring ArbCom into this, it's possible that the election happens before ArbCom makes a decision making this moot (unless the election results in them keeping adminship but ArbCom later decides to revoke them), but I'm not too knowledgeable on how long ArbCom would need to act on something like this. Gramix13 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Arbcom can act very quickly (a day or two?) to a level 2 desysop request. But it would probably require more evidence of tool misuse than has been presented here, which is possibly why no request has been made. That's not a criticism of the successful recall, simply that the criteria are slightly different. An admin can lose the community's trust and be fired without necessarily also meeting Arbcom's emergency standard for inappropriate use of the tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• To start, I made MOS:LISTGAP changes to resolve LISTGAP concerns - specifically removing blank lines and changing all indents to start with an asterisk. I'm making that clear since this edit will contain that along with this reply. On that note, I slightly oppose this - though I don't think Tamzin is wrong to have suggested this. Others have made the arguments I would've made - to summarize however, if it's this urgent, then WP:LEVEL2 is thataway. If it's not that urgent at this time, then I don't think there's any community action needed. WP:HOLES has already been referenced, and I agree with that - if this admin wishes to keep digging their hole, let's let them. Any harm they may cause (i.e. if they keep digging their hole through improper blocks/etc) can be quickly reversed by any other admin. Even if this admin may not qualify for L2 procedures right now, they are always available and I suspect ArbCom will be quite willing to consider L2 removal if this admin engages in any egregious conduct between now and their admin election. Any editor should be free (as always) to request L2 procedures if they feel this conduct (or future conduct) merits it. But if it doesn't rise to the level of meriting L2 removal, then I don't think this sort of community restriction is merited.
  Either conduct rises to the level of recall or ArbCom deadminship (whether through level 1 or 2), or it doesn't. The community has decided that, if something doesn't rise to the level of L1/2 deadminship via ArbCom, that the current recall process is how it should work. The current recall process does not provide any method for the community to restrict/remove admin tools pending the RRFA/election. And I don't think it's fair to the admin to attempt to restrict them just because they've been recalled. If the community thinks that there should be some means for us (the community) to restrict an admin from using some/all tools, or to deadmin them entirely pending the completion of the RRFA or election, then we should form policies and guidelines allowing for that sort of temporary deadminship/restriction of tool usage - whether after a recall succeeds or otherwise (i.e. without any recall). But if not, then we should continue with the current process and pursue ArbCom L1/2 if necessary, otherwise allow them to keep the tools regardless.. To have a separate form of community restriction on an admin using the tools outside of recall/L1/2 strikes me as unfair to that admin, since there's not any community consensus (that I'm aware of) for such restrictions on an admin (whether recalled or not).
  I also have concerns over how this would be enforced. Is there any evidence that ArbCom would even care if an admin violated this sort of restriction? Would ArbCom consider a violation of this sort of restriction grounds for L2 desysop? If they would, what conditions do ArbCom have on what sort of community restriction like this they would consider for L2? And ultimately, is ArbCom L2 desysop procedures (the only method by which this could be enforced) proper to enforce this sort of restrictions? Hence my slight opposition - at a minimum, I would want ArbCom guidance on what would be necessary for this sort of a community restriction to "stick" (i.e. warrant L2 desysop if it's violated), and confirmation that they would perform a L2 desysop if a community restriction that was imposed in line with whatever guidance they give as to what is necessary for such a restriction to "stick". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez, why do you think this couldn't be enforced except by arbcom? One presumes tamzin's intent is that it would be enforced the same way basically every community restriction is enforced - by blocks, if violated. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would a block prevent from using the block/protect buttons? My understanding is that it would not, hence requiring ArbCom action if it continued to be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  A block prevents an admin from blocking anyone other than the admin who blocked them (an option that's left intact to avoid a situation where a rogue admin blocks everyone and has the run of the place). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I will note that Tamzin's proposal says Any violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.; personally I would have opted to have it treated as a de facto topic ban, but either way this is necessary, however it is enforced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't mean that at the exclusion of a block to enforce; that's within any admin's powers if necessary to prevent another admin from violating policy, with or without a restriction on tool use. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfair Range Blocks

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

---

121.172.0.0/16

121.173.0.0/16

39.114.0.0/16

211.223.0.0/16

118.220.0.0/16

121.164.0.0/16

221.153.0.0/16

196.191.0.0/16

183.103.0.0/16

These blocks are all very old. They might be blocking out so many good users!

45.130.10.56 (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider "4 months ago" as "very old". 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We don't shorten or undo range blocks just because they become "very old". There might be a good reason why the admin placed a long-term block on the IP range, e.g. persistent disruption from editors on that range over a long period of time, as well as shorter range blocks having been tried before but to no success (in fact, if you check the block log of these IP ranges, most of them have had at least one shorter rangeblock applied to them in the past). Or, the entire IP range could be allocated to an open proxy service, hence blocked in the long run straight away, as Wikipedia has a policy that all open proxies should be blocked from editing because of the amount of disruption that bad actors can cause by using them to deliberately bypass blocks on their actual public IP addresses.

In cases where collateral damage is apparent (e.g. a rather high volume of unblock/help requests over a short period of time), the range block may be undone before its expiration date, but I don't see that being the case with any of these listed IPs. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Many of those ranges are heavily populated by dynamic OpenVPN proxies, and have been abused by WP:LTA/SB1. It seems to me, judging by Special:Contributions/45.130.10.57, that the probability of the OP being SB1 is non-zero. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: This is probably related to this query a few months ago. The ranges mentioned were used by quite a few abusers, including Shāntián Tàiláng and BuickCenturyDriver. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Vanished accounts holding user rights as of 25-10-2025

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

---

Username	Rights
Renamed user 242094acfb1a5b2f08e9e78f2e021a40	reviewer
Renamed user 18f539b9811fa7f02284bb5198ee05ee	ipblock-exempt
Renamed user 242094acfb1a5b2f08e9e78f2e021a40	reviewer

Please remove the rights. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the user rights from both accounts (it appears as though you listed a duplicate account here). Fathoms Below (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fathoms Below: Oops, sorry. Here is the correct third one: Renamed user 34971c6624b373bd32a0c14b61407ac8 (reviewer). Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

ANI report, going nowhere

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

---

I think this ANI report, should perhaps be closed. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

You can try asking on WP:CR. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been closed. The editor who was reported, was playing around with the discussion. I figured WP:CR tends to take too long. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Appeal block

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

---

Hello, I would like to appeal my block.

I understand now that my edits to the Eslöv school stabbing article violated Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, particularly the part about avoiding unsourced or poorly sourced material about living individuals. I’ve read through WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME carefully.

I now understand that we must not name or imply the identity of living persons accused of crimes unless the information is supported by reliable, published sources and the person has been convicted. I also recognize that any speculation, original research, or mention of non-public individuals can cause harm and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

I apologize for my earlier mistake. If unblocked, I will follow all BLP-related policies closely and avoid editing sensitive topics unless I’m sure I have high-quality, reliable sources. I’ll also ask for help at the Teahouse or relevant noticeboards if I’m unsure about policy in the future.

I'm not interested in editing the article, I am requesting an unblock because I cannot acces the wikipedia library while I have an active block.

Thank you for considering my request. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac: what say ye? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the fact that it took two warnings and a pblock for that information to sink in is problematic. I think that they are only concerned (by their own admission) with getting access to the Wikipedia Library. I also think they already have an unblock request on their talk page and are forum shopping. Other than those thoughts, I have no thoughts about this. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User Slodkiszczur keeps on vandalizing civic coalition (party) page and removing warnings from his own talk page.

The page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Coalition_(party)

The user @Slodkiszczur keeps on removing my sourced info and telling me that it's incorrectly sourced even tho it isn't. I tried to come to the talk page and resolve the dispute but no I also warned him twice but he removed his own warnings and continued his misbehavior. Austragar (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You keep dodging and ignoring my questions. You haven't tried to resolve the dispute. I asked you what authority you have to warn me, and you didn't even respond. How can I treat your warnings with respect when you don't even respond to my questions about them? Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I also asked you where is proof for your claim in the source that you provided. You didn't answear. Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

And your warns came from two accounts. One IP user and then your registered account, Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What is evident on the talk-page is that no consensus has formed in favor of your edits, and that multiple other editors have suggested politely that (both of) you stop edit-warring, and that you (Austragar) need to better respect WP:OR. Both of these pieces of advice are sound; you should observe them. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The WP:OR issue is on a whole other topic/ideological piece not the center-right one. Besides something good came of it as there is a note in ideology now that mentions the party being officially pro-european but Tusk being against the ECHR.

What I know is that my centre-right addition to ideology was well sourced and there hasn't been any condemnation of it on the talk page by others either. So he's removing it for no reason with no support etc Austragar (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one reverting "centre-right". Also my pronouns are she/her. Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Besides unlike a certain user I haven't fought against the consensus of the people when they chose to do what they did with pro-europeanism/the note about ECHR and Tusk they edited it I didn't revert

However in the case of centre-right where it clearly says CONSERVATIVES which is a right-wing ideology you kept on reverting together with an IP user without consulting the talk page. Without speaking to others about it and asking them so please. Austragar (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. There was no consensus because there was no discussion. Slodkiszczur (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Austragar, a few notes:

Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, like adding obscenities or nonsense or blanking pages. This isn't vandalism. But calling others' edits "vandalism" can be seen as a personal attack, so please don't do that. See WP:VANDAL for more.

Editors are able to remove warnings from their own user talk pages. It means that they've seen the warning. See WP:OWNTALK.

If there are questions about sourcing and the discussion isn't going anywhere, you can always start a neutral discussion at the No Original Research Noticeboard.

Without DIFFs showing misconduct, little or nothing will be done here. Woodroar (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

More multiple RMs

It appears that @2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67: has opened multiple RMS. Which appear to be wastes of time. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like it might have to be very wide. Calculator said the /34 would be the range. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a lesser range could be appropriate however. I counted the IPs in the previous /42 when calculating. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ranges will likely need to be widened. The individual behind this latest mobile, is never going to stop with these useless RMs. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK standby, looking at those existing blocks Mfield (Oi!) 03:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK have blocked the /34 for 3 months this time. There's nothing else useful happening in the range. IP had even requested an unblock and that was under discussion here [7], but apparently they have ignored the responses are maybe only interested in being disruptive after all. Pinging asilvering, Yamla, PhilKnight who had responded to that unblock for visibility. Mfield (Oi!) 04:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. Here's hoping temp accounts mean we can actually have a conversation with them on their talk page next time. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have speedy closed the remaining open RMs from this batch. Mfield (Oi!) 04:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

My 20+ yrs on this project, tells me that the individual is seeking entertainment. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

With you there, and if it were just a couple of repeated pages I'd semi protect the talk pages , but they seem to have widened their scope out. Mfield (Oi!) 04:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay, you can probably just head to AIV with these at this point. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Meanwhile, I encourage all to be on the look out. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Amendments to Palestine-Israel articles 4

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.

Remedy 6, Remedy 7, and Remedy 8 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case are repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Amendments to Palestine-Israel articles 4