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	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	1	0	1
TfD	0	3	21	0	24
MfD	0	0	6	0	6
FfD	0	5	7	0	12
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	7	0	7

• 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 51 sockpuppet investigations
• 32 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 6 Candidates for history merging
• 7 requests for RD1 redaction
• 109 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 33 requested closures
• 85 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

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

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)

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)

71.33.161.17 global vandalism

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

URGENT!!!

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

IP removing "Middle East" from articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

[1], [2], [3], [4] 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. 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: User Space 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)

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.[5][6] 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)

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)

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)

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. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor review for biography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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. 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. 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)

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)

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. 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. 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)

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) at 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Notified: [[7]] Reasoning: I am requesting a review of the recent closure of the RfC concerning the inclusion of allegations about Sultan Qaboos bin Said's sexuality in his Wikipedia article. I believe the closure may not accurately reflect consensus and may have overlooked key policy-based arguments. Concerns: 1. Policy-Based Arguments for Exclusion Were Substantial: Multiple participants cited core Wikipedia policies—such as WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V—in arguing against inclusion. These arguments emphasized that the sources in question largely consist of rumors and unverified claims, lacking the necessary weight and reliability for inclusion in a biographical article.​ 2. Questionable Reliability of Sources: The sources supporting inclusion are primarily opinion pieces or speculative reports, some of which were previously removed for failing to meet WP:RS standards. The reliance on such sources raises concerns about the verifiability and neutrality of the content.​ 3. Inconsistency with Previous RfCs: Earlier RfCs on this topic, including those conducted in 2017 and 2020, leaned towards exclusion, citing similar policy concerns. The recent closure appears to diverge from these precedents without a significant change in the nature or quality of the sources.​ 4. Lack of Clear Consensus: The discussion did not demonstrate a strong consensus for inclusion. Several editors presented well-reasoned, policy-based objections, and the arguments for inclusion did not sufficiently address these concerns.​ I request that an uninvolved administrator review the closure of this RfC to assess whether it accurately reflects the consensus and appropriately considers Wikipedia's core content policies. If necessary, I am open to initiating a new RfC with a more narrowly defined scope to address these concerns. Closer (Ganesha811) Non-participants Participants Discussion 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)

User:Nyanda*

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [8], 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. 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. 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. 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

Block and hide revision request

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

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)

Yuri Gagarin vandal

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

Ostrich258

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

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

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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)

Battle of Hamek

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

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

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

My topic ban

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 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)

Long term abuse and harassment

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)

Request for protection of Yazidi genocide (1915)

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)

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[9]. 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)