Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
    CfD 0 0 3 34 37
    TfD 0 0 1 4 5
    MfD 0 0 1 1 2
    FfD 0 0 16 3 19
    RfD 0 0 19 39 58
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro

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

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

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

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

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

    So, to get around to the point, there are hundreds of largely useless uploads from this account [1]. Do we FFD them one at a time or just nuke the entire site from orbit? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just G5 them all. FFD would be a waste of community resources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What voorts said. (one can grow old waiting for the foundation.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 them all. Not only are they useless, many of the photos include images of private individuals, including children at waterparks etc. No thank you.-- Ponyobons mots 21:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also hoping that posting this will make more admins aware of his pattern so new socks are dealt with quickly. It seems like the reason he's doing this here is that they finally chased him off on Commons, so it is at least within the realm of possibility that if he keeps getting caught he'll move on to... I dunno, mass uploads at Meta or something. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hit the nuke button, with apologies to the WMF server gods for the extra cargo.-- Ponyobons mots 22:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so that was the database error! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, it would appear so. I'll knock it back to 25 at a go, with breaks. I think this is the first time I've actually broken something.-- Ponyobons mots 22:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get an error when I try to delete the images even one at a time now, so I think it's now just a database lag from the massive nuke. I'll wait an hour and check again.-- Ponyobons mots 22:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, I was trying to do it at the same time, so perhaps we both broke something? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Spider Man pointing at Spider Man.-- Ponyobons mots 22:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If my memory is not failing me, Special:Nuke has a tendency to break under exactly those circumstances. JayCubby 23:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to successfully G5 the water park images of children files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All images have now been deleted.-- Ponyobons mots 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, seriously, when they tell you not to cross the steams, you really should listen to them. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two of you? Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting out of hand... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a nuke button if you can't actually nuke anything without breaking the database. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    File deletions are more work on the server than normal deletions because it has to move the entire file (and all versions of it) from the Swift container used to store live files to the Swift container used to store deleted files, whereas for text no content is moved and everything is in the same database. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: Just curious about the context for I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long. Is there a feature of a global ban that would get around the "volunteers have to figure out it's a sock of a banned user and then take action" bit? If not, what does global banning do other than providing an easy reason to ban on other projects if/when disruption occurs? Regardless, global bans can be proposed on meta without the foundation, although perhaps there feature of the ban you're alluding to is only part of the meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and not just global bans? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't always work, but sometimes when a person is office banned, they change up from disrupting the projects to pestering trust and safety and/or legal, who get paid a lot more than we do. It was also my hope that as a former judge, maybe if the legal department told him to stop, he would. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From reading his article (and good lawd have mercy) the legal department telling him to stop would only "encourage" him. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Trainrobber66

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

     Renamer note: To clarify, user asked the stewards for a rename and was told to come here to see if the partial block raises any concerns about renaming. Generally, we do not rename if "under a cloud." It looks like the blocking admin, @Red-tailed hawk: is not available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Let me take a look at this case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-familiarizing myself with this case, yes, I do think this would be a case of "under a cloud". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the rename, but regardless of whether it goes ahead your not going to get revision deletion for all your edits. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda weird that they are claiming the name change is because they want to be anonymous when their current name is equally anonymous. In any event they currently are not allowed to edit article space at all. I'd say that's a pretty major "cloud" and wanting all their edits deleted isn't exactly encouraging. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's not going to fly. If it weren't for the pblock I'd just suggest WP:CLEANSTART but there's the pblock, so... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sita Bose globally locked as a sock of WMF-banned user Nrcprm2026

    No further action needed. Star Mississippi 22:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This just happened about a week ago after a Meta CU confirmed the socking and locked the account. This is probably the 90-somethingth sockpuppet discovered after they were banned from enwiki, and some other number since they were globally banned.

    I notice there is no LTA case page for the user. I am not familiar with their editing styles, which is why I am wondering if an LTA case page might be appropriate. Since they are banned by WMF, I do think it would be helpful to know their modus operandi to try to detect future Nrcprm socks in the future. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Aasim,
    Feel free to start an SPI case if you can identify new sockpuppets but don't create an LTA page, we don't do that much any more. And, typically, we leave tagging the User pages of blocked editors, like you did at User:Sita Bose, to Checkusers and SPI clerks.
    Many editors receive global blocks due to SPI cases though, you don't need to report them at WP:AN. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is it was already confirmed by a Meta Steward/CheckUser that the user was a sock.
    I understand though if there may be a problem with non-CUs using the {{sock}} template. If an enwiki CU wants to add to SPI for the record, sure go ahead. I don't know if there is a need to go through these formalities when it would effectively mean nothing since the account is already globally locked. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock templates are generally used for SPI cases, not for tagging random socks. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. G7? Or just leave it there? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just leave it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note the above for future reference. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Query to admins

    IBAN MAINTAINED
    Any further shin kicks or back pats should be directed to Liz’s page. DoctorWhoFan91 advised to cool it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I am hoping to get some feedback on an action I took. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Voluntary IBAN, DoctorWhoFan91 adopted a one-sided IBAN between themselves and Alex 21 and added themselves to the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary list see here. They later reverted themselves, saying, in part, in their edit summary, Some admin can take the action. Since this seemed to be what they wanted, I reverted their revert and added them back to the voluntary editing restrictions list. I'll admit that I could be seen as having a COI as DoctorWhoFan91 complained about me several times in the ANI report for not taking action against the other editor although they refrained from identifying me by name.

    So, should this voluntary editing restriction be removed even though the editor suggested it and adopted it or was I incorrect? I'll accept whatever opinion the admin community says is appropriate. Thank you for offering me your thoughts. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maintain IBAN. An editor can't just rescind their voluntary editing restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Query as the second side of the IBAN. I'll have no arguments however this turns out, whether it's maintained or extended to a two-way, but I'd like clarification on how an IBAN works. Per this comment of mine, are any of the latter three diffs listed there in contrary to an IBAN? -- Alex_21 TALK 02:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) At first glance temporary two way iban may be effective. It seems as if a temporary two-way IBAN may be in order. I cannot look in too much detail at this time so take this bolded !vote with very little weight. The restrictions that are the most effective are the ones that are the least restrictive, being narrowly tailored to just the particular areas of disruption. If there is a need to extend it can be done further down the road. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On second note, maybe an indef 2way iban appealable after six months. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about expanding the IBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Aasim, no one, admins or participants, proposed a 2-way IBAN. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, striking out. Had a long day. I can say a voluntary ban is a contract between the editor and the enforcers of the ban. If the community decides a ban is unwarranted, making it voluntary doesn't change that. I see voluntary restrictions as a way to avoid wasting the community's time on disputes that have resolved themselves. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or matters which petered out bcs somone can't take more than 2 mins before replying generically. (Just a factual statement) And only the original statement could propose anything here, unless participants means in the ani thread-where in fact a propasal to make it 2 way if any admins wants was made, so no one proposing anything more than a 1way iban is not really factual. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    bcs somone can't take more than 2 mins before replying generically Who is this factual statement referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, who request a speedy deletion at 8:42 utc on 6 feb(she had been tagging csd, and checking prod and afd for hours), and at 8:46 utc on 6 feb, replies to my original msg at ani. Given that that includes time for typing, and time for reading the words without reading any of the links, I would say it was a 2 min thought. Generic bcs it is generic- have you tried talking it out- 5 arguments in a week and that is what is replied.
    And I do not believe even that 2 min read was carried out properly - on my talk page she writes that no one has time to "review the entire history of interactions" when it was one week out of like 6-8 weeks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what your beef with Liz is and I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I only asked to make sure you weren't referring to Alex 21. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't, I'm not gonna break my iban. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why you are tracking my contributions or timing my actions on the project. I try to help where I can. I'm sorry if you found my comments "generic". I thought some response was better than silence. But I definitely will stay away from any problems you might have in the future since you dislike what I can offer. Let's all move on and go back to when we didn't know each other existed. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not tracking your contributions, just the one contribution and the ones around it. Some response is better than silence, responses that are basically "here is a summary of how disputes are resolved on wikipedia" when I already wrote why I tried ani, is not. Just for an analogy, if one sees someone stabbed with a knife, responses of "maybe you should apply a bandage to it because that's what usually done for injuries" would probably not be taken well. Yes, pls stay away from any ani posts I might have the misfortune to make in the future, maybe I'll get someone competent rather than lighting mcqueen. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I won't take action but you should really read WP:ASPERSIONS if you are going down that road of insulting other editors. It's likely to be a short road. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read WP:Aspersions, but it says "where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence", and I started out by laying the evidence. I can change "competent" to "who actually reads what they are replying to", if you believe the former word is insulting? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintain IBAN: iban was not the issue, I just needed clarifications before I started the iban. What are the restrictions- like i understand I can't reply to the other editor or mention him directly or indirectly and the all the stuff at WP:Editing restrictions- but can I perform actions inspired by them- "namely, asking if uncivility and uncollaborativeness is allowed on wikipedia" without mentioning them, or in case something comes up here or some other noticeboard-provide diffs. And other similar stuff.
    There wouldn't need to be a "query to admins though" if somone took more than 2 mins to read atleast something of what was put before them before replying a with generic reply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An IBAN means stay away from the editor. If you see them editing a page, don't edit it unless you want to risk someone considering it being a reversion. If you see them do something you think is uncivil or incorrect, let another editor deal with it. To answer your question about asking a question about them without mentioning them: you should read WP:IBAN, which states that an IBAN prohibits an editor from mak[ing] reference to or comment on [the other editor] anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I understood that- but if raise a question against uncivility on wikipedia in general(not how did it in the diff, but actually without mention even in the examples), would that be considered indirectly mentioning him, given that the behaviour is why I'm asking for clarification on wikipedia policies? I'm not supposed to revert him-I can edit the same pages though, iban says nothing wbout that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    given that the behaviour is why I'm asking for clarification on wikipedia policies That would be "indirectly" referencing the other editor because you've just publicly stated that the other editor is the reason you want to ask questions about the civility policy. If other editors have questions about Alex 21's conduct, they can raise them in an AN/I thread. By voluntarily accepting an IBAN, you've promised to stay out of it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see, thank you for the clarification, it was the only reason I reverted the voluntary IBAN. You can close this discussion, I'm fine with it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, okay to close? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, voorts, you are the only admin who responded to this general query and it's only been open about 3 hours. But, I guess a resolution among editors is more important than me receiving feedback. I guess if anyone has a comment about this situation they can come to my very busy talk page and either give me a pat on the back or a kick in the shins, depending on what their perspective is. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintain IBAN. And for pete's sake someone close this thread before DoctorWhoFan91 gets themselves blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uptick in non-minor edits being marked as minor

    Moved to WP:VPT § Uptick in non-minor edits being marked as minor

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    the-sports.org

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

    This is one of those "I'm not sure where to ask so I'll try here" sort of things. I ran across an article with a link in "External links" to a listing on the-sports.org. (Here's a link to the old version of the article with the link: [link]) So, this "the-sports.org" has advertising and the info on the particular athlete was incomplete. Taking a closer look at the site as a whole, it looks like it was once a partner of Wikipedia, but that may have been a long time ago - there was a page with a message from perhaps the creator, with a copyright on it of 2002-2016. I also think that because the link wasn't a URL, it was a template (if that's the correct terminology.) I'm wondering if the site has been sold and is now a commercial site, selling ads on pages that, in part, get traffic from us. In which case, we may want to bulk remove any remaining links to the site on old articles.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This should go to WP:RSN. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I shall repost this over there then. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick uncontroversial move request of interface page

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

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

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

    Also fix the parameters so they are correct after the move. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you might get a faster response to your query at WP:VPT. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page deletion which I have made

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

    The Pernia Qureshi article has existed since 2013. You're also no longer the biggest author of the page. [2] Tarlby (t) (c) 04:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the OP last previously edited in August 2019 before appearing today to try to G7 this article (declined due to not being the only, or even largest, contributor) and then PROD it (removed the PROD as no rationaile was provided at all). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to be clear for any new editors reading this, that being the largest single contributor to a page confers no special authority. A request to delete a page is sometimes acceptable if there are no other significant editors (meaning roughly, that there may be other editors but they are either performing administrative task like adding categories or maybe fixing a typo but not adding anything of substance to the meat of the article.) There is never a situation in which simply being a substantial contributor to a page gives you the right to request removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They made four or five attempts to delete it. I’ve pblocked them from the article. I am very interested to find out why @Rohitbisht1985 wants to do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume it's the "Personal life & Legal Cases" section that could be seen as not very flattering. I just don't know why they didn't remove any negative content and instead sought deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone on an IP did try deleting stuff today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like most of the legal issues are about her father, not her. I’m going to remove some of those. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should ask User:SierraTangoCharlie1 if Pernia Qureshi or a relative has been in the news as they edited the article today, too. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw some unknown ip address edits to her wiki page. On further reading I found that the page had a lot of data which was about her father or a relative, and not exactly worth being kept on her wiki article . Hence, I removed those edits and stated reasons for the same. STC1 talk 08:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all the negative info came from a single edit last month: Special:Diff/1270596693. That editor Samdan25 only made that one edit. I’ll invite them to the party too. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samdan25 blocked from Pernia Qureshi 31 hours for reinstating some of the stuff about her father. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    why delete the article? If vandalism occurs, we can always correct it. The Last time Pernia was in the news was when she divorced her second husband (early 2024) followed by a Vogue India article about Wedding Gowns (late 2024). STC1 talk 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At Wikipedia:Administrative action review#February 2025 block of 79.13.24.38 by Johnuniq, the OP suggested this discussion be closed. If admins wish to further discuss this issue, feel free to reopen. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I noticed 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs) adding "further reading" links earlier and blocked them after seeing that their 170 edits seemed to do nothing other than add links. The IP did not respond to a WP:REFSPAM concern expressed by ianmacm on 8 February 2025, but the IP has responded to my block message. I think an unblock would be reasonable but before that is done, people might like to consider whether the IP should have their edits restored (as they have asked), and how such activity should be regarded. Obviously there should be a good reason to highlight a particular book. What does work is when an editor who has significantly developed an article adds a couple of further readings that they have seen and which they think would benefit readers. My humble opinion is that other people focusing on just adding links is not reasonable. I will be away for a while—if someone wants to unblock, please do so without further consultation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am worried about the low merit of some of these links. As I said at User_talk:79.13.24.38, "The link added at The Shining (film) added very little of value. Wikipedia is not a directory of links and external links should be chosen with care so that they aid a reader's understanding." There may not have been a deliberate attempt at promoting the links, but at the very least 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs) should have a good read of WP:EL before adding any more links.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New redirect

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

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

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

    The AN noticeboard is for issues impacting the project's administrators. I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, Servite et contribuere. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Liz But I do find Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a bit confusing. Do I just type it at the bottom of where I can type? It's not an important redirect anyways. It can be done later Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Servite et contribuere, there is a blue button named Click here to request the creation of a new redirect. Click on it, and it will give you instructions regarding the creation of a new redirect. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Codename Noreste It's after the Blue Buttons I find it tricky Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For help like this, I recommend going with your questions to the Teahouse. They have editors around to walk you through steps like these. AN? Not so much. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dev0475

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

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

    Appealing user
    Dev0475 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction being appealed
    Per informal admin colloquy, it is noted that Dev0745's edits since [the earlier, broader] topic ban's imposition have largely violated it, but also largely been acceptable, and as such imposing a sanction for these violations would not serve a preventative purpose. Instead, the ban is narrowed to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed; Dev0745 is warned that this new scope covers some of the edits they had been making, which they must take care to avoid in the future.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Waived. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Dev0475

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

    Tamzin, In the article of love jihad, what I wrote was that Popular Front of India was under scanner by NIA for love jihad cases. Later banned for links with SIMI, a terrorist group banned by Indian government which were clearly mentioned in those articles. Whether they found any evidence of love jihad or evidence of coercion is different thing. I was only mentioned they were under investigation by NIA for conversion in 2017. Later banned for links with terrorist groups in 2021. I don't know that not writing about India Today media report of not finding coercion is against Wikipedia policy. I will ensure that I will follow Wikipedia policy properly. Dev0745 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PFI do conversion by running centre to convert non-muslim by indoctrination as per NIA. see news articles:[5], [6], [7], [8]. Religious conversion is not a crime in India unless it is force conversion.

    Statement by Tamzin

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dev0475

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

    RfC close

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

    Canvassing of editor King Lobclaw by a now-banned user

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

    Krucial Khristian Kru is blocked, not banned. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know the consequences if you fail to do so certainly sounds like a threat. I have suggested to King Lobclaw that if any further efforts are made to compel them to edit on behalf of a blocked user they should contact the trust and safety team. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an FYI that King Lobclaw just said they plan on deactivating their Wikipedia email link in order to sever that contact method and prevent Krucial Khristian Krew or any of their socks from targeting them further. I think we should likely discount their compelled !vote but take no further action against King Lobclaw. However for the threatening editor I think a community ban against the sock master for canvassing with threats should be logged. They should not be coming back from their block. Ever. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked email access for Krucial Khristian Kru. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Closer statement

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

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

    Non-participants

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

    Participants

    • Well it should not have been snow close but to assume that "Failure to Weigh Arguments" seems like a massive assumption, based on (dare I also say) it a Failure to Weigh Arguments.Just becasue they did not get the result they wanted did not mean their arguments were ignored, just that they may not have been good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here (by the way) is the RFC [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's shouldn't be closed as SNOW and the merits of the arguments, especially in context of this being a BLP need to be part of the closing discussion. This is a case where the declared consensus may be correct but if the RfC is to have meaning the rational should also be correct. Note that I !voted exclude but by going only by the numbers I think this is consensus for include. Springee (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note, since people are asserting that WP:NOTNEWS wasn't addressed - I view NOTNEWS and RECENTISM as intrinsically connected, at least in this context. My extended comment there rebutting the RECENTISM arguments obviously applies equally to the NOTNEWS ones; I assumed that that went without saying. Beyond that, while the RFC was oddly-worded and should have had more workshopping on a specific wording, it was clear that the real dispute was "should this be included at all", and the discussion was extremely lopsided in favor of inclusion. The arguments for exclusion (as I pointed out when analyzing the hollowness of the RECENTISM argument) were weak because they lacked specific reference to the context at hand - simply repeating NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no context-specific argument, as many of the arguments for exclusion did, isn't a strong argument at all and isn't something people ought to expect would help them in a case where such arguments also clearly failed to convince many people. Note that Namor's own arguments from the RFC fall into this category - a vague handwave towards NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no explanation for why they apply here; those policies obviously do not support the automatic removal of everything in the news or everything recent, so the lack of context made them extremely weak arguments. As, again, I clearly indicated during the RFC, and which nobody adequately rebutted! And many of the other arguments against inclusion relied on editors trying to interpret Musk's gesture themselves or expressing their own personal opinions about it, which a closer obviously had to disregard. Overturning a lopsided majority requires that you have clearly stronger arguments, and while obviously everyone is always going to think their own arguments are the strongest, I'm simply not seeing how anyone could hope to win on the merits of their arguments with arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose RfC result, the rationale was poor. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close. Unless someone can point to a specific line of NOTNEWS that applies here, it's a weak argument. The only paragraph that could maybe be used is the second one, and even then the gesture and reactions to it definitely exceed "routine news coverage". – MW(t•c) 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse result, but not the close. Per Rhododendrites above, the RfC was malformed, and to provide some context here it also doesn't reflect the current situation with the Musk article nor the Salute article. It arrived when the page was 14,000+ words prior to undergroing summarisation, and a day before the AfD was imitated, with the overwhelming number of votes coming during this period. To relist would be to reassess such consensus prior to a dramatic change in content that has become the status quo. Now that there is consensus for the Salute article as a standalone article, and the Musk article converted to summary style, the argument for exclusion, inclusion, or reduction of content, would be completely different. There are no size issues to consider anymore, nor an issue with where to locate the content, and the summary in question was also been trimmed (without opposition) since the original RfC to align with rest of article, as opposed to an ever expanding liveblog-like commentary. Generally I feel like the previous dispute was resolved given the changes that occurred to the article, the consensus established at AfD, and the content being completely different now. I believe these factor should be strongly considered here, not to mention the lack of any recent editing dispute at the article to reduce or expand the summary. I concur with others it was not a snow clause and the rationale was poor, but I really feel like we could just move on from this and instead continue improving Musk child articles rather than rediscussing an expired issue. Edit: also what Alalch E. said (that I didn't see before my comment), as this is another good way to look at this situation for broader context. CNC (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Elias Hossain(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cover Images with Albums/Singles

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

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

    Scammer

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

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

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

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

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

    This looks like a WP:VP. guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, ButtonWarren,
    Please review Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning, it should have some information for you and where you can report this scam. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that this message appears to be entirely AI-created. Strange? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mellk Has Acted Contrary to Wikipedia Guidelines

    Clearly a sock and a WP:RUSUKR violation to boot. Hatting. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Any editor in good standing is welcome to present a case, should there be merit. Creditcot, please take this as a final warning. You will be blocked for disruption if you continue down this path, regardless of whether you're socking. Star Mississippi 19:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You need to formally notify Mellk of the existence of this discussion as instructed at the top of this page, pings are insufficient for this purpose. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a sock. It is definitely strange that a new account that has made about a dozen minor edits all outside of the EE topic area and has never interacted with me before is now proposing an EE topic ban and recalls something I supposedly said in 2023. Mellk (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mellk has been notified of this discussion, as predicted he will proceed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my account, this is routine behaviour for Mellk, as his editing on Wikipedia speaks for itself (aggressive and intimidatory) he will move directly to attacking my account, as he has done with so many others.Creditcot (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Creditcot[reply]
    Whatever, please use your normal account to open AN threads. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually socking aside, isn't this complaint a violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War? Creditcot lacks EC under this account. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    as predicted he will proceed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my account. Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would suspect you of acting anything other than completely aboveboard. Do you really expect everyone to believe that as an account created last month with 12 edits, having never edited an article which Mellk has edited, for your 13th edit you reported them to AN based on ... an edit made more than a year before you created your account, and more than 25,000 edits back in their contributions? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    CBAN appeal - Roxy the Dog

    UNBANNED
    Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is unbanned by the community. There is a clear consensus that his apologies and recent civil interactions are entirely sincere. Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop. Roxy has stated that he ha[s] no desire to edit article space in the GENSEX area, and [won't] do so. If, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment, it will be with politeness and empathy. (emphasis added). The community has determined that those promises, as well as Roxy's growth and commitment to civil discussion, are sufficient to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Roxy is encouraged to avoid GENSEX entirely for several months. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    • Support lifting this ban. The discussion on Roxy's talk page shows that he's been willing to reflect on what he did and how it affected other people, and to take other people's perspective into consideration. I don't think continuing the ban serves any useful purpose. Girth Summit (blether) 12:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Appeal comes across as genuinely reflective and remorseful, and it appears the sanction has served its purpose. The only caveat I'd add is that I cannot speak for anyone who felt wronged by anything that was said or done, and if they raise an objection then I may return to strike my !vote. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Excellent appeal, the achievement of self-knowledge can occasionally seem a rarity in these parts. Serial (speculates here) 14:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I appreciated reading the thoughtful conversation on Roxy's talk page, and commend YFNS for taking the time to drop science regarding some of the common fallacies that underpin transphobia. While Roxy and I still don't see entirely eye to eye on trans issues, that's hardly a deal breaker. What's important is that they've demonstrated a commitment to thinking through this fraught topic collaboratively, and in general to engaging with civility at the forefront of their mind going forward. Generalrelative (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, well-spoken and thoughtful request that shows reflection on the incidents. A read of the original discussion and subsequent interactions indicates a commitment to avoid the topic area and a more understanding approach when working with other editors. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't know why you are discussing another Wikipedian's medication issues and I can't find an on-Wikipedia reference for this statement. Sideswipe9th hasn't edited since April 2024 and I think that comment is sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that wasn't needed, but it's in the second link in RTD's unban request above. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your comment about El C makes me wonder whether it would also be appropriate to notify User:Maddy from Celeste, who made the previous ANI that resulted in the CBAN. I'm at least pinging them now. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see this is an WP:1AM situation. While I'm not going to Oppose an unblock, I do have some misgivings. But given the support from editors like User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist who has worked with Roxy, I'm not going to derail this moving train. So, let's remember WP:ROPE and move forward. Besides considering a topic ban from GENSEX though, I do think that this request should be open for 48 hours before its inevitable close so it's clear it received its due, thoughtful consideration and wasn't rushed through. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Liz, since you asked about Sideswipe9th, if you look at User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 13#Follow up, you will see that Sideswipe told Roxy about the health issues, so yes, there is a clear record of Sideswipe volunteering this information. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I see the subject was mentioned back in November 2024. I don't see the relevance of mentioning in an unblock request as if it is current reason why an editor isn't editing. A minor point, I just thought the reference was unnecessary. Moving on. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I think he's shown solid growth, understanding, and remorse and believe sanctions should be preventative not punative. There are some extra parts I wish he'd included in his appeal, but that's on me for not discussing them when he was drafting it as it's been a busy few days. I'd strongly recommend, but not require, he consider himself under a voluntary GENSEX TBAN for at least a year as if he feel[s] the need to comment on GENSEX the most polite/empathetic thing to do for the time being would be not to for a while / only comment on the least controversial articles / discussions. That being said, welcome back Roxy, and you can always still ping/email me if you want to discuss / learn about anything! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support
    I have a history with Roxy and have interacted with him when I was a teenager, so to me he is kinda a teacher figure to me.
    Other older contributors I have interacted with like User:Tgeorgescu are viewed as teachers to me. Tgeorgescu knows that Roxy has been a valuable contributor to the project.
    Also Roxy’s apology appears genuine. So why not give him another chance.
    I spend a few minutes to write this reply. I am currently in class, so please ping me if you plan to reply to this comment.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support appears to be a well thought out request with backup to points they are making. No opinion on whether a t-ban is needed. Star Mississippi 19:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good request as per above. JayCubby 20:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per YFNS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support As someone who was in a similar situation here not too long ago. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per the others. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per everyone above. A valued member and a net-positive to the project. Their interactions prior to the unban request and the unban request after are both sincere, apologetic and honest. I see no reason for Roxy to remain blocked. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, and I'm so very happy to see that I'm far from the only person here who feels that way. I, too, am convinced of the sincerity of the appeal, and I, too, note that we do not often see that amount of demonstrated self-awareness in appeal requests. Roxy has been very helpful in one of the areas where I edit, trying to keep POV fringe out of our medical and scientific pages, and I'm sure that he can be helpful there once more. He knows his limitations, has acknowledged explicitly that there is an element of "ROPE" in his appeal, and I think the community can feel confident about granting this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Discussion on the close

    • Note: If someone has an objection to the unban as is and wants me to reopen the discussion I will do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to go on the record and say this discussion was closed too soon. Not open even for 24 hours. If you disagree, please read the original CBAN discussion. That's all. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Roxy has a topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Individual sanctions (GENSEX) and here is the notice User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. Is this still in force, voorts? I'd ask User:Courcelles but they haven't edited in a few months. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say clearly yes. It doesn't seem like Courcelles ever revoked it or another admin with their permission. It was mentioned in the cban discussion as still being in effect. Neither of these discussions would seem to have revoked it, it wasn't even mentioned above AFAICT, so even putting aside it didn't use the CTOP template, I don't see how you can have consensus to revoked it when it wasn't mentioned. And the cban discussion seems to have resulted in a separate remedy distinct from CTOP I mean it was in ANI so not even the right place to deal amend a CTOP sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Liz. I have no problem with closing a discussion "too fast" when it's to a user's favor (in this case unbanning them). However, the idea that Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop. after 16 hours is not an accurate reading of how the community works. It is not an accident that community bans must normally be open 72 hours - things can swing. I would ask Voorts to consider striking that part of his close. I'm happy that there is consensus to bring Roxy back to the community but I do think a fair chance - on a weekend no less - for people with concerns to have a chance to express them is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's particularly problematic; it's just an exercise in paperwork. As with most of our discussions, consensus is formed by a (well argued) majority addressing and overturning a previous consensus. Since the extant topic bans were not raised in this discussion, they have not been overturned by consensus, and must stand. So all we need to do is adjust this close to reflect that not only was there no consensus to impose a new TB, there was, by default, no consensus to lift the previous one. Adjust the log to reflect this and inform RtD that, unfortunately, his voluntary promises will not be required at this time, as they are still under the same restrictions they were before the Cban.
      As far as the discussion not being open long enough, I can find nothing in WP:CBAN or WP:UNBAN that mandates a minimum opening period for ban appeals. Presumably it will require a well-publicized RfC to effect the necessary policy change. On the merits though, while it could have been held open longer, per WP:NOTBURO, it is common place for discussions to be closed when an overwhelming consensus appears. If it was sparsely attended, of course, it would have been very wrong to close it too soon. But it was not sparsely attended. The last 13 unban appeals of any vintage on this page attracted 12, 4/5, 5, 4, 13, 6, 25, 9, 16, 6, 5, 5, and 7 participants. Only the (very!) high profile Sander v. Ginkel case attracted more participation, and that failed. So in fact RtD's appeal is the most well attended successful appeal over the last month, at over double the average participation of 8/9 attendees. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck that part of the close about the TBAN because apparently one is still in place. I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer. Liz isn't proposing a topic ban, Barkeep isn't proposing a topic ban, and the few editors who mentioned that one might be needed didn't even condition their support for an unban on imposing one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to note for the record that 1) I think it was closed too early and 2) I did not like being the only openly trans editor who voted. I stand by my vote, but don't speak for all trans editors. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer." is a moot point, for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate... A discussion less than that can not come to a clear community consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As @Fortuna imperatrix mundi noted, 20 people responded in less than 24 hours, far more than all but one of the recent ban appeals here. If someone has a serious objection, I'd be happy to reopen the discussion. I understand that various editors think I jumped the gun here. I was applying SNOW in good faith in closing the discussion, but lesson learned for the future. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think its a question of how many people responded, for me its a question of how many people had the opportunity to respond. I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. WP:CBAN states that "For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours." If we're going to set any limits, it should be at 24 hours, but I'm generally opposed to limiting the scope of IAR closes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying that you violated policy and guideline, I'm saying that you did not meet intangible community expectations (which is why you have a whole bunch of editors complaining). You don't have to be so defensive about this, nobody is questioning your good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was just responding to your point about 48 vs. 24 hours, not trying to further defend myself. My point was that I think that if we're going to have any kind of limit going forward, it should be 24 to align with CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Codex Special:Block page Feedback Needed

    Hello Admins,

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

    STei (WMF), I am not really interested in the test, but I do want to say as an administrator that this will be a very useful enhancement of the administrator's toolkit, and I look forward to its implementation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here! Bishonen | tålk 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Page move help needed

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

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

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

     Done, Johnuniq, with help from User:Yoshi24517. I didn't add a blocking notice on their User talk page as I thought that should come from the blocking admin. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, unfortunately my user page was one involved. I think I undid all of my pages correctly, Liz, if you don’t mind doing a quick check for me that would be great. I got email notices for my user and user talk pages and their associated edit notices. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 06:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we got everything, Yoshi24517 (mobile). They are targeting some of the same admins as a week ago so I opened an SPI on them. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Week-old revert-list request on genealogy sources

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1275900880"