User talk:Newslinger

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

A double barnstar for you!

[edit]
Two Admin's barnstars
Jesus Christ. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a million for your detailed meatpuppetry analysis. You have single-handedly completed the equivalent of an ArbCom case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ToBeFree! The previous conversations about the meatpuppetry in this topic area were based more on intuition than evidence, so I'm glad that the additional data shows a clearer picture of the situation. — Newslinger talk 17:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto'ing ToBeFree above - many, many thanks for your efforts here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Daniel! I'm always willing to help with the administrative backlogs when I have the chance. — Newslinger talk 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the SPI should be merged with Fixer archive because of the double hyphen.[1][2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Morbidthoughts, I did notice that, but decided against requesting a merge because FixerFixerFixer consistently used two hyphens without spaces around them, while Slacker13 tended to place spaces around their double hyphens. The separation of the FixerFixerFixer SPI and the Slacker13 SPI means that any future report should be filed under the investigation page that most strongly matches a user's behavioral pattern. Regardless of the page that the report is filed under, any evidence that links the reported user to FixerFixerFixer and/or Slacker13 will be taken into consideration due to the closely related nature of these accounts. — Newslinger talk 06:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/FixerFixerFixer (WP:LTA/FIXER) can now be used to reference both FixerFixerFixer and Slacker13 at once. Please feel free to help improve the page as new information becomes available.​ — Newslinger talk 07:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack

[edit]

Can I as a non-confirmed user participate in this discussion? Does this terror attack fit Indian military history category? I don't think so but I don't want to risk another warning. Longewal (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longewal, this is a complicated case. According to the 2005 Ram Mandir attack article, the two main parties present at the incident were individuals from Lashkar-e-Taiba (described in the corresponding article as a "Pakistani militant organization") and the Central Reserve Police Force (described in the corresponding article as a "central armed police force in India"). Because of this, the incident included an armed conflict between entities from Pakistan and India, although the groups were paramilitary, and not part of the Pakistan Armed Forces or Indian Armed Forces. The Lashkar-e-Taiba article is categorised under Category:Paramilitary organisations based in Pakistan. The Central Reserve Police Force article is categorised under Category:Central Armed Police Forces of India, which is in turn categorised under Category:Paramilitary forces of India.
Additionally, the South Asian social groups (WP:CT/SASG) extended confirmed restriction applies to parts of the 2005 Ram Mandir attack article. Lashkar-e-Taiba fits the classification of a South Asian social group (defined as one of the "social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal") due to its socio-political nature, and is covered under the extended confirmed restriction for that subtopic.
Considering all of these factors, the 2005 Ram Mandir attack included an armed conflict between individuals from a Pakistani paramilitary organisation (that is also a South Asian social group) and an Indian paramilitary force. As a result, I lean toward supporting the opinion that participation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack should be restricted to extended confirmed editors based on a combination of the extended confirmed restrictions on the Indian military history (WP:CT/IMH) and WP:CT/SASG subtopics. I am therefore applying extended confirmed protection to that page. Thank you for asking before participating in that discussion, as several comments from editors who are not extended confirmed have already been reverted by others on that page. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll step back. I do wonder, though, if this was ArbCom's intended outcome. These restrictions cast a very wide net and create a high barrier for newer contributors who want to add value.
It could take me a year to reach 500 edits, but that doesn't mean I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's core principles. My concern is that these rules are fostering an insular group of editors focused on South-Asia topics. This allows them to dictate consensus, often at the expense of neutrality. I'm starting to see a troubling pattern of like-minded views, and this gatekeeping is a real problem. Longewal (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian military history arbitration case, which was closed just over three months ago, resulted in the implementation of ECR in these two subtopics. Both remedies were passed 10 to 0 (with details on the proposed decision page), which indicates that the Arbitration Committee found ECR to be necessary to limit the disruptive editing in these subtopics. As one of the strictest remedies available, ECR is only considered when lesser restrictions have failed to contain the problems occurring in the topic area, which were documented in the findings of fact.
I understand that working around the boundaries of a topic area affected by ECR can be burdensome, especially when they are not precisely defined. In August, the Committee endorsed a definition of "Indian military history" in response to a clarification request. The subtopic of South Asian social groups has a longer history prior to the application of ECR that can be seen at WP:GSCASTE. Any editor who is extended confirmed may file an amendment request to appeal an ECR remedy or ask for its scope to be modified, although such a request would need to be supported by clear and compelling evidence, and is unlikely to result in any changes if the original case is still recent.
For deletion discussions in general, please keep in mind that the discussion closer is obligated to consider the strength of the arguments in the responses instead of counting them as votes. If a deletion discussion is closed improperly, it can be challenged through a deletion review. For now, I recommend directing your attention away from this discussion and toward topics that are not covered by ECR. The silver lining of ECR is that, by the time you are eligible to fully enter the affected topic area, you will have gained enough experience with Wikipedia processes to be well-prepared.​ — Newslinger talk 18:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being a patient admin. Longewal (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Longewal! Contentious topics and other arbitration sanctions can be difficult to understand and interpret, so I am glad to offer my input on any questions you may have in this area. — Newslinger talk 21:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of new RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs

[edit]

Hi Newslinger: You previously participated in this April 2024 RfC on community contentious topics and their relationship with ArbCom's contentious topics. There is now a new RfC on this topic that you may be interested in. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: LLM use + potential UPE, COI, and copyvio

[edit]

There's too much going on here for me to know what to do. I do feel a bit bad for this editor and was hoping you could guide them through this.

  • LLM use: I came across N.benavides25's expansion of Gregorio Dati after it tripped edit filter 1346. I reverted the edits after signs of unreviewed LLM content, including non-neutral language, potential content verification issues (example: ...drawing heavily on the language and imagery of Dante and earlier Tuscan poets seemed unsupported by the provided source), and clear evidence that the user was not writing in their own voice (comparing article content with earlier edit summaries)
  • The user posted User_talk:NicheSports#Goro_Dati_Flagged on my talk page, acknowleding LLM use but claiming that they had checked all content. I didn't have time to look into it
  • Potential UPE and/or COI: The user then reinstated their updates to the page and left an edit summary establishing that they are an RA who was told by their professor to expand this article. The professor apparently is involved with The Sfera Project. I don't know if this situation is UPE, COI, both, or neither
  • Potential copyvio: I ran the article through earwig and it flagged a potential copyright violation: [4]

NicheSports (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NicheSports, I've started a discussion at User talk:N.benavides25 § Review of recent edits to Gregorio Dati article. We'll have to discuss these concerns one at a time. Thank you for letting me know. — Newslinger talk 21:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request closed with an enacted motion

[edit]

Hello Newslinger. Your amendment request regarding the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case has been closed and is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 133 § Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4. The Committee enacted the following motion:

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Newslinger. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New potential COI

[edit]

Hi @Newslinger, I came across another case of potential COI while patrolling the 1325 edit filter log. This one I am confident is a false positive for LLM use but I think has high likelihood of undisclosed COI. FiHow (talk · contribs) has been active for 10 years and has exclusively edited articles about Mónica Feria Tinta. They recently created an article in mainspace about this person's recent book, which I draftified to Draft:A Barrister for the Earth with the draft reasons indicated at Special:Diff/1320231003. They seem to never have been asked about COI on their talk page, although Talk:Mónica Feria Tinta § NPOV is relevant. I assume the next step here is for an admin to drop them a note about how to manage a possible COI, and am hoping you can help. NicheSports (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I do think an LLM may have been partially involved in that draft. But that is a secondary consideration and I don't think I need your help in managing it, or frankly any action at this time NicheSports (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NicheSports, I've sent the editor a conflict of interest notice and a contentious topic alert for WP:CT/BLP, and I've started a discussion at User talk:FiHow § Promotional editing on Mónica Feria Tinta and Draft:A Barrister for the Earth. Thank you for the notification. — Newslinger talk 16:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u block me Paradygmaty2

[edit]

Why did u block me? I created the account Paradygmaty2 and u blocked me. 🚫 How can I defend myself (not having access to Paradygmaty) that I am true, and I may have right to edit – not violating and rules? I have never been blocked from using account, just not having access to any account? Paradygmaty3 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've responded at User talk:Paradygmaty3 § November 2025. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User behavior

[edit]

Hi there! While checking over my watchlist I chanced on a user (user:Bergsonfan93) who seems to be speed-running Extended confirmed - the account was created in March 2024 and edited four times that month, then five in May, then went completely dormant until one edit on Sept 30 2025, and has now been making multiple edits a day since Oct 31. They're all using the Link Suggestions feature.

The reason this raised a bit of a flag for me is that this is the same pattern presented by a lot of the accounts in WP:LTA/FIXER, which I got very familiar with during the Zak Smith mess earlier in the year. Make a sleeper, then reactivate it when needed, now with the extra step of grinding out WP:XC.

Could be nothing! I hope it's nothing. I just wanted to put it on the radar while avoiding WP:BITEy behavior (like raising it at a noticeboard or bringing it up on their talkpage (why yes I am conflict-avoidant, how could you tell?)).

Thanks much! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NekoKatsun, while making many edits using the link suggestions feature is one method some accounts have used to game the extended confirmed permission, this behavior by itself is not enough to warrant any particular action. Sometimes, editors simply enjoy adding links with this feature and performing the other newcomer tasks. If you haven't tried this feature yet, you can turn on the newcomer homepage to see the tasks and try them out yourself; they are designed to increase editor retention through engagement, like the other projects from the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth team.
A new editor repeatedly adding suggested links only becomes a problem if the edits are disruptive. For example, a sockpuppet of WP:LTA/FIXER added incorrect links in an apparent rush to become autoconfirmed. A spot check of Bergsonfan93's edits doesn't show any obviously inappropriate link additions, so I don't see any misconduct so far. If an editor enters a topic covered by the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) immediately after obtaining most of their first 500 edits through suggested links, that raises a concern over whether the permission was obtained through "trivial edits", which can be discussed on the incidents noticeboard, but keep in mind that this type of behavior is sometimes not seen as permission gaming and a report on these grounds can backfire.
As for WP:LTA/FIXER specifically, it's likely that they have exhausted their supply of old sleeper accounts because the accounts listed in the 1 October and 16 October investigations were created in September. It doesn't hurt to keep an eye on editors who might be permission gaming to see what they do after becoming extended confirmed; if they immediately engage in disruptive editing in an ECR-covered topic, then a conduct report may result in their permission being revoked. In my experience, editors who game ECR are more commonly discovered after they enter an ECR-covered topic than when they are in the process of making the first 500 edits. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! I really hope they're just having fun with it and aren't going to go on to be a butt. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (10 November 2025)

[edit]

Hello Newslinger,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 00:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on ECP scope for Economic History of India

[edit]

Hi Newslinger, I could use a quick clarification on topic bans/ECP scope. I am currently discussing the lede image on Economic history of India at Talk:Economic_history_of_India#Lede_image_and_geography_wording. The dispute is whether to use a portrait of a ruler vs. a map/GDP graph. A couple of editors are claiming I am barred from this discussion under the "Indian Military History" ECP restriction because the era involves Aurangzeb. My understanding is that economic history does not fall under military history restrictions unless we are specifically debating battles or military tactics. Could you clarify if I am permitted to participate in this discussion? I want to ensure I am 100% compliant. Thanks! Longewal (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longewal, I have responded in the discussion. While I do not see your disputed edits as WP:ECR violations, the subject matter's close proximity to the Indian military history topic area will make it difficult for you to participate until your account is extended confirmed. Thank you for checking, and I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 17:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]