Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
    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.

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

    Open tasks

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
    CfD 0 0 0 2 2
    TfD 0 0 5 11 16
    MfD 0 0 0 7 7
    FfD 0 0 7 6 13
    RfD 0 0 0 67 67
    AfD 0 0 0 2 2


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

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IMO any unblock should also require that they only use the talk page to propose changes to their bio on the talk page via edit requests etc rather than directly editing it whatever they are citing. Maybe also to Foundations of Chemistry. WP:BANEX would apply of course. While I'm a strong believer that COI doesn't forbid editing in the general case, once an editor has shown they don't know when their COI edits are okay and when they aren't, things change a bit. While it does seem that the main concern with Scerri's editing is their tendency to add citations to their own work, it just doesn't seem a good idea to say general editing of their bio is okay when an editor has trouble recognising COI problems. Also I'm slightly concerned as worded the proposal seems to suggest that if Scerri is told on RSN that a source they are citing is reliable, they're going to think they can then use it all over even when they are just adding it to stuff already supported by citations. But I guess most RSN discussions of specific sources do make clear context matters and more importantly provided Scerri always makes clear what and why they are asking, this probably shouldn't be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto what Nil Einne said. Restrictions are required for me to support, along the lines that Nil Einne already laid out. I would further suggest he should be able to appeal the restrictions here after ~500 edits or 1 year, whichever comes last. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scerri needs to say in their own words and from their own account that they agree to the terms. While you may advise them, Sandbh, and that is truly helpful, you cannot speak entirely on their behalf as we don't know whether they in fact agree. While i'm not yet sure how I feel about unblocking at all, I think any successful unblock would need to be contingent on them avoiding self citing but also using edit requests in areas where they have a vested interest. I'd be curious to hear from the editor why they all of a sudden want to edit again after 17 years. Star Mississippi 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. In reviewing this unblock request, the following logged-out statement by User:Scerri, recently made here on their Talk page, should be considered: I recognize the general preference for using talk pages or formal edit requests in autobiographical articles, but I must be candid: given my professional commitments, I simply do not have the time to engage in back-and-forths on talk pages or through formal edit request channels. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my main reason for declining their request. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He's blocked, so he can't post here, but he can post on his user talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll ask him to post on his user talk page, and will let editors here know when he has done that. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having not heard anymore from Dr Scerri, I've just now emailed him to ascertain his position. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard from Dr Scerri, and he intends to post to the User: Scerri talk page. I'll post an alert here. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr Scerri has posted his unblock request to his talk page. Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [...] while I have occasionally made factual updates via IP edits over the years — mainly to keep my publication details current [...] My reading of this is edits made post-2008. If so, I don't think Scerri realized that they were evading their block by making edits as an IP user. Assuming my assumption is correct, a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable. (Hopefully I am misunderstanding the situation.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also read this as (non-malicious) block evading. Overall this seems like someone that wants to make good faith contributions to the community. a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable - agree. It also seems like Scerri is interested in writing an encyclopedia but not really in learning about our community norms. With that in mind I would like to see that his account is restricted though I do not have the experience to suggest the best restrictions. Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A one account restriction is unnecessary. It is not an absolute requirement and here it is obviously not going to change anything. —Alalch E. 23:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I hadn't seen this WP:ROPE I think that holds good sway here. As for the IP editing. I have also done what you described but doing it specifically because you actual account is blocked is a another matter. Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the considered response.
    I agree entirely that IP editing to bypass a block is a different matter entirely—one that rightly raises serious concern. My intent in mentioning IP editing was not to excuse evasion, but to suggest that occasional IP edits, post-unblock and with no evasive intent, may not need to be preemptively restricted. If problematic patterns were to emerge, we already have mechanisms to deal with that, hence the relevance of WP:ROPE.
    My broader point was that we shouldn’t presume all IP edits are suspect—particularly if they’re isolated, minor, and in good faith. Of course, if Dr Scerri were unblocked and later engaged in problematic IP editing, I would fully support appropriate action. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am probably not the only editor who has added that page to their Watchlist, so perhaps you could tell the Doctor that IP edits to that page are unlikely to be missed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, JoJo Anthrax. That’s a fair and helpful point—and I trust Dr Scerri will appreciate the level of attention and the importance of maintaining full transparency going forward. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of Austin Metcalf

    [edit]
    Content discussion underway at article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It is not a BLP violation to name him, as the sources are not suppressing his name (which, I will admit, is odd). Whether or not there should be a redirect from the suspect to the victim is a matter for RFD. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac:, I understand your point. However, this same issue arose prior to the conviction of Gerson Fuentes as well as another individual whose name was posted in media who the Wikipedia community did not want posted in articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I guess I was thinking you were asking for administrative intervention, not just extra eyes on the situation. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a multitude of people asking that the name be removed, in addition to me asking for PERMANENT deletion of the information. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, consider this (at least for me) a formal decline of your second request; it does not meet the OS criteria, nor (because the name has been published) does it meet RD2. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that odd, given that he's black and the victim was white. That's how our media works these days. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When did English Wikipedia turn into a newspaper? Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, the core business of a newspaper is gathering unpublished information, rather than summarizing other publications' comments. Material that is verifiable in a prior publication is therefore unlikely to be an example of 'Wikipedia turning into a newspaper'.
    WP:NOTNEWS begins this way: "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." It also bans "Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and articles "written in news style" Since "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", we could attempt to make the case that this is one of the many that don't qualify, but IMO that case will be easier to make a couple of years from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a previous consensus to not name the suspect? If so, some editors may be simply unaware of it and you might need to make it more visible (e.g. on the talk page or in an edit note). If not, it's probably a good idea to get a RfC started. Not an unusual thing for crime-related articles, either; see Gilgo Beach serial killings, Moscow murders, and the killing of Brian Thompson as examples. wizzito | say hello! 20:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a brief discussion on the talk page where one editor suggested it should be included if policy allows, one editor replied with a reasoned argument for inclusion, a third editor agreed with inclusion without leaving a detailed rationale. One of the second two editors (I don't remember which) added the name to the article. The redirect from the accused name was nominated for deletion at RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Karmelo Anthony), where I recommended keeping as it was prominently mentioned in the article, apparently with consensus as there was no opposition in the talk page thread. Since that time further comments for and against inclusion been left on the talk page and discussions have also been initiated by those who desire exclusion here and at WP:BLPN and a request has also been made for protection at WP:RFPP (the latter due to the name being added and removed from the article multiple times). As far as I can see whether to include or exclude the name is an entirely editorial matter (that I don't have a strong opinion about) balancing the prominent mentions of the name in multiple reliable sources with the accused being a minor (17 years old) who has not been convicted of a crime (I believe he has been charged, but the article isn't completely clear on that). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there are news outlets naming the child suspected of this killing, we can choose to have higher standards. I think we should.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The suspect is 17, which makes them a minor but not a child. I believe they were charged as an adult. Also, the discussion about whether to include or exclude is happening on the article talk page rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    [edit]
    Another thread calling for action against a well-known and active admin, another sock blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This is a content dispute in which no administrative tools have been used. The fact Izno is an administrator is irrelevant. AN is not an appropriate venue for this. (Also I see a lot of primary sources in the reverted content.) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked this user as a fairly obvious sock. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock, no need to run by me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the fact that Izno is an administrator is not totally irrelevant if this is indeed a content dispute, seeing as I used rollback, which is not for content disputes. But in this case, it's not relevant because this isn't a content dispute but instead that the user I reverted is likely to be a sock of Yukitanooki, as DG has also identified with this editor. Izno (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive user

    [edit]

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

    @AnotherTimeline, please notify Techn0driv33 about this discussion. You can follow the instructions in the pink box at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a source but you would not read it in the slightest while offering 0 analysis. You just keep on going how Ryan Coogler is 100% not an auteur and is a commercial director without offering the slightest bit of analysis then when I call you out for using your own opinions on him to justify that hes not an auteur you keep refuting and just saying I have no film knowledge and its even more egregious looking at the other names on the auteur page like Adam Sandler Techn0driv33 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it would be a different thing if you pointed out why the article fails in describing Coogler as an auteur instead of just going on constantly about how your are 100% correct and have all this film knowledge while i have none Techn0driv33 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (nac) @Techn0driv33: and @AnotherTimeline: This is apparently a content dispute, and as such it should be discussed at the article Talk page, not here. If you are unable to reach a consensus there, try resolving the dispute at WP:DRN. Good luck. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC) I think I had a case of the yips. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
    Think you meant @AnotherTimeline:. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Permission removal (Three Sixty)

    [edit]
    Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    "Request for investigation: Suspicious activity on Natalac page

    [edit]
    Baseless accusations concerning content that was deleted by normal processes. WP:DRV is the appropriate venue if there is an argument to be made, not AN, and accusations of vandalism are just innuendo. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Evidence:

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

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

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

    But is Natalac "a public figure with a significant career"? The English Wikipedia article about him was deleted last month, and we can't do anything here about Commons or the Portuguese Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, looking at the history of Natalac he has a significant career than spans 30 years with numerous collaborations on his own record label with grammy award winning and notable musicians accross america
    https://jacksonvillefreepress.com/30-years-in-local-rapper-natalac-continues-to-rock-the-industry/#:~:text=With%20more%20than%2030%20years,stage%20with%20music%20industry%20legends. picture here at natalac Records with label business Benzino and Styles p.
    https://fox59.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/774912122/natalac-30-years-representing-jacksonville-releases-the-return-of-goldie/ Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to argue notability. If you have issues around conduct on commons or Portuguese Wikipedia then you need to raise them there. You will find no answers here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont have any issues with Portuguese Wikipedia, not augue i dont do that, my reason for using that was portuguese is the numerous entertainers that work with Natalac even in different countries and different languages.... For Natalac not to be significant Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In short im asking for an investigation into Suspicious activity on Natalac page seems suspicious that Natalac's Wikipedia page has been repeatedly vandalized and deleted, despite his apparent success and widespread recognition in the music industry. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to "investigate" and there is no vandalism, The article was first deleted five years ago for lack of notability. A variety of other article names have since been deleted for lack of notability or for promotion, or because they're redirects to nowhere. AN is not a place to argue notability. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bashiiry and vandalising 'Ughaz Roble I' page

    [edit]

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

    In the talk page, other editors have raised this issue where the Ughaz is known to be the chieftan of the Issa clan. Instead of constructively engaging in the talk page, he has spent his time smearing the article with his own tribe/clan and partook in degrading terms in the talk page, even calling someone "a son of a whore"(ina dhiloy).[1] Replayerr (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request for Review

    [edit]

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

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

    As I said on the Teahouse, you must notify anyone you discuss here(see instructions at the top) 331dot (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just notified 71.229.251.189 and am about to notify the other user. Thanks. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified both editors. Thanks Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for neutral administrator review-Draft: Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss

    [edit]
    Content reviews are not an administrative matter. Whpq (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear administrators,

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

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

    The article includes:

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

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

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

    You have already received a "neutral review" but you appear to not like it, there is NOTHING in your draft (sourced to Facebook) that suggests you are notable in Wikipedia terms. Courtesy link User:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss/Draft Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unblocks backlog

    [edit]

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

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

    Disruptive User - repeated incessant AfDs

    [edit]
    The AfDs have been closed/withdrawn, respectively. No further action is needed with regard to Chetsford's conduct. There is another thread that is UFO adjacent where the issue has spread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I've been banned from reverting a Wikipedia page back to its original status before it started being brigaded.) and we don't need parallel threads. Star Mississippi 20:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    For concision, I'll address the forthcoming flood of these reports in the section below. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimmy Wales himself! We can be sure then that this has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Incessant - two. Two AfDs. Hardly incessant. And The guy went on Joe Rogan's podcast for christ's sake is a sure sign of notability. For sure. For sure. (Not.) Brenae wafato, I'd suggest you consider that what you accuse Chetsford of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is, in fact, mirrored in your case (WP:ILIKEIT) and you should walk away here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A minor indulgence of preemptive disclosure

    [edit]

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

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

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

    I am not a UFO enthusiast and I saw your AfD last night before any of those NEWACCs and anons showed up. And I agreed with your nomination, with the caveat that it sounded like you had an agenda against the BLP - which it is rapidly becoming clear to me that you do. I never claimed you were part of any group, either, however I am concerned after having seen your other AfDs that you are nominating articles regarding a subject you just don't like. Brenae wafato (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am concerned after having seen your other AfDs that you are nominating articles regarding a subject you just don't like." I've nominated 113 articles for deletion and participated in AfD discussions on 750 articles. Aside from the two you cited, are there others that relate to UFOs? It might be helpful if you could list them. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Harald Malmgren, Pippa Malmgren, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon where your AfD succeeded, so at least three. You were also behind the WP:UFONATION policy where NewsNation is a WP:N media source for apparently everything except UFOs. ArdentMaverick (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford: While it's true that only two of your AfDs are UFO related (Harald Malmgren and Christopher Mellon), your broader editing history suggests a pattern of UFO skepticism that could be perceived as bad-faith engagement. For example:
    Edits to David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Article
    You made two direct edits to the article:
    1. #1268602176: You added a sentence downplaying the validity of the whistleblower testimony by exclusively citing the opinion of three well known UFO skeptics (Adam Frank, Seth Shostak, Sean M. Carroll)
    2. #1268495188: You inserted a reference to an article you created, Psychological perspectives on UFO belief, which implicitly insinuates that the UFO claims made by Grusch during his congressional testimony could have been the result of a mental health condition resulting from his military-related PTSD. Apart from this, your article also demonstrates a bias as it frames UFO interest primarily through a pathological lens (e.g., linking it to "mental health disorders").
    Contributions to Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Talk page
    Your participation in discussions about David Grusch’s claims reveals a pattern of attempting to discredit reliable UFO sources while promoting skeptic viewpoints:
    - You encouraged editors to dismiss NewsNation’s reporting because it has a "sketchy history when it comes to sensationalism and UFO reporting". Dismissing UFO coverage from a reliable and mainstream source because you disagree with how it covers the topic is content bias. You initiated an RSN discussion that resulted in NewsNation being flagged as "unreliable for UFO topics" in which you disproportionatly quote professional skeptics (e.g., Mick West) while ignoring the various credentialed goverment officials who have and keep speaking publically about UFOs.
    Overall I agree with @Brenae wafato's concerns. Your two most recent articles nominated for deletion appear to have been done in bad faith. This is quite evident, especially after reviewing your past contributions, which show a pattern of overweighing UFO-skeptic perspectives, using procedural tools (RSN) to suppress disfavored content, and frequently using language that mocks UFO disclosure advocates. Peer-reviewed skeptic (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further confirmation that "bad faith" is one of the most misunderstood terms on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the evidence presented by multiple editors, there appears to be a pattern of problematic behavior.
    Chetsford's pattern extends beyond the "two AfDs" they claim, they've engaged in a systematic campaign against UFO-related content across multiple articles and discussions.
    Their creation of the WP:UFONATION policy specifically to exclude reliable sources when covering UFO topics demonstrates procedural gaming rather than good-faith editing, also, the nomination language used in the Malmgren AfD ("whacky claims about marauding space aliens") reveals explicit bias that contravenes Wikipedia's commitment to neutral point of view.
    The very fact that Jimbo Wales himself intervened in one of these deletion discussions shows the significance of these actions. OliverWX (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly suggest that both @OliverWX and @Peer-reviewed skeptic familiarize themselves with both WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS before making any further edits. -- asilvering (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closing

    [edit]

    To avoid the further deluge of the project, I've withdrawn the nomination of the AfD that is at the heart of this thread. [2] If someone would be so kind as to close the AfD, I'm sure many would be appreciative. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Gimmetrow

    [edit]

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

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

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

    [edit]
    Wikipedia is not censored no matter who is having an election; we don't put [articles] out of public view. If you think the article is that bad, WP:AFD is thataway. But what you should do is open a discussion on Talk:Canadian economic crisis (2022–present) to suggest ways to improve the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Discussion on granting move-subpages to template editor user group

    [edit]

    Hi fellow admins,

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

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

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

    Admin eyes needed on collateral damage

    [edit]
    RANGE UNBLOCKED
    Taking out some collateral on some damage. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I've unblocked the range. It's possible there were some dodgy IP there a few years ago, but it's probably changed hands and there's also (other) collateral. I don't think the /19 block stands today. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hate comment

    [edit]
    Revdel applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Bringing this hate comment [3] to admins attention. The IP is clearly not here to build encyclopedia but for certain POV agendas. Hionsa (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gimmetrow recall petition certified

    [edit]

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

    Referencing

    [edit]

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

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

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

    Hi Arc Rev, I don't fully understand your first question. You should ask these questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE, it is designed as a question and answer forum, and people there will be able to help you. Welcome to Wikipedia! CMD (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CMD, to be fair, the Teahouse is semi-protected because we still haven't figured out how to deal with the TH/HD troll.
    @Arc Rev
    Re #1, Help:Using the Wayback Machine is where I first thought to look, but you'd want to look at User:InternetArchiveBot and the tools on the userpage. JayCubby 04:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know the troll had a new name. Can we make the "Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!" stand out more? Checking in incognito, it somewhat fades under the very prominent "Ask a question" banner. CMD (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re question #2, the user script Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences will help you identify duplicate references, and NAMEDREFS are the preferred method for citing the same source multiple times in the same article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban exemption

    [edit]
    NO
    This isn't going to happen. ToadetteEdit is advised that they are on very thin ice. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    The topic ban was put in place to keep Toadette able to continue contributing to English Wikipedia and to allow English Wikipedia to keep an editor who has done some very good work for the project. But Toadette has now, on multiple occasions, pushed the lines of that topic ban against the protests and warnings of multiple administrators. Given the amount of time this is using, and the very real possibility that this is likely to continue, I think either the topic ban needs to be expanded to remove the exceptions, thus eliminating any ambiguity, or this needs to become a more general block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for the reasons I put forward on their Talk. You are not "at risk" of violating it, as if it's something passive that happens to you. You are choosing to violate it just like you did with the talk page edits about the RfAs. You are blocked from project space and a desire for barn stars is not a reason to lift the ban. I'm not at the point that I'm advocating for a site ban, but I think the a p-block entirely from project space would be the clarity TE needs to understand they are not welcome to edit there and should focus on articles. Star Mississippi 23:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Not a compelling reason to grant exemption. Exemption would not benefit project, only the applicant. Support pblock from project space to prevent further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why a more general block. I occasionally edit articles; I currently have a good article nomination that hasn't yet been touched. I am also in worry if such exceptions be removed or not, because I sometimes initiated AfDs, and participated in some of them. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing things like I have no choice but to post here and I am sorry, but I am doing this. It's probably not the best choice out there, but let's see how it goes. are extremely concerning. You do a lot of very good things on Wikipedia, but you also have displayed issues with impulse control. You are not without choices. You chose to discuss a topic from which you are explicity banned. You chose to ask someone to sign you up for something that you're not eligible to participate in. You chose to ignore Star Mississippi and Floquenbeam, after they bent over backwards to see your actions in the best possible light, and open up a whole discussion here because there is something you wanted to do that you are not currently allowed to.
    And no, you're not "topic banned from the projectspace forever, with exemptions," you're topic-banned for six months with appeal and successful appeals happen all the time. If the eventual result is that you end up never being allowed in projectspace again, it can only be as the result of the choices that you made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About the first choice, it was just a misunderstanding of my conditional unblock, and I wasn't aware of that until the first warning came. The second, I doubt the eligibility of the drive. This means that I could not participate in any drive, anywhere on the site??? About the third, I have nothing to say about it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a misunderstanding every time you come into contact with something that you want to do but that you are not currently allowed to do. A clearer topic ban, with no specially carved-out exceptions, would make the topic ban easier to understand and easier to navigate. There will always be other backlog drives to contribute to once the topic ban has been lifted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToadetteEdit I am also in worry if such exceptions be removed or not, because I sometimes initiated AfDs, and participated in some of them. What does that mean? You are explicitly allowed to participate in deletion discussions as part of your unblock although you are not allowed to close them. The fact that you still don't understand that is further proof of why you shouldn't be appealing your sanctions and why you may need more concrete sanctions to make it clear to you what you can and can't do. Star Mississippi 23:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yes, I can not conduct closures after I disabled the scripts during the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban. And for the abovementioned quote, I am still concerned because I sometimes patrol pages, sometimes while playing the Wikidata game, and in some occasions the page does not meet notability guidelines so it should be deleted. PRODs are often unreliable, since one can remove it and it can not be reinstalled. And I also participate in random XfDs, especially after clicking on a link or something. So to be concise, the quote means that removing the exceptions could hinder my existing activity in the areas in question. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per the unblock conditions: These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed (emphasis added). Six months have not passed, and thus the topic ban may not be loosened. Oppose any additional block/ban. TE's comments regarding the LaundryPizza RfA was strike one. The attempted proxying was a minor violation of the TBAN and I think TE is sincere about wanting to participate in the backlog drive. TE, you need to learn to pick your battles. I suggest withdrawing this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Seriously? This has become a consistent pattern of less-than-optimal conduct on the part of the editor in question. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Re This has become a consistent pattern of less-than-optimal conduct on the part of the editor in question. How is the pattern which I am exhibiting consistent. I know that the RfAs and the talk page discussions are evidences of such pattern. Are there any more evidence regarding this?? ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's your constant attempts to skirt the conditions of your unblocking. You seem unable or unwilling to abide by those conditions, and constantly ignore advice to do so as evidenced on your own talk page. Just abide by your restrictions and focus on editing articles as many have suggested in the past. It can't be more clear than that. Intothatdarkness 15:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. All ban appeals fall under WP:BANEXEMPT #2, and that does not mean that one does not have a choice regarding when to appeal (to then say that appealing "very early" was not a choice and had to be done). —Alalch E. 00:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every time someone makes a reply it seems to be met with more questions. This is typical sealioning and falls foul of WP:SATISFY. Please close this, someone who knows how, to avoid wasting more time. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry but I couldn't since it will violate my topic ban. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you withdraw your request, it will probably be easier for someone to close this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    [edit]
    Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney
     – a more appropriate venue– robertsky (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    Oppose:

    Abstain:

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

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

    Oppose:

    Abstain:

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

    For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edit to the protection policy

    [edit]
    Try the WP:Teahouse.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The best place to bring this up would be on the talk page of the relevant policy. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not confirmed or autoconfirmed. Halovik (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Off-wiki harassment; help needed

    [edit]
    Answered, thanks, Abecedare! Huldra (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    @Huldra: If you view the diff in the Visual rather than Wikitext mode (see option at top right of the page), you get something like the screenshot on X. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare:; ah, I see. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mandiraj

    [edit]
    Indef applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Diffs? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even look at Mandiraj's contributions before demanding diffs? I've just checked a brief selection and pretty much all of them are either blatant vandalism or a serious BLP violations: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeffed them. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tree Fu Tom and other animated UK children's progammes

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    71.33.161.17 global vandalism

    [edit]
    Already locally blocked, reporter directed to relevant Commons board to address their edits there. Star Mississippi 13:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    See this — https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Seal_F1&diff=prev&oldid=1025512484 — The Seal F1 (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia admins can't assist with conduct on other projects. Please raise the issue locally. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but i dont know if there's identical page on Wikimedia Commons? The Seal F1 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See this page for the Commons noticeboards. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    URGENT!!!

    [edit]
    Urgently closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    You already posted this. Please stop. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NEVER!!! Halovik (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked OP as WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP removing "Middle East" from articles

    [edit]

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

    On sampling a few of the edits I don't see any obvious vandalism, but simply removal of "Middle East" when "Asia" or "West Asia" is already specified, so just removal of redundancy, Could you link to some edits which are vandalism? Of course some edit summaries would help. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [11], [12], [13], [14] but yes a lot of them happen to be removing "Middle East" when "Asia" is already mentioned Kowal2701 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those are the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right, sorry I’m in the wrong here, I’ll apologise to the IP Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I looked through a load of their edits and they're all legitimate, the Middle East isn't a continent on its own it's part of others. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mauriziok Creating Copies of Articles

    [edit]

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

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

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

    Proposal 1: User Space Ban

    [edit]

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