Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{subst:RfC closure review}}
Accounts in the format ~2025-12345-67 are temporary accounts.

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|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
367	368	369	370	371	372	373	374	375	376
Incidents (archives, search)
1190	1191	1192	1193	1194	1195	1196	1197	1198	1199
1200	1201	1202	1203	1204	1205	1206	1207	1208	1209
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
493	494	495	496	497	498	499	500	501	502
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	22	76	98
TfD	4	28	32
MfD	2	0	2
FfD	7	2	9
RfD	6	45	51
AfD	0	0	0

GrandKokla rename request

GrandKokla has made a rename request on Meta for the username GrandNewbien. They mentioned the reason: "I use the GrandNewbien username across the web, including here when it was previously banned for vandalism. It was a mistake in my tween years, and now being in my 30s, I deeply regret it." While GrandNewbien is not registered, the account Grandnewbien is registered and was blocked on English Wikipedia in 2007 for vandalism, and I believe this is the account they are referring to. If so, do they need to request an unblock from their current account, GrandKokla, in order to edit English Wikipedia, since they likely no longer have access to the old Grandnewbien account to request an unblock from there? Or can they edit enwiki without any unblock request? I want to be clear on this so I can handle the rename request accordingly and guide them on the next steps. Noting that they have already made 67 edits to English Wikipedia with the GrandKokla account. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grandnewbien was able to log in and file an appeal in 2022 (see Special:Diff/1099313857), so it does seem like they have access to the account (at least within the past few years). Their unblock request was declined due to a lack of response rather than for a specific issue. Can they log in and file a new appeal, and be sure to address any queries about it when asked? —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer, he appears to have access to Grandnewbien, as that account visited Commons in June. Jay Cubby 18:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have access to that account as well, would my edits made on this account be merged with that one? I'll submit another request for an unblock. GrandKokla (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be merged. However, if you can demonstrate that you have access to "Grandnewbien" and successfully appeal the block, you can usurp it so that your new account can use the name of your old account. The edits on your old account would be moved to a different username ("Grandnewbien (usurped)"). —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @GrandKokla. – DreamRimmer ■ 08:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamRimmer, Grandnewbien has been unblocked as of yesterday! Would this allow the usurpation to proceed? GrandKokla (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GrandKokla: sure, please comment on the rename request using the Grandnewbie account to confirm that you are the same person. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page in main namespace needs to be deleted/moved to other namespace, but can't be edited?

[1]NZ-non-WANZ-members is placed in the main namespace, and is listed in e.g. the newpages feed, but is not editable (is some mass-message list?). I suppose this shouldn't be possible, but as it needs deletion an admin is needed. @Schwede66: you created this, perhaps you can explain what is happening? Fram (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia namespace. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Probably not the right location either (should be with some project, and when editing is listed suddenly as a "special" page). In any case, such pages shouldn't be creatable in the mainspace, serve no purpose there. Fram (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's definitely a valid task to restrict MassMessage to operating in certain namespaces. Izno (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T411661 now. Izno (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. Sorry for creating a mess. This did end up in the wrong namespace, and I wasn't awake enough to notice that. For how it happened:

Wikipedia:Mass message senders has, under the heading "Before making your request", a line that reads: "Administrators and template editors may create lists with a special content model via Special:CreateMassMessageList."
That opens a form at Special:CreateMassMessageList
Nothing there indicates that you must move the list to a particular namespace after creating it.

Once you've stuffed it up, you'll probably remember for next time. But it would obviously be better for the form to be set up so that the list gets created in the correct namespace. Schwede 66 23:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can consider trying it right now, but I'm guessing the page title input there is for a {{FULLPAGENAME}} and not the {{PAGENAME}}. Izno (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's reference, I've posted something on WP:VPT asking if we can prevent such pages from being created in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lt.gen.zephyr

Appeal unsuccessful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Lt.gen.zephyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "You are indefinitely banned from military topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed."

Administrator imposing the sanction: Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: waived

Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr

I am appealing for an unban for the topic ban on military related articles on Bangladesh. Approximately two months ago, Tamzin had imposed a topic ban on me [2] (I had removed the notification from my talk, so I extracted it from the history of my talk page and posted here) regarding COI. I acknowledge my mistake, and have realized the mistake. In future, I will edit and none of my future edits will reflect my interest, they will be done only on the basis of neutrality. For the past two months, I have edited and created numerous military related articles (mostly biographies of army generals), and intend to contribute in the same way for Bangladesh military articles. I assure you that none of my future edits will have any COI related issue, and if any serious issue is found, I will be happy to be banned again. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin : I want to make it clear that I am not an agent for the Bangladeshi government or military in any capacity. My earlier wording created that impression about being an agent, and that was entirely my mistake.
That time while me removing the units, most of them were completely unsourced. I found nothing about those mentioned units online to cite as a reference. I do not think it is suitable to add an unsourced claim to the wikipedia.
Additionally, wikipedia is not a blog nor newspaper that has to mention each and every little thing of a topic. You wont find much articles containing detailed units under a division or brigade of the military of the countries of Indian Sub Continent. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing : What I meant was I would contribute in the same manner as I contribute in Pakistan/Indian military articles. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin : I belong from a military background. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce : As per WP:ANYBIO #1, he is notable. He has been awarded Shaurya Chakra & Vir Chakra both. Both of these are 3rd highest gallantry award of Indian Armed Forces respectively in peacetime and wartime, which makes him a decorated officer and notable. I apologize for using SSB Crack and Startpoint as source. If you see other Indian military articles, you will see the rank/appointment is being capitalized and icons are being used in infobkx. There are thousands of example, such as Upendra Dwivedi or Manoj Pande. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce : Shaurya Chakra & Vir Chakra are not ordinary military awards. The number of people who received it since 1947 are not much, the number is less then 3,000. I am assuming you are comparing these with other military awards of other countries, such as United Kingdom. UK's third highest award is Military Cross, which has been conferred to thousands of people over the span of hundreds of years, whereas SC & VrC are being given since 1947, and the number is also not much. There are very few people who has/had both VrC & SC. Though these are 3rd highest gallantry award, but in the context of Indian Armed Forces, these are highly notable.

I am not aware of which Satendra Singh Yadav you are referring to, but if that is CRPF Assistant Commandant, he only has the Shaurya Chakra. Additionally, the Assistant Commandant rank is equivalent to Captain of the Indian Army, which is much lower then a Colonel (equivalent to Group Captain). A Colonel rank equivalent officer with both Shaurya Chakra & Vir Chakra should be more notable then a Captain rank equivalent officer with Shaurya Chakra. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the icons from Rank & Awards, but kept the Allegiance & Branch, as you said it is accepted. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

I'll quote my reasoning for imposing the TBAN:

You have been sanctioned due to long-term conflict-of interest editing, including edits that can be interpreted as using Wikipedia to censor your fellow-countrymen on behalf of your government. Recently, you have been removing information about Bangladeshi military units. While those edits might be defensible on the basis of WP:PROVEIT or WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, the troubling part is that both in your edit summaries and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh § Military Units you have explicitly said you will do this even where the material is sourced, in the interests of the Bangladeshi military's operational security. And at User talk:Mehedi Abedin § Units you have said that you have been directly related to the army since 2007 and then asked Mehedi to not reinstate such information about our military. Whether or not you intend it this way, this certainly can be read as an attempt at intimidation, with you being a representative of the state and implying that Mehedi's actions go against the interests of the state. Even if this was not your intention, this is at a minimum a conflict of interest in the most literal sense: Your interests as someone affiliated with the Bangladeshi military are in conflict with Wikipedia's interest in neutrally discussing the Bangladeshi military, and you have shown that this is able to cloud your editorial judgment.

At present I am not convinced, from Lt.gen.zephyr's appeal, that they understand the seriousness of this COI issue, or that they have a good plan in place to avoid COI issues going forward. Acknowledging the existence of a COI is the bare minimum. I'd like to see an explanation of how, if Zephyr is unbanned, other Bangladeshi editors can be expected to feel free of government pressure should they find themselves in a content dispute with Zephyr. And frankly I'm not sure what such an explanation could look like. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but once someone has established themself as a government agent acting on behalf of that government's wishes, I think that is something pretty hard to come back from. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lt.gen.zephyr: If you are not an agent of the Bangladeshi military, what exactly is your relationship to it dating back to 2007, as referenced in your comment to Mehedi Abedin? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lt.gen.zephyr: If you have a (presumably Bangladeshi) military background, and you are making edits on Wikipedia to promote the interests of the Bangladeshi military—not just a general POV, but requests they've made to have certain information censored—then you are acting as an agent of the Bangladeshi military; see wikt:agent sense 2. This is true regardless of what your title is, regardless of even whether you currently have any paid position with the military. The question for Wikipedia's purposes is whether you are editing on your own behalf, or on behalf of your government. What you've said so far conveys that it is the latter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive359 § Lt.gen.zephyr postdated the IPA→SA changeover, which ought to constitute awareness per WP:AWARE. Admittedly the filing user used the outdated code "IPA", but AWARE just says any process relating to the contentious topic, which I think that filing pretty clearly was. In the alternative, this noticeboard has the jurisdiction to impose a topic ban itself, without regard to awareness, if it's determined my initial action was procedurally invalid. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general thought here, and @DoubleGrazing may have already said it better, but: I've been meaning for a while to write an essay called "Conflict of interest is about conflict of interest". There are a lot of things we can use as proxies for whether a COI is likely to exist, but ultimately what we're really trying to answer is whether someone has an interest that conflicts with their interest in improving the encyclopedia. So we can say, for instance, that a company's employee is presumed to have a COI and a university's student isn't, but it may in fact be the case that a given Walmart cashier has zero loyalty to (or avarice toward) their employer, while some student may be a hardcore booster of their school and see its standing as an extension of their own. This is also why there's no easy answer on whether owning stock in a company confers a COI, as it may come down to whether the user thinks Wikipedia's coverage of the company affects the stock price, whether they're planning on selling anytime soon, and other subjective factors.

All of which is to say that, in this case, we don't need to look to those proxies for COI, because we have direct evidence that Zephyr's interests are in conflict. Whether that's because they're in the military, are a veteran, are close with people in the military, or just really love their country doesn't really matter when we know they're making edits based on what they think is best for the military, not for Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There we go: WP:COICOI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lt.gen.zephyr

Remarkable that the appellant is offering (I think?) to avoid COI editing, and then explicitly goes on to say they "intend to contribute in the same way for Bangladesh military articles". --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal, and its complete about-face on the question of COI, is rather shocking just two months after these talk page comments. Illuminating quotes include In several articles,I've removed mentions of specific, low-level military units [...]. Operational Security and Privacy is the primary reason, followed shortly by Bangladesh Army has not mentioned any unit's location publicly, they merely mention a few units out of hundreds. I also cannot be certain this user is not communicating through an LLM. I cannot support an unban. Toadspike [Talk] 11:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline to lift the ban. The talk page notes linked above, plus contradictory messages here makes it pretty clear that the initial topic ban was well founded and nothing in this appeal changes that. It seems pretty clear there is a COI, and this appeal seems misleading, which is grounds enough to deny the appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, of course per above reasons. Obviously, the restriction is needed to prevent what has the appearance of state-sponsored disruption. Whether or not it is state-sponsored, appellant's conflict of interest precludes their editing in this subject area. The question of WP:NOTHERE has not been raised in this thread, so it is to be hoped that appellant can and will edit constructively in other areas of this encyclopedia.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Thank you for your, as always, informative and illuminative précis. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that Zephyr is on the payroll of the Bangladeshi military, nor do I even particularly think they have a strong enough conflict of interest to be invoking that guideline. At the same time, I also agree with Tamzin's action, and would generally decline to support lifting it, as their edits were disruptive, though I do question the awareness of the editor, as their original introduction to contentious topics only specified India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, not the expanded South Asia contentious topics designation. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 13:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you account for their statement, "I belong from a military background"? I'm having a hard time parsing it. --Yamla (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "belong[ing to] a military background" is necessarily COI in and of itself. It could entirely mean that one's parents were in the military, and nothing else. I don't think that necessarily makes one involved, but might make one more patriotic. I think what's being seen with Zephyr is not necessarily COI, but (misguided) attempts at patriotism. Now, I could be entirely wrong there, they could have a much stronger connection than I'm parsing, but from "background" I tend to think a family history of military service, not necessarily a connection to the military in a personal or professional arrangement. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 13:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If one's parents were in the military, to use your example, I would argue that that already gives rise to at least an apparent COI, if not an actual one. If one then goes around sanitising military-related articles in line with that apparent COI, I'd say we're in duck territory (not in the sock sense, just general anatine). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a Lieutenant General is a senior officer. As such, appellant would have a built in conflict of interest. Ignoring that fact, is not " patriotic" a conflict of interest when that patriotism informs one's editing of Wikipedia? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't just about cash. COI can just as easily be based on ideological, nationalistic or religious reasons, etc. if there any direct or strong enough indirect ties, which seems to be the case here. It is about being unable to be objective due to a past or current association, whether or not there was financial compensation involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Tamzin, I didn't see that. Agreed, probably constitutes enough awareness, though on the weaker end. I have no further procedural qualms. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 14:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr: In your appeal, you wrote, "none of my future edits will reflect my interest, they will be done only on the basis of neutrality. [Since my topic ban], I have edited and created numerous military related articles ... and intend to contribute in the same way for Bangladesh military articles". So your intended future edits will reflect your interest in Bangladeshi military topics. The most recent military biography you created is about an Indian, Manish Arora (officer).
1. On what grounds do you believe he is notable?
2. What made you conclude that SSBCrack and StratPost are reliable sources?
3. If there are 1-3 independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Arora, what are they?
4. The source cited in the lead doesn't describe him as "well decorated". Is that your own point of view?
5. Does capitalizing "Flight Lieutenant" in the text accord with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:MILCAPS)?
6. Five icons are used in the infobox. How does their use square with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG?

I'm concerned that, in contrast to a neutral editor, your interest in military subjects may make you: accord them more importance, trust sources about military topics more blindly, overstate accomplishments, and emphasize or draw undue attention to certain military aspects. It can be hard for someone with a conflict of interest to see how that conflict affects their editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lt.gen.zephyr: The Shaurya Chakra and Vir Chakra are notable awards, but, being third-level, are not well-known and significant enough to pass WP:ANYBIO #1. In any case, that guideline only says that a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor is likely to be notable. It does not guarantee that they are notable.

The essay WP:SOLDIER was more explicit, saying, "It is usually safe to presume that individuals will have sufficient coverage to qualify if they ... Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour ... multiple times." The essay was deprecated in 2021, but the conviction that third-level military awards don't automatically make a person notable still enjoys firm consensus. Draft:Satendra Singh Yadav, for example, was not published earlier this year for that reason.[1] You are welcome to test that by asking at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.

Capitalizing rank in the phrase "... as a Flight Lieutenant, Arora ..." violates MOS:JOBTITLES. Examining similar text in featured articles for Royal Air Force officers, it's lowercase in Roderic Dallas, Charles Eaton (RAAF officer), Paterson Clarence Hughes, and Jerry Pentland. The only case where it is capitalized is Sebastian Shaw (actor), and it wasn't capitalized when it was promoted to featured status, suggesting that its current state is misguided. If thousands of Indian military biographies capitalize it, there are thousands of errors to fix.

Using icons in the infobox for allegiance and branch is a widely accepted practice, but their use for rank and awards violates MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. I don't know if rank has been explicitly discussed, but you can see the overwhelming consensus against icons for awards at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 68#Award ribbon inclusion. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peter Southwood and close paraphrasing, again

Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) recently brought buddy breathing through the GA process, which AirshipJungleman29 then brought to DYK. There, reviewer Darth Stabro pointed out a few sentences that showed up on Earwig as verbatim or almost-verbatim copies; Pbsouthwood fixed them, but on re-review, Dclemens1971 found close paraphrasing in another part of the article and asked that it be fixed before promotion. Here, Pbsouthwood turned hostile, saying, Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing? Dclemens then proceeded to highlight sentences that did indeed lift basically their entire structure and cadence, along with a few word choices, right from the source. Pbsouthwood responded that he didn't think it was a problem, but if Dclemens did, he could fix it himself. Dclemens did not take that kind invitation to clean up someone else's mess, and so the nomination was withdrawn by the drive-by nominator shortly before Launchballer would have closed it as stalled.

If that all sounds familiar, it's because Pbsouthwood previously had their autopatrolled rights revoked by Moneytrees in response to pervasive copyright issues in his articles; a desysop was heavily discussed, but it was ultimately decided that he hadn't really had a chance to improve. I will say that even by then, he'd received multiple warnings over the years for closely paraphrasing paragraphs at a time (1 2 3), in response to which he was dismissive towards Sennecaster and the other experienced copyright editors trying to help – which is exactly what happened here as well. Despite that AN thread being two years ago, the relevant contributor copyright investigation is still open, and despite being given that chance to improve, apparently Pbsouthwood's writing has stayed the same. Yes, it's fairly technical and that can make original writing more difficult, but when you've been on notice for that long that you aren't meeting the bar, you should – especially if you're an admin – thoughtfully consider the feedback and improve where possible, even if it's hard. What he's been doing instead is continually making messes in mainspace for others to clean up – which is generally remedied with a mainspace or sitewide block, especially when a CCI is open – and being rude and dismissive towards legitimate feedback, which is more a matter for the community to decide. I'm inclined to issue a block, but I recognize that this would be a serious step and welcome the community's feedback on how these issues should best be remedied. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody's causing chronic and consistent copyright issues, that would ordinarly result in a block, they should be blocked, Admin status be hanged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into "hanging" anyone, I think we should hear the response to this complaint from Pbsouthwood along with community feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: That's sweet of you, but I think the good ship Hear His Response has already sailed, struck an iceberg, and sunk with all souls lost. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The refusal to fix a problem that has been repeatedly pointed out to him for nearly a decade is astounding. Even if Pbsouthwood genuinely doesn't believe he is putting the project at risk with copyright violations, consensus among other editors has repeatedly been that he is, and he has repeatedly chosen poor responses in these one against many situations. Admins are held to the highest standards of communication and compliance with policy. These standards have not been upheld here. Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. This sounds pretty awful. Admins, of all people, should not be playing fast and loose with copyrighted material. We are pretty quick to block users for this sort of behavior. @Pbsouthwood: I implore you to please explain why you should not be blocked and/or subjected to a WP:RECALL petition. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. We need actually actionable dif's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am reluctant to step forward here. Copyvio, including close paraphrasing, is a serious matter. When fixing articles, I often look for possible sources for prose that trips my "maybe copied" sense, and I generally reword it even when I don't find a passage that appears to have been copied or copied with just a few changes. The standard Dclemens1971 applied at Template:Did you know nominations/Buddy breathing in theleekycauldron's "proceeded to highlight sentences" diff above is very high: avoidance of shared terminology and of stating ideas in the same order. It's an almost impossible standard to meet where terminological precision is important or where there's only one standard term for something (Earwig's copyvio detector has to be used sensitively; proper names count towards its percentage scores, as well as terms of art like "submersible pressure gauge"), and where there's only one citeable source or the sequence of exposition matters; when both of these are true, there's little or no space for transformative paraphrasing. I do a lot of extremely brief summarising (often expanded by subsequent editors into something pretty close to the source, or even replaced with an attributed quote in the style of a newspaper report), or I will combine details from multiple sources in my sentence and run the risk of being excoriated for ref-bombing. (And of course especially on recondite topics, radical transformation of the source information can be attacked as synthesis.)
Pulling an example from each of Dclemens' contrasted passages, I am reluctant to label as over-close paraphrasing these transformations by Pbsouthwood:

all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece to twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other
Lacking reserve valves or submersible pressure gauges, divers had little idea how much air was actually in their tanks to was an important skill before reserve valves and submersible pressure gauges were generally available
made buddy breathing a more complicated technique to complicated the buddy breathing procedure

I hope I'm not being overly lenient, but I wouldn't blink at these; I think they represent a good effort at explaining things without echoing the source text. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the standard I'm applying isn't quite that high, Yngvadottir. I definitely think it's okay to reuse terms of art if those are standard across the literature; it would be basically impossible to change the words in a term of art without changing the meaning, and it's also usually bad writing (i.e. don't change "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "past a plausible hesitation"). If you're truly citing just one short sentence in a passage, there can be few to no ways to express that idea differently (i.e. there's really only one way to say "Snoofles fetched the stick", "Doe was born on January 1, 1970", "The proposal was never implemented", or "Smith was bit by a rattlesnake"). But reusing colloquial language, reusing sentence structures when more than a few words are being taken, that isn't unavoidable.

To that point, excerpting sentences from Dclemens's examples and focusing solely on those weakens his argument, because the more you cite from a passage, the easier it should be to paraphrase. For the first one, for example, look at the full comparison, and I'll take a whack at rewriting:

Source: This technique has been used since the earliest days of recreational diving, and along with the emergency ascent (originally termed the "blow and go"), it became one of the two ways a diver could respond to running out of air at depth. Back when recreational diving began, all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece.

Article: The procedure has been used since the beginnings of recreational diving, and along with the free ascent, it was one of the standard responses a diver could use if they ran out of air underwater. At that time twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other.

One possible rewrite: Buddy breathing and emergency ascent are both used by divers when their air is running low; the twin-hose regulator, which was standard early on, allowed recreational divers to buddy breathe from the same mouthpiece.

I do recognize that policy can be harder to follow in some areas than others, but plenty of people write on technical subjects without creating these problems, and editors are responsible for meeting policy wherever they write, difficult or not. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. As I say, I may be straying over an important line here. I'm pretty confident that my own work can withstand scrutiny for overly close paraphrasing, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility that I suck ... But looking at your attempt at a more radical transformation, I think you've made the point for me by shortening so much that you've omitted that this was the early situation: since the technical change that regulators are no longer dual-hose, buddy breathing is no longer that simple. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK definitely trained me to be pithy :) but I don't think pith is necessary to for originality, I just didn't feel the need to go into more detail than "was standard early on". Anyways, I'll stop taking up all the oxygen (heh) and let other people chime in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I would suggest DYK has trained you to do a disservice to our readers. I agree with Yngvadottir that the radical transformation denies readers important and necessary context for understanding this topic - or at least it would have denied me someone who doesn't know about this important information presented in an accessible way. Put into policy language, I think it's entirely possible the rewrite runs into NPOV issues by failing to give WP:DUE attention to the information. It seems like Senne has identified more troubling examples below but they are ones I'm having trouble matching the article text to the source text so I offer no conclusion or thoughts about this case as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I couldn't actually spell out "twin-hose regulators are no longer standard" like Yngvadottir suggested because that would fail verification; all the source says is that it was standard "back when recreational diving began", which is exactly what I put in my rewrite. Pbsouthwood's text doesn't make that broader claim, either? My text is pithier, but I've said as much as the source says on that point, so I'm not sure what disservice I'm doing here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230831, I see a sea of "Attributed and/or non problematic list content." by Moneytrees in 2023, and an ocean of unactioned claims. I saw one "Small rephrase", which I don't consider damning. What I didn't see was reviewed and multiple instances of improper paraphrasing, so the investigation isn't really evidence of diddley squat. I'm going to reserve judgement, but it seems like there has been a lot of eyes on this and not much action, so I wouldn't be too quick to jump to judgement. I will be honest, I didn't dive into this rabbit hole too deeply, but what I did find looked to be grey area, which can be a problem, particularly when it is an admin who should know better. So I would like to hear from Pbsouthwood before diving in deeper. As I expect admins to be accountable for every action and not just admin actions, I would consider silence the same as an admission of guilt. Hopefully they aren't foolish enough to go back to editing before responding here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When we find more instances of copyright violations after the CCI is opened, we have to expand the entire CCI with all their edits from the date the case was opened (so over 2 years ago) to now. This is a case with lots of difficult to access sources and requires lots of time for one article; what isn't mentioned here is that a significant portion of the CCI is not completed and that the evidence found to open the CCI is beyond the amount we would normally indef a regular editor for. What also isn't mentioned here is that the ones marked off are all of the easy diffs; they're list of species that are ridiculously difficult to copyvio on, not the more technical articles like the one that triggered this complaint, or Marine construction (relevant listing) which triggered the CCI. The copyright problems listing involved conduct that I believe falls below the standard that we expect admins to be held to, and if I had behaved the same way, I would have been blocked on the spot for IDHT and not getting the point because I wasn't a sysop at the time and didn't have that protection. I understand why none of the non-admins want to work this case if that's the response we're all expecting to receive. That conduct went unacknowledged last time this was brought up (the AP revocation), and I'm not going to be happy to let that slide this time towards the kind folks working DYK. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown, fwiw, there’s more than what meets the eye at the CCI. The articles I’ve checked off so far are ones without copyright-able prose; mostly it is lists of species names, or other unproblematic stuff like reverts/merges etc. In other words, I’m marking down the obviously unproblematic stuff before getting to the actual articles and edits of concern…. Which is a lot. The CCI has seen little work on the thousands of articles with actual prose that PBSouthwood has edited, for a few different reasons. The sources PB has been shown to follow too closely are scholarly works or books not easily accessed online; as discussed above, some of the text is OK overlap wise due to how technical it is, but enough of it is not as to warrant removal; PB makes hundreds of edits to these articles over the course of years, and often copies between his own writing, which means if there’s an issue with one article it’s likely affected others; a good deal of these articles are GAs; and you cannot just run Earwig on these and call it a day, as Earwig cannot read most of the sources PB cites and struggles with finding close paraphrasing, meaning that you need to compare sources with articles manually. So even looking at a relatively smaller edit can take a long time… and people would rather edit “easier” CCIs. In a lot of ways, this is the toughest CCI I’ve ever seen. I’ll try to work on some more concrete stuff in the mean time.

I otherwise have no opinion yet here; I just want to fix issues and resolve the CCI. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured there was more than what meets the eye, but was not expecting so many edits reviewed with no concrete, clear violations. We need concrete examples presented here, without every individual participant having to dig through the CCI, plus we need recent examples, to show it's an ongoing and long term issue. Diffs and links to sources. I don't care that they are an admin, and the standard for action is the same as it is for any other editor. If the report doesn't have actionable diffs, then this is just an academic exercise and will end up getting closed without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see a problem, Pbsouthwood. I left a message on their user talk page, making it pretty clear they needed to come here and at least say something before returning to editing. This is a copyright issue, which is one of the few problems on Wikipedia that have potential legal consequences, so I expect any editor to take it serious. In this case, they've made over 20 edits since then. I'm right at the edge of blocking to force the discussion since they appear to be willfully ignoring the discussion, the same as I would any other editor. It's late where I live, but if I see more edits without any meaningful attempt at communicating here, I absolutely WILL block them indefinitely until we sort this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this very clear on their talk page. It is getting near bed time on this part of the planet. We will see what the morning brings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAFO. I have indef blocked him until this can get discussed. Administrators have advanced tools, and advanced accountability that comes with it. This is the first time I've had to block an admin, but I'm not going to treat them differently than I would any other editor. After my final warning, they came back and made another edit, at which time I blocked. This block isn't for the CCI issues, it is to limit disruption and potential damage by an administrator with these advanced privileges refusing to be accountable to the community. If they handle this badly, I will file a RECALL petition as well. Any admin is free to modify this block without my prior approval, as the situation warrants. It is definitely bed time, so I'm out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood has requested an unblock in order to participate in this discussion, which they say they were unaware of until now. 🐢 a frantic turtle 14:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis indicated he was off to bed, so I've unblocked to allow them to engage with these concerns. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have work and final projects to get done and instead I'm doing this. Going through these diffs is incredibly tedious, but I've found 5 that are all still live that have significant issues regarding copyright or verifiability.

Special:Diff/1325960218, 05:56, 6 December 2025. The first paragraph added, the first and third sentences are a close paraphrase of [3] page 2 column 1. From the same source, we also see borderline SYNTH in the last sentence of the diff (page 4 column 1). The source is nowhere near as negative to qualitative analysis as the article makes it seem.
Special:Diff/1325856325, 16:18, 5 December 2025. Same source, except I can't find anything in the source that verifies the content except for the usage of BIBS in emergencies.
Special:Diff/1325817239. 10:00, 5 December 2025. Same source (page 4 column 2), and while individually none of the sentences are close paraphrasing, the list has no objective ordering and maintaining that order in the article is a choice as well.
Special:Diff/1325147045, 12:04, 1 December 2025. Not all content is verified in https://weldingpros.net/underwater-welding-helmet/.
Special:Diff/1325138858, 10:25, 1 December 2025. Not all content is verified in https://divelab.com/frequently-asked-questions/, although this is probably the most minor of the diffs presented.

Pbsouthwood can add good paraphrases of very dense sources, but more frequently than I'd like will too closely paraphrase even though there are possible rewrites. Regardless of whether or not keeping the same level of technical language is even appropriate for a lay audience who is reading our articles, I take issue with the verification failure and close paraphrasing still present and the fact that any other non-admin would have been indeffed by now. Just like at the 2023 May 30 listing at Copyright problems, there's an assertion that it was fine because WP:EARWIG said it was fine - I have not opened Earwig once in the last 2 hours it has taken me to review the most recent 150 non-minor mainspace contributions, because none of these sources or the close paraphrasing is even detectable by the tool. Just because this isn't detectable by the tool doesn't mean there is no problem. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With some help from Senne in finding the correct passage, I agree with her on bulletpoints 1, 4, and 5. The source in question is very dense so I haven't attempted to verify 2. For 3, I think there were ways to summarize that content for our readers without resorting to list form at all, but for me this falls in "writing that could be improved" rather than an ANI level content qua behavior problem. However, if this is representative of PBS editing it is, on the whole, enough to be troubling for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not noticing the notifications on my talk page until the block attracted my attention. I am willing to discuss the situation and agree that I am expected to do so, so here I am. I will mention that it is getting late here and my eyes are tired, so I do not expect to engage heavily this evening.

My first comment is that I do nor consider "Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing?" as hostile, nor was it intended as anything other than a straight question. I expressly mentioned that they are ordinary and commonly used expressions in that context because it is quite possible that the others in that discussion were not aware of that. On Wikipedia it is quite ordinary procedure to rephrase what someone else has written, often without even mentioning the intention to do so and I mentioned that I would not object but hoped they would manage to retain the meaning correctly. I have seen good faith copy edits that distorted meaning quite severely. As the Earwig check had reported a low probability of violation, and I agreed with its report, and I made the assumption that the recent GA reviewer also had checked and also did not consider it a problem, I did not see a problem with leaving it and similarly did not and do not have a problem with someone else copy editing it, if that is their preference. I will also mention that most of the apparently problematic terms are standard terms of art in the field, and it would seem weird if they were changed to some arbitrary neologisms or verbose circumscriptions just to avoid using them. The same terms are also used in other places in the article, also because that is the way most divers routinely express those concepts. I will try to deal with this in small chunks to avoid wall of text issues. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through all of the diffs presented Pbsouthwood, but I think the concern is that you don't really understand the issue. Again you are saying that because Earwig didn't flag it as problematic (and because nobody else spotted it), there wasn't a problem, but if you read Sennecaster's comment directly above yours, you'll see that the concern is that you are introducing close paraphrasing issues that the tool isn't good at detecting. It seems likely that any GA reviewer would have used the tool and come to the same conclusion (especially, perhaps, since the author was an admin and therefore trusted). Using terms of art is fine, but as I read this report, I get the impression that the problem is that you are effectively taking whole paragraphs and rewording them while keeping the same structure and order of information - that's harder to detect, but still plagiarism.

Can I ask how you write articles like this? Are you looking at the sources as you do it? Are you (heaven forbid) copying from the sources, and then rewording the prose? When I write articles (it's been a while, but I do do it), I make notes - what information is contained in a particular source - and then I put the sources away and write my own text from the notes. Ideally I'll have notes from multiple sources, which helps. If you do it that way, it's quite difficult to replicate the structure etc., you are effectively forced to create your own writing. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the advice at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA is very practical and echos your advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion on the definition of plagiarism that might be interesting but not directly related to the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢

It can't be plagiarism because the citation gives credit. Plagiarism, by definition, is passing off others' work as your own without giving credit. Keeping the same structure and order of information is a good thing; to do otherwise risks violating V and NPOV. If a source says "[Idea 1], then [idea 2], and finally [idea 3]," the Wikipedia article should also say "Idea 1, Idea 2, Idea 3." To put it in any other order would be bad, it would violate V and possibly NPOV. Sentence structure is not copyrightable. Neither are ideas. Neither are the order of idea. Not in the context non-fiction (different rules for fiction). Levivich (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested by this perspective Levivich. I understood that plagiarism included inappropriate copying from sources, including when they are cited. If I'm wrong about that, then I'll apologise and retract that. I am concerned about the situation nonetheless: my understanding of our copyright policy is that copying whole paragraphs and then rewording them, but leaving all the same ideas in the same order, is a violation. If I'm wrong about that too then I will apologise, but I don't think I am? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with many other words ("Notability" for example), we define plagiarism somewhat differently at Wikipedia than does the Oxford dictionary. The standard here is more strict than the dictionary definition. Unlike the dictionary definition, it is possible to plagiarize even if you cite the claim. Admittedly, it often falls into a grey area where the best solution is rewriting the section but if there is a long term pattern, then it poses a undue burden on the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. IMO it's better if we didn't redefine words, and instead used new or different words to describe rules that Wikipedia creates. Wikipedia can create policies about how to write articles, and hold editors accountable to those policies, but it's unhelpful and confusing to call things "copyright violation" or "plagiarism" (or "notability") when Wikipedia's definitions of those terms is different from the dictionary definition of those words.

As to "same ideas in the same order," I've seen this "rule" enforced before, but I'm not sure where it comes from or why it's a good idea, at least when it's enforced without reasonable boundaries. It's true that the creative selection and arrangement of facts is copyrightable (e.g., top 10 lists), but that wouldn't apply to, e.g., a chronological arrangement of historical facts.

When a source relates historical facts in chronological order, we want to preserve the selection and order of the facts; in other words, same ideas in the same order. Similarly, when a source relates cause-and-effect, we want to preserve the order: same ideas in the same order. Indeed, what's WP:DUE has a lot to do with the order of things: e.g,. most important first, least important later. In many case, we want to follow the order of ideas as presented by the sources.

To take the buddy breathing example quoted above, the Wikipedia article should say that buddy breathing goes back to the early days of scuba diving. It should say that equipment at the time (double hose) made it easy to share a regulator. It should say that since new equipment came out (e.g. the "octopus"), buddy breathing has become largely obsolete. It should say those things in that order, not in a different order. Right?

I haven't read all the diffs either; maybe Pbsouthwood's edits violate WP:PLAGIARISM, particularly when taken as a whole; I won't opine on that without having read all the edits and sources. But a violation of WP:PLAGIARISM isn't necessarily "plagiarism" (in the ordinary, dictionary meaning of the word), and may not be copyvio either. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In this case, Levivich is also wrong under the Oxford definition^TWL: "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own". Citing the source might escape the "ideas" half of the definition, but not the "work" half, unless one says that the work is a derivative of what's being cited (which is not at all the presumption when one cites something). The Oxford Companion to the Book^TWL goes into a bit more detail, referencing lack of "acknowledgement or due attention to the conventions of proper citation". On enwiki, like most academic(-adjacent) places we have a convention that merely citing something is insufficient to establish that one is copying from it. Meanwhile, Levivich' take about idea-ordering is true in some cases, like when describing a technically complex sequence of events, but a completely, mindbogglingly incorrect application of V and NPOV when it comes to most prosewriting—an unsurprisingly out-of-touch take from someone whose last 50 mainspace non-automated edits go back a year and are mostly minor at that.

Lev, this isn't the first AN thread where I've seen you be embarrassingly wrong about copyright. I'd really like to assume that this is an issue with you overestimating your competence in an area you don't work much in, rather than deliberate trolling. But whatever it is, it's dangerous. It enables editors like Pbsouthwood, who without people cheering on their copyvious potentially could learn the nuances of acceptable and unacceptable paraphrasing, but will instead be led astray by sirens giving them incorrect advice on copyright, who will not be able to save them when they are inevitably dashed against the rocks of an indefblock (which Pbsouthwood seems headed back toward if this cannot be resolved).

I don't mean to derail this thread with a complaint about a third party, but just for the purposes of paper-trailing, I'll say this: Giving bad advice on copyright is as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, actually violating copyrights. If I see another instance of Levivich doing this, I would be inclined to propose a TBAN. Anyways. Hopefully we can move back to the matter at hand now. And hopefully Pbsouthwood can listen to people in this thread who actually work with copyright and actually write articles. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, put the knives away already. Levivich (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knives? I just want you to stop telling people that they're allowed to violate our copyright policies, man—while they get blocked and you carry on, safe from a copyright block yourself by virtue of having 94% of your edits this year be outside mainspace. This is literally a thread about someone who you previously told he wasn't violating copyright, continued to do what you said was okay, and is now teetering on the edge of an indef because he followed your advice. If you don't want to take accountability for that, at least have the decency to not blow this is off like it's nothing. Jesus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many mainspace edits do I need to make before I'm allowed to disagree with you without being tbaned? I'm not making any mainspace edits; the community said I engaged in consistently non neutral editing, so that was the end of that. Levivich (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids, would you mind taking this outside? You're spoiling the ambience. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Tamzin, you're welcome to discuss your concerns on my talk page. Levivich (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The violation likely/unlikely text in Earwig should be removed from the tool, it is so prone to both false positives and false negatives, and too many (good faith) editors take its verdict as gospel.

However in this case, an editor who has an open CCI, was told at the opening of that CCI that Earwig is not a reliable tool for detecting close paraphrasing [4], and continues to rely on it anyway should just be indeffed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the circumstances,

If I am adding content that is sufficiently familiar, I do so and then look for a source to cite. When I find a suitable source, I check that it actually supports what I have written, and if appropriate, adjust my content to ensure that it is verifiable. Sometimes more than one source is needed.
If I find a useful source for something that is not so familiar, I read through it to get the basic picture then leave it open in a tab and open the destination section in another tab. My eyesight is shaky so I don't have more than one tab open at a time. I then write some content from memory, refer back to the source to make sure it is accurate in meaning, and repeat. When I have something coherent down, I do a quick check for obvious errors and save, Then copy edit as more errors are noticed. Much the same for hard copy sources.
If I find a source that differs from existing content, I generally read the source to understand the difference, then just update or make a correction from memory.

In all these scenarios, I try to concentrate on the information to be transmitted, and write it in the words which come to me naturally to express that meaning. By the nature of the topic there are many words, expressions, and phrases that are standard ways (jargon, technical terms etc.) of expressing a point. I use those because the reader who is familiar with the topic will expect them, and it facilitates effective information sharing. This is also how I used to write before Wikipedia. If the amount of new text is significant I will often run it through Earwig and adjust when it indicates a significant probability of copyvio. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbsouthwood! Regarding your first point, I invite you to read this essay on why it is not a recommended way to write. @Toadspike's message below might sound harsh, but it is true, in that writing from what you know and then finding sources to justify it can easily lead to issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essay makes some fair points. What it does not mention is that on some topics there is more scope than is covered by a few good sources by themselves and when I am aware of broader scope, it helps to put in the framework for more detailed information when I think of it, then come back to fill in the detail later. Some searching may be required, and some revision may be needed, depending on the sources found, but less is accidentally omitted. As most of the low-hanging fruit (in the context of diving) has already been picked, this type of editing is now seldom possible anyway. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me the issue with writing an article that way is that you're not really honoring what NPOV requires, in terms of what to cover and what not to cover from sources. Almost all my GA work has been in Children's Literature where I often know enough that I could write a lot of the article before I start. I actually find it extra incumbent to instead look at what the sources say, and in what proportion, to ensure I'm not doing any OR but instead providing neutral, reliably sourced, information for our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Here are some PbSouthwood edits in Children in scuba diving. I


Date	Article	Source
Nov 2025	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1323355184 If a child does not want to learn to dive, this can be considered a contraindication. There should not be parental pressure or peer pressure. A person must have a sufficient attention span to learn the necessary knowledge and skills through the media of the training programme. These usually includes discussions and classroom presentations, briefings and demonstrations at the training pool and open water venues, briefings and other interactions with instructors. Young children or people with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may not be able to retain information effectively, and the use of use of psycho-stimulant medication while diving may have unwelcome side effects. The text material is usually targeted on adult learners, and require suitable reading skills. A diver needs the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand and accept the risk associated with the hazards if diving, and to understand and master the skill necessary to manage and mitigate these risks and their consequences. A learner diver should feel comfortable and willing to communicate freely with instructor and dive buddies when they are in an uncomfortable situation or do not understand information, or are not ready to deal with a situation without fear of shame or ridicule.	[5] Does the child want to learn to dive? The child should not be pressured to dive by their parents or friends. Does the child have a sufficient attention span to learn from class discussions, pool and open water briefings and other interactions with instructors? Young children or those with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may not be able to retain information, whereas using psycho-stimulant medication while diving may cause other difficulties. Are the child’s reading skills sufficient to learn from adult material? The child must be able to understand and accept the inherent risks related to diving and be able to master the necessary knowledge and skills to mitigate them. Can the child feel comfortable telling an unfamiliar adult about any discomfort or when not understanding something? The child must be able to admit a problem or express fear of getting into situations they are not ready to cope with so that they may opt out of a dive without being shamed or ridiculed.
Nov 2025	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_in_scuba_diving&diff=prev&oldid=1323219147 BCDs must be of a suitable size.. Low profile and low volume masks are easier to clear when flooded The dead space in a snorkel should be in proportion to the lung volume of the user, to prevent carbon dioxide buildup if dead space is too large, and excessive work of breathing if the bore is too small. The snorkel internal volume should not exceed 150ml for children, but for adults, it can be up to 230 ml. A snorkel that is too large is also more difficult to clear. Fins with small or soft blades will help avoid leg cramps, but need to give sufficient propulsion. A small person with little subcutaneous fat will lose heat faster for the same water temperature and exposure time, so a wet suit needs to have a good fit and an appropriate thickness. Lightweight regulators, with shorter hoses and smaller mouthpieces may be desirable. Small, lightweight cylinders are preferable, and generally are available for purchase, though seldom for rental. They can be repurposed when a larger set is needed. The weight system is relatively simple, as the belt is adjustable and can easily be trimmed, but there may be problems with a belt slipping over smaller hips, so an integrated weight system may be useful.	Appropriate BCDs sizes. Child (low profile) masks are easier to clear when flooded. Smaller snorkels: Due to the dead space and potential for CO2 build-up in snorkels, the volume for children should not exceed 150 ml, whereas, for adults, the volume can be up to 230 ml. Fins with soft blades will give the needed propulsion but will help avoid leg cramps. A child-size diving suit: A child loses temperature faster, so the dive suit needs to have a good fit and an appropriate thickness. Lightweight regulators, with shorter hoses and smaller mouthpieces. Small/lightweight cylinder. Weight system: Consider using an integrated weight system to avoid the weight belt slipping off children’s smaller hips.
August 2025	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_in_scuba_diving&diff=prev&oldid=1305493497 There were no broadly recognised minimum age standards for scuba diving before 1987, and certification depended only on satisfying the performance standards.(what happened in 1987?) CMAS had standards for training from 8 years old with a good safety record. In 2000, RSTC returned to the pre-1987 performance based standard, after reviewing the industry-wide safety records. This again accepts people younger than 15 to learn to dive and to dive under adult supervision, with a minimum age of 10 years for Junior Scuba Diver with professional supervision and Junior Open Water Diver with parental supervision, to a maximum depth of 12 metres (39 ft). Younger participants can take part in PADI Seal Team and Bubble-maker events in confined water only	https://www.scubadiving.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Children-and-SCUBA-diving-for-Instructors-and-Parents.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOorbQsCHdfEvC_LpoxmWqurUjrYKkHP3LwERUwjZayG2lKgApKdN Prior to 1987, there were no widely established minimum age requirements for scuba. Certification depended entirely on meeting the performance requirements. The diving federation CMAS (Confédération Mondiale de Activités Subaquatiques) has had standards for teaching youngsters as young as eight for decades with an excellent track record. In 2000, after careful review of CMAS and other history of children in diving, the RSTC (Recreational Scuba Training Council, which sets the industry-wide minimum training standards for recreational diving) returned the industry standards to the pre-1987 performance standard, allowing youngsters under 15 to learn to dive and dive under adult supervision. PADI then adopted a minimum age of 10 for Junior Scuba Diver with supervision by a PADI professional or Junior Open Water Diver with parental supervision, and a maximum depth of 12 metres/40 feet required. The PADI Seal Team, Bubblemaker and SASY programs allow younger participation with greater restrictions in pool/confined water only, as appropriate for the age group.

To keep this focussed on the close paraphasing issue, I re-arranged the paragraphs and bullet points of the source text, and trimmed some of Pbsouthwood writings that I couldn't verify in the cited source (eagle eyed viewers may be able to spot some more). To keep the eye focussed, I bolded overlapping text and underlined sentences that are, from my perspective, much too similar. (Also copy-edited a few OCR-esque typos out) The underlining in this case is just as important as the bolding; some bolded overlap is obviously fine (like the proper nouns, set phrases), but, when looking at all the text, I think it should be clear to all what the issues are.

I do understand that many find it harder to write in more technical areas; however, I come from a mathsy background, which is about as technical as you get. An identity matrix is an identity matrix and there's only a few standard ways to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. And yet comme ex ungue leonem - to insist that just because this is a technical area means there is no creativity in the source text is insulting. And there's no reason for Pbsouthwood to write as he does - to copy-paste large segments of the source text (Special:Diff/1323050387) then remove parts so it no longer flags on Earwig.[6]

Disclosure: I actually first saw this from Yngvadottir's post about defense offsite, but I haven't actually checked back since. I'm considering myself recused from !voting or signing on anything; I present the above diffs merely for other people to see the extent of the issue. Also, I'm currently going through a bout of vertigo - migraines are fun, aren't they? - so apologies if I've messed up any diffs, links, or bolding.) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 06:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the length...) First of all, thank you very much GreenLipstickLesbian for the examples that were laid out so cleanly and clearly. Now, I have to say that in my opinion, this isn't exactly a smoking gun, although it is worrisome. When writing technical information, we are somewhat limited in how we present the information, which is often very linear in nature. What I see here appears to be good faith effort to summarize the information in the same linear fashion, in the same "speak". Is it a little sloppy? Maybe, and maybe I'm being just a little forgiving because it's technical writing, which is difficult to summarize. I have reviewed several other edits, and I find overall (imho), Pbsouthwood's edits are too dry/technical for the average reader and maybe that is the problem. With all due respect, it isn't the most readable prose. The edits are just as technical as the sources instead of being tailored for the lay reader. Personally, I aim for writing in a fashion that a bright 8th grader can understand. Perhaps preserving the technical "feel" of the sources is his undoing here. Bring it down to lay level makes it a little more verbose but more accessible. Short version: Right now, I'm reserving judgement, although I get it that others (in good faith) may see these examples differently. I'm not sure what the solution is at this moment in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the solution either. I know it's probably unreasonable to expect all admins to be as diligent about cleaning up potentially problematic content as former admin BOZ - [7] who, after the issues were surfaced, has been exemplary; they were incredibly responsive and went out of their way to rewrite their old articles!
And so I think being forgiving is a good thing - I would say though, that at least in the fist example, the Divers Alert Network and the Professional Association of Diving Instructors do a very good job at writing their material for a lay reader. That is to say, it's not as technical as it may appear, at first blush - they're a list of questions for nervous parents about to let their precious kiddiewinkles into the big scary ocean. It's obviously sacrificed accuracy at some points - when's the last time ADD has been its own diagnosis? - but that all appears to be in an attempt to make the material understood by the target audience. (Though it is a shame that clarity is not reflected in the Wikipedia article)

So yes - I'm not sure of the solution, but at the end of the day, we all are responsible for our own edits and assessing our own skill levels. I can't write medical or chemistry related articles competently, so I don't create them. I don't speak French, so I don't write BLPs reliant on French sourcing. I can't follow NPOV on specific articles, so I don't edit them. I'd hope that, if I repeatedly caused problems in any of those areas, that the community would step in to save the articles from me, even if they recognized that I was writing in good faith, or doing my best in a difficult area. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 12:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the examples presented by Sennecaster and GLL, I am now almost as worried about the failures of source-text integrity as I am about the copyright issues. The explanation given above makes it clear how this happens: "If I am adding content that is sufficiently familiar, I do so and then look for a source to cite." Toadspike [Talk] 12:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's how experts work. I would submit that it isn't problematic from a NPOV/OR perspective where the subject matter is agreed history (like the evolution of strategies for when a diver runs out of air at depth, and the changes in the equipment that are the context) or where the set of concerns that need to be satisfied is generally agreed, maybe even a matter of legal requirements/certification (like the checklist for allowing participation of a child in diving). In many respects it's better—including less likely to produce overly close paraphrasing or poor choice of citations—when the editor knows the stuff cold rather than first learning it in order to teach it. The disadvantages come from internalised bias or ignorance, as when there are different conceptual frameworks/terminology elsewhere in the world or a different expert/academic perspective that the editor may not even be aware of. (I would hope that that kind of thing is much more prevalent in more theoretical or speculative areas of academia than in areas of expertise that concern practical and safety-adjacent matters, like diving.)

This has become a really interesting and useful discussion, and the different perspectives are illuminating the tension in our unusual kind of writing: we're charged to accurately reflect the preponderance of reliable sources, without echoing them too closely and without bridging gaps in a creative manner. Multiple editors have taken the time to present concrete examples with markup, and Pbsouthwood has explained his method of working. And Dennis Brown has also spent time looking at the CCI. I see now that Theleekycauldron also returned with a further response to my critique. The one thing that I'll note is the advisability of combining sources and cited passages: the point about dual-hose regulators no longer being standard, which theleekycauldron didn't find in the cited source on the historical situation, was in the bit about buddy breathing having been complicated by the change, and in its cited source passage. Clear exposition may require separating the history from the current practice, or the early history from the later history, but there's nothing wrong with adding a citation covering the connection between the two, in order to make that connection explicit without a failure of referencing, and indeed such telescoping or interweaving of things taken from different sources or different pages in one of the sources facilitates getting away from over-close adherence to each source (slab of material clearly based on Source A, slab of material clearly based on Source B ...). Writing it up clearly and then adding source references is the best way to do that! But you do have to stuff the chinks very carefully with refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Yngvadottir in saying that often, an expert is going to simply write something they know to be true, then go find sources that support it, then modify it a bit if they got a detail wrong. This isn't any different than I've done in the past in areas I would qualify in. The problems that I've run into is that it is sometimes hard to source every nuance, so you have to settle for sources that more or less support the bulk of it. If you are actually an expert at something, sometimes things might appear to fall under WP:BLUE to you, while others would disagree and would tag it for citation. It's just the nature of writing, and it's easy to tag stuff. But all this isn't related to the issue at hand, which is already complicated enough, and I feel like it is a distraction. Now, if there is a pattern of multiple sources not remotely touching on the topic at all, that is another issue, but I don't think we need to go fishing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solution (or lack of)

Pbsouthwood, you have had a CCI open for a couple of years now, and people have presented fairly convincing evidence that the concern with your editing is reasonable at some level. I think you've participated in good faith here, but you see the problem differently. In fact, I would say, everyone here sees the problem differently, some as it being somewhat minor and some as being very major. I find myself in the middle, seeing as a real problem that can't be ignored, but one that could be fixed IF (big if) you fully grasped the concerns, but I don't think you do. I don't think you're dense, I think you genuinely see it just differently, as a very minor thing or not as a thing at all. That gives us NO path forward. We have a stand-off. I would like to think I'm pretty experienced at dealing with WP:AN/ANI type issues, and I'm not afraid to boldly make the call even when consensus isn't perfectly clear, but I don't have a solution here. I've put a great deal of time and thought into this case over the last few days, and I'm stumped.

I'm think this needs an Arbitration case. Not because a lack of willingness to discuss or any personal animosity, nor a desire for "punishment", but because we simply can't find a solution, and Arb's role is to settle issues that the community can't solve. This has gone on for a couple of years now, and we are no closer to a solution than on day one.

I suggest someone (respectfully) file a case at Arb, and let them decide if this truly is a problem. I think a panel of experienced editors with the authority and power to make a final decision on the behavioral aspect is what we need in this case. I don't see any bad faith by anyone, but I am 100% convinced there is no way we are going to be able to generate a clear consensus on such a complicated issue here, so it will continue to fester and get nasty. It has already caused one block that was avoidable.

That's my solution: Ask Arb to intervene, because I don't think we can get enough participation and objectivity to find a clear consensus anywhere else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea; I'd be recused anyway, obviously, so I can put together a filing and post at ARC, unless someone else would rather write it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, I think you would be the most likely candidate, having more background with the history and familiarity with Arb expectations. Ping me if/when you do. I don't think I have much to offer, other than providing background and rationale for why Arb needs to review (ie: the community can't solve this), but will participate as needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All righty, I've gone ahead and submitted the filing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution: 0RR

I mentioned this at the arbcom case request, so let me formally propose it here:

Any editor who believes something written by User:Pbsouthwood violates WP:COPYVIO (including WP:CLOP) may, without warning, delete the offending text, with WP:0RR applying to Pbsouthwood, i.e. he may not restore the text. He may request that the text be restored by posting on the related talk page an explanation of why WP:COPYVIO does not apply.

RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed a diff of Pbsouthwood reverting copyvio/CLOP removal? If anything I would expect this is a de-facto standard for all editors, so long as the removal is in good faith the RD1 request should be left for an uninvolved admin to action (as the template says). This restriction doesn't do anything to ensure Pbsouthwood isn't adding copyvio to the encyclopedia and sinking hours of time for the editors who have to clean up after him. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting removals has never been the issue here, although other editors do revert copyright cleanup efforts enough that it isn't something we consider rare. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. it was just an idea. RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this misses the mark and doesn't address the core issue. It does demonstrate what I've experienced, which is to come up with all kinds of ideas of how to deal with the problem, just to find they all miss the mark as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not archive yet

I would strongly prefer we keep this report OPEN while it is being considered at WP:ARC. If it is accepted at Arb, then there is no point in keeping it open. If Arb does not accept the case, then I think that we don't need to start over, and should instead discuss it. So please don't archive yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please BLPDELETE Death of Linnea Mills?

Death of Linnea Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At ARC, GreenLipstickLesbian has laid out a case that Death of Linnea Mills is a creation by Pbsouthwood that discredits a rival of an organization he has a COI with using low-quality sources. I thought I'd go through the article and remove anything poorly-sourced, and quickly gave up when I realized that that would be almost everything. There are 41 citations to commentary channels on YouTube. There are 15 citations to allegations made in a lawsuit. All of these are stated in the encyclopedia's voice, as fact—and that's not even counting some claims that are stated without any source at all. The article references multiple low-profile living people who have never been found liable in any civil or criminal proceeding. For instance, there are several sentences on how the instructor (who is named) should have either assigned Mills a dive buddy or personally monitored here, which is cited to a YouTube video and to a local news piece that a) does not mention any failure to monitor and b) mentions her fall being witnessed by a dive buddy. This appears to just be Pbsouthwood's critical opinion of the actions of a named living person affiliated with a competitor.

We also have an entire paragraph on why PADI (Pbsouthwood's organization's competitor) just isn't that good, sourced entirely to this^archive of all things. That's not a BLP issue but it's still horrific. There's also a lengthy quote of allegations from the complaint, presented without any analysis, under the heading "Breaches of protocol and violations of standards". That is a BLP issue because much of it implicitly comes back on the (named, low-profile) diving instructor. The citations in that section are the complaint itself, a YouTube video (used as sole source for the claim "After Mills' death PADI continued to issue certification in [the instructor]'s name, including to divers who were present on the fatal dive, and had not completed the course requirements for the dive due to the incident"), and a single maybe-RS that is used for a SYNTH claim to back up the claims in the complaint.

Anyways, I could spend an hour or two gutting this article for every poorly-sourced, unsourced, POV-pushing, COI-infused, or BLP-violating claim, paring it down to just a few sentences sourced to the local news coverage, but at that point I think we hit WP:BLPDELETE's threshold to delete a page if it contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. All three prongs of that very clearly apply here, and I would encourage an admin to just delete this travesty. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BLPDELETE rules would apply, given it has been so long since the death. As for the other issues, there is an WP:ARC ongoing, and this could be reviewed there if they accept the case, or here if they don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would the BLP issue be not so much the deceased person but those others involved with this incident? (who are probably alive) 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I'm referring to the large number of potentially defamatory statements being made about low-profile living persons (Redacted) and (Redacted), who the article essentially accuses of manslaughter. ArbCom does not handle page deletions (outside of topic-area-level interventions), and also arbitration is a slow process and (Redacted) and (Redacted) shouldn't have to wait to not be defamed, which is why I'm bringing this here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC) self-redacted now that the names are no longer necessary to explain my concern 12:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that this "single maybe-RS" is from Divers Alert Network's website, which happens to be PADI's competitor with which Pbsouthwood is affiliated. So certainly not a reliable source for negative material about their competitor. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. It only took me five minutes to identify negative statements about living people sourced to YouTube chat channels, a few "allegedlys" and some material that doesn't appear to be sourced well at all. Even if I hadn't read Tamzin's comments, I would have suspected that this incredibly detailed article about a tragic but not massively newsworthy accident (all of the sources are diving-related or very local) was a hit piece on the company involved. If it is correct that the author has a COI with this organisation, I think we have a serious problem here. This is a WP:IAR delete and any uninvolved administrator is welcome to undo it if they feel it to be necessary. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite I read through about half of the deleted text. I was pretty sure I agreed with the deletion before I got past the first paragraph. Everything I read after that just added to my certainty. There is enough of a mélange of BLP, COI, RS, and NBIO issues here that IAR was certainly justified. RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChronoEditor1 repeated use of LLM in talk pages, FORUM-y, legal threats?

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ChronoEditor1 repeated use of LLM in talk pages, FORUM-y, legal threats?. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

First warning here

Use of LLM again, using talk page as a forum here

Use of LLM yet again, using talk page as a forum here Use of LLM yet again, this time with threats to "write an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO" here

Finally, FORUM-y post on talk page, maybe a bit of WP:ICHY here

If this is the wrong venue, please tell me about it, thank you. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The best venue for that would be WP:AN/I. Once you move it there, you should also leave the user a talk page notification with {{ANI-notice}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry @Chaotic Enby, but how do i change venue? do i just copy and paste the thread? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-30597-01 Yes, I think so. Toadspike [Talk] 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy pasted the AN thread to ANI, please close this thread. thank you! ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Names(s) with format "~2025-XXXXX-XX"

From the instructions at the top of the page: Accounts in the format ~2025-12345-67 are temporary accounts. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am find a lot of users with a name starting as ~2025-*. Each one of them them have edits on just a few pages, but there are many of them. I suspect these are all sock puppets, and these names are created on the fly based on some time stamps. All of them seem to me to be WP:BE instances. I searched the archive, but I am not sure this has been reported yet.

Do admins have some suggestions?

Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous personal attacks

NO ACTION

Nothing here requiring admin intervention. Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user @FactCheckerBharath: attacking me personally here in a disturbing manner. His uncivil comments are against Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Collaboration first. He also blames me falsely, insulting my contributions and accusing my edit as "negative content". Anbarasan1523 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anbarasan1523 These are mostly benign comments, not invectives or egregious personal attacks. No administrator intervention is needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: His comments are clearly not in good intent. For example, he said about me He then waited 30 days, made multiple edits across various pages to obtain extended-confirmed status, and has now returned to add only negative content to this article. which is untrue. If that was my intent, I would have stopped at 500th edit and returned after 30 days. Also, insulting a user's edit as "negative content" is serious personal attack. And his suggestion I request that moderators or administrators review his editing behaviour and consider restricting his edits on this page seems like a threat. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to an edit as "negative content" is literally commenting on the content, not the contributor, and thus is by definition not a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one certainly wasn't good, since it cast WP:ASPERSIONS, but it wasn't really at the ANI level; sharp elbows are sometimes thrown around here. The second, similarly, wasn't collaborative, but it was also invoking a normal Wikipedia process.

@FactCheckerBharath, I urge you to cut it out before it does become an ANI issue. You should keep your comments to others about content and you should either stick to productive edit requests (only) on this topic or stay away from the topic completely. The community has very limited patience with nonsense in this topic area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change of iban

I have an 1-way iban with another editor. I would like to have it changed to either a tban in the topic of doctor who(as that's where the issues were) or have it removed altogether if possible. I'm asking for the changing of the iban because it's affecting my ability to edit articles completely unrelated to the whole fiasco. I have no idea what info or answers to give here, because I don't know the correct procedure to ask this, so feel free to ask me any questions? HSLover/DWF (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DoctorWhoFan91. Your first step is to provide a diff to the discussion that led to the interaction ban. Then, you need to explain what went wrong and why you received this ban. Then you need to explain what you have learned from the incident and provide convincing assurances that the same or similar behavioral problems will not happen again. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes

WITHDRAWN

Nothing to see here. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer: Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Chrisahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User_talk:Beland#RFC_closure_appeal

Reasoning: At least 2 editors reported unsatisfactory result. Gigman (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer (Beland)

Clarification posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Note from closer. -- Beland (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participants (MOS)

Participants (MOS)

Discussion (MOS)

This request has not been posted by the editor named as "User requesting review", User:Chrisahn, but by User:Glebushko0703 (signature:Gigman), who is in dispute with Chrisahn over it. Chrisahn wrote I'll post a more detailed challenge on WP:AN tomorrow[8], Glebushk0703 wrote If you're busy, I'll help you by posting your appeal myself.[9] NebY (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He explained his reasoning pretty clear in various related discussions, but he said he will not be able to post it. Then tomorrow came, but he still didn't do it, so I notified the user before posting his appeal for him. Is that prohibited by rules? Gigman (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes logic would dictate that when the user requesting review has said you're not doing this on my behalf [10], you can't go opening a challenge on their behalf. CNC (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I recommend you strike "User requesting review: Chrisahn ..." as it's clearly false representation and inappropriate. I almost did this myself, but maybe you want to change the user to a user who is actually wanting a review? If not yourself nor anyone else, this would be better withdrawn. CNC (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Chrisahn that they've been mentioned in this thread, as that had not been done. NebY (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was notified by me in a separate discussion mentioned above. Gigman (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 editors reported unsatisfactory result is not a good enough reason to challenge a close. Please can you describe what was specifically wrong or inccuarte about the close. CNC (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait for those 2 users. As mentioned above, I've only posted the appeal. They were notified in a different discussion. Gigman (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This approach by Glebushko0703/Gigman is unusual, to say the last. G liked the outcome of the close, defended it, and even went ahead and made mass changes while it was being challenged. I haven't had much time for Wikipedia in the last 36 hours or so. I hope I'll have enough time to write a proper appeal in the next couple of hours, but I'm not sure yet. I feel that G is trying to rush the matter, but there is no hurry. The issue of Baltic birth places has been discussed for years (decades?). There is absolutely no reason to rush it now. I don't know what G has in mind, and I'd like to make it very clear that this appeal has not been done on my behalf. I made that clear before G posted the appeal. I think this appeal should be closed or deleted. I'd prefer to post the appeal myself, and I don't want to be forced by anyone. Maybe I'll get to it today, maybe tomorrow. Given the scope of the issue, a few days don't matter. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal itself was definitely rather unusual (and quite inappropriate technically becasue of the suggestion that it was your appeal), but implementing a closed RFC is certainly not unusual or inappropriate. There's no requirement that the consensus determined in an RFC may not be implemented while someone, somewhere, is unhappy with the result. And that goes the same whether or not the unhappy person(s) is/are planning an appeal, otherwise RFCs would be worthless since anyone who disagreed with the close would have a pocket veto. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rushing this because yesterday you said that you will post an appeal tomorrow (so today), and now you're saying that you've changed your mind... What's the point of misinformation if you're not going to do what you said?

Also, the longer you wait - the more changes are being done by users while the consensus is marked as valid. If you want to post it yourself whenever you like, you could just say so at very start.

Gigman (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a misunderstanding between the user who requested the appeal and the user who posted it (me), so I would like to withdraw this request. Gigman (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just to make this very clear as well: "There was a misunderstanding between the user ..." – No, there wasn't. G decided to post this appeal. I never asked G to do anything like this. I didn't even discuss it with G. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need for false allegations here, the appeal request was closed

I never claimed I asked you about anything, I've only notified you before posting. You have expressed your position and said you are going to post an appeal tomorrow, but since you didn't do that, I decided to do this instead of you, referring to you as as the one who requested it (since you did). I Gigman (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisahn wrote "I'll post a more detailed challenge on WP:AN tomorrow" yesterday, 7 December. You didn't wait to see if they would make a request by the end of 8 December in their timezone. Instead you posted here that they were now making a request, which wasn't true, and you provided a wholly inadequate reason for the request, thus representing it as having no good foundation. This spurious request will have consumed some of the time and attention that Chrisahn was planning to give to Wikipedia today. It would be good if Chrisahn could post any review request sooner rather than later, but if your actions have delayed it, that's your responsibility. Your actions here have clearly been disruptive. NebY (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:North Korea and African Decolonization

DONE

Deletion and move handled. Toadspike [Talk] 17:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft:North Korea and African Decolonization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has had a speedy tag on it for over 24 hours... if someone could please delete it so that I can finish cleaning up the mess that I made? See User_talk:Naihuangbao#About_your_AFC_draft for additional context. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Taking Out The Trash, you can complete the cleanup now. Also, custard buns (zh) are delicious. Toadspike [Talk] 16:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move also done. Toadspike [Talk] 16:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – December 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

Valereee

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community.

The two-year terms of these members formally begin on 1 January 2026:

Aoidh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Asilvering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SilverLocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The one-year terms of these members formally begin on 1 January 2026:

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

All incoming members have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

The Committee will make a further announcement about outgoing arbitrators before the 2026 committee takes office.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 19:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2026 Arbitration Committee

Administrator Elections - Voting Phase

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of verified content

WP:BOOMERANG

OP indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Administrators , it has come to my notice that the wikipedia page of Radhika Veena Sadhika is being edited by bot accounts or users who do not even see citations and check the verified content but still remove content as per their wish and then put forceful protection which disrupts and stops others from correcting. These users are jay8g , aesurias and more , pls look into the matter. Indianmusicloveriml (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go peddle your LLM-generated promotional drek somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not generated promotional content , it is verified content , pls take out the time to read on the internet before directly making changes or removing content , I believe as as admin you can do that to make sure authenticity is there rather than just deleting content based on your willingness. ~2025-39351-15 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unblocks needs help (and renamers)

CAT:RFU is creeping up near 100 again and would benefit from some fresh admin eyes. A good half of the queue is the "Promotional username, promotional edits" variety, so I'll also direct any interested editors to requests for global renamer permissions. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Let's just hope those interested editors don't get turned down for reasons, as Ammarpad put it not required in the official policy of the access. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of what the typical profile of a global renamer is? I'm well aware of, say, the community's expectations of an admin here, but not so much on a meta global renamer. I only ask because I spend a lot of time answering questions/clarifying things for blocked editors making requests, and I could be useful for something like this, but I also don't want to waste any steward's time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs, @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, all the ones I know of on en-wiki are admins, but I personally don't see any reason why we'd require that, as it doesn't look like it's restricted to admins. I'm happy to put in a good word for both of you if you do apply (or re-apply) - it looks like respondents on meta were unclear about how our unblocks process works. The renamer who changes the editor's username conventionally does not handle the unblock itself, so there's no reason why we'd need an admin, specifically, to do the renaming. Not sure if this is something we do for any particular reason, but @PhilKnight and @331dot both do this, and they're our most prolific unblocks-related renamers as far as I'm aware. Tagging them in in case either want to comment. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in to confirm that's exactly what I do (albeit, because I saw Phil and 331dot doing it and assumed it was the done thing...) CoconutOctopus talk 20:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, and I'll definitely wait to see more feedback from the other two. Just wanted to make sure that it's at least not a frivolous request, since the last thing I'd want to do is waste someone's time or look like hat collection. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for current renamers: are any advanced permissions needed for processing a rename request besides the global renamer permission? e.g., page mover? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't think so, unless the user you're renaming has a userpage that is fully move protected for whatever reason. CoconutOctopus talk 21:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that'd still work? Renaming plows through basically all limits, including blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, at times when I've been an admin and renamer concurrently, I've handled both at once, at least for noncontroversial cases. Anything else just seems like pointless duplication of effort and lengthens the period of time in which someone who's ready to be unblocked is nonetheless unable to edit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly done both at once for soft username blocks. CoconutOctopus talk 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it takes two weeks to go through the process, so we won't get the additional people for a bit, though I do encourage those who are interested in taking this on (and learning the renaming policy) to sign up at m:Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_rename_permissions. The application process is pretty simple. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Slightly related question, but do people ever come back from a {{uw-spamublock}} and become productive editors? It does seem like the people blocked with this reason are fundamentally here to promote their organization, not build an encyclopedia. Shouldn't most appeals be quickly closed unless they offer a serious, human-written unblock request assuring us they would stop being an SPA? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not against our policies to be an SPA. Plenty of this encyclopedia has been built by SPAs. Frankly, I'm less inclined to accept the appeals that try to tell me they'll be anything else, since I generally assume that's horseshit they're saying so that we'll unblock them. But are these appeals a deeply annoying timesink? Absolutely. Which is why I suggest that unblocks responders write themselves some good boilerplate to reduce the time they spend attending to them. Speaking of, @Chaotic Enby, @L235, I know you've both been busy with other quite important things, but do you think we could start trialling the unblock wizard link in {{uw-spamublock}}? -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it :) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm less inclined to accept the appeals that try to tell me they'll be anything else: I agree with your perspective, but a lot of unblocks admins do seem to ask that question on whether they're planning to edit other topics or pages. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, that's usually a waste of everyone's time. But I don't care much about wasting paid editors' time, and volunteers can do as they please. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen For another perspective (though perhaps one with less AGF), there's a certain benefit to keeping spammers and marketing people where you can see them. It can prolong the point from which a company decides to hire a UPE to "fix" the article, for starters, if they genuinely believe they have a chance at "fixing" "their" article in the approved way. It's also a lot easier to inspect the edit requests of "John Doe at Acme Coorp" for pro-corporate bias than it is to inspect the edits of "Random Editor 12345". GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 07:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does make sense in a roundabout way. I suppose the backlog at CAT:COIREQ should be considered a "feature" as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, for any admins who are interested in helping out but feeling like they're just having to make everything up as they go, I have written (part of) a guide on handling unblocks: User:Asilvering/Unblocks guide. If you run into something it doesn't cover, I'd love to hear about it, since I'm well into the "has forgotten what it was like to be new" stage. -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Range block 2409:4000::/22

RESOLVED

Per submitter --tony 17:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

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

Why was this IP address blocked for one year! It is a VERY large range! AceOfClubs2025 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC) — AceOfClubs2025 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's a particularly aggressive WP:LTA operating from this range. Prior escalating blocks were not sufficient. This block is anon-only, meaning anyone is free to edit from this IP address range, provided they sign in to their account. WP:ACC is available to those without an account. It's a big block, that's for sure. If prior blocks had been remotely sufficient, that would have been great. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, should the reason say that you can use WP:ACC? 99% of people won’t know what it is! AceOfClubs2025 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll make that change. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is "block expungement" possible?

This is not possible under current policy, and it's unlikely that that policy will change. For what it's worth, I myself have a clearly erroneous block on Wikidata. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seven years ago, I misclicked and accidentally blocked Zackmann08 for 12 seconds. I immediately unblocked the editor and apologized. Today, they began a discussion at User_talk: Cullen328#Block Expungement asking me to use revision deletion to eliminate the record of the block, since they consider it a "black mark" on their record. I happened to be away from home and from Wikipedia for a few hours and a lively discussion ensued on my talk page while I was driving. There was an incorrect assumption that a grizzled old adminstrator like me would know what to do. I don't. So, I am asking for information and advice about the proper course of action. I have already given Zackmann08 a fresh apology. What else should I do? Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here I want to be clear, there is no ill will towards Cullen328 for what was an obvious mistake. Yes it was 7 years ago and I have moved on. However, every once in a while, another editor will chime in during a debate with a well Zackmann08 has a history of being blocked type comment. Now agreed, no serious editor takes that comment seriously if they take the time to consult the block log. The issue is that I cannot technically refute that statement with no I haven't and that is very frustrating.

I was going down an unrelated rabbit hole and recently came across a Mediawiki thread that revealed to me that from a technical standpoint, it is not only possible, but fairly easy for the record of my block to be removed. It just requires an admin to perform a REVDEL on the block. That is why I'm bringing it up after all this time.

I also want to be clear, had been legitimately blocked for something, even if it was 20 years ago and even if it was only for a few minutes, I would not be here asking for it to be removed. I understand that would be a spot on my record forever. But given that this was a clear accident by an admin, it seems that removing of the record of it such that it never happened is appropriate. Happy to provide any additional information if needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no revision deletion rationale that allows for block log redaction; in fact, per policy, it's considered abuse of tools to make such a redaction. It's not a badge of shame, many of us have such blocks on our records.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would not IAR apply here? I fail to see any harm in righting this wrong, for both of us. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting it would erase a record of an administrative action. If we were to start expunging mistakes, our logs would no longer be accurate records of administrative actions—it would make it much harder to hold administrators to account. I'm not suggesting Cullen needs to be held to any greater account than he is, but as a rule we refuse to do this to avoid compromising the integrity of our logs. Giraffer (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Community consensus determined that revision deletion is only allowed under a very specific set of circumstances, and redacting block logs is not one of them; is actually specifically disallowed. It's not a situation where IAR applies. Why would it be ok to do it for you and none of the other hundreds of misclick blocks out there? The block log is clear that it was an error. No one is going to in good faith believe otherwise.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion: How should we deal with votes submitted before voting period officially began?

Immediate issue is resolved. Risker (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: this is a cross-post from WT:AELECT

Scrutineers have identified that six votes were cast on December 8 during the 10 minutes before the election was to start; two of those votes have been "greyed out" as a result of the voters completing a subsequent ballot, and four have not. The voting period has been posted since October 2, and states that it is December 9 to 15 inclusive. Link to voting list

One of the election clerks has advised the scrutineers that they invited individuals in the English Wikipedia community Discord channel to vote as a test of the system in the 10 minutes before the election was scheduled to begin, and informed the "testers" that those votes would be included in the final count. While the scrutineers have no concerns with the concept of "test" votes occurring during this period (to be replaced with proper votes during the official voting period), there is no precedent within the Wikimedia system to accept votes cast before the official voting period.

The question is, what should be done about these "test" votes that a very limited group of voters were told would count. Options are:

Striking them
Asking the four voters involved to please re-vote during the scheduled election (re-voting has the effect of "greying out" the original vote so it will not be counted)
Allowing them to stand and to count them.

We seek the opinion of the community in this matter. This is being cross-posted to WP:AN. The four individuals whose votes are in question will be notified of this discussion.

Risker (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC) (writing on behalf of the scrutineers)[reply]

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Discussion: How should we deal with votes submitted before voting period officially began?

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

Request review of informal COI topic ban

I am posting here to request that Wikipedia administrators review and issue a formal decision on an informal topic ban that was imposed on me on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

It was proposed there that I receive a citation ban that forbids me from citing my own books and newspaper / magazine articles. I did not oppose such a ban. Editors did not state a consensus was reached on a citation ban.

It was proposed there that I receive a topic ban on Louise Vincent. I initially objected to a topic ban on Louise Vincent. I no longer object and I voluntarily agree to a topic ban on Louise Vincent.

It was proposed there that I receive a topic ban on Johann Hari. I opposed this topic ban and continue to oppose it. On the COI noticeboard, four editors stated they reached consensus to impose an informal ban on my editing the Hari page. I am writing to request a formal decision in the hope that I will be cleared of a COI regarding Johann Hari.

I edit Wikipedia under my real name and have always been transparent about my past professional interactions with Hari. I will describe all facets of those interactions here.

In 2017, I wrote a book called Fighting for Space (FFS). In researching that book, I contacted Hari and requested audio tapes of interviews he conducted with a deceased individual. He sent them. Hari also wrote a short blurb for FFS’s book jacket. I thanked him in the book’s acknowledgements section.

In 2021, I wrote a book called Light Up the Night (LUTN). Hari wrote a short blurb for LUTN’s book jacket. I thanked him in the book’s acknowledgements section.

I’ve also interviewed Hari for two magazine articles. The most-recent such article was published in 2018.

This is the totality of my relationship with Johann Hari.

Regarding allegation of a professional conflict of interest, I want to emphasize that I no longer work in journalism and do not consider myself a working author. I have not had a single byline published anywhere in more than five years. Hari and I do not work in the same profession; therefore, I question the extent to which a professional conflict of interest can exist. In addition, both FFS and LUTN are no longer in print; ergo, regarding the Hari blurbs, even any limited influence on sales that might have once existed can no longer be considered anything but negligible. I declare no professional conflict of interest.

No accusation of a personal conflict of interest was ever made. Regardless, I will emphasize here, I have no personal relationship with Hari. We are not friends, and I have no communication with him. I declare no personal conflict of interest.

I argue that a COI topic ban should not be applied to an editor for any past level of acquaintance to a topic regardless of how small the degree. Bans should only be applied when an actual COI exists; not because two people in a shared field merely crossed paths multiple years ago, as in my case with Hari. I argue that my past contact with Hari does not meet the bar for a COI topic ban.

I request a formal decision on my informal topic ban for Johann Hari. And I respectfully encourage admins to declare no conflict of interest. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on logging your voluntary topic ban regarding Louise Vincent and your editing restriction on citing your own work at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Please note that if you violate the ban or restriction, you may be blocked, and you will need to appeal them to the community if you ever want them lifted.

Regarding Hari, I think your past professional relationship is sufficient to establish a COI. You may not currently be working as a professional journalist or an author, but there's always a possibility you will publish something again in the future. Even if you don't currently have a COI with Hari, editors at COIN raised concerns about potential bias in your edits to his article that you didn't fully address. Why not edit about someone or something else that's completely unrelated to your past work, instead of having other editors constantly second guess your intentions? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-37905-19

PBLOCKED

TA removed from dead horse via partial block. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

~2025-37905-19 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) has been discussing a topic at Talk:Your Lie in April for almost a week now concerning what constitutes a "literal translation", a concept for which they seem to have a particular definition and appears eager to uphold.[11][12] As can be seen on the talk page, I provided them an explicit definition of the term from Cambridge,[13] which the user simply dismissed, arguing that this definition corresponds to a different concept (repeating the same thing over and over again).[14][15][16] On their talk page, I asked them, since they refuse to back up their own definition of the term with any sources, to simply leave the discussion.[17] The user declined to comply and chose to maintain their behavior.[18] I feel like I could just let them continue to reply and ignore their answers, but I'm concerned that the user might think that their final word decides the course of action to take on this issue and proceed to edit the article based on their own vision. Given that so far it's basically just this user and me (and perhaps another editor who also dismissed his reasoning),[19] I feel it is best to seek a third opinion before this drags on any longer. Xexerss (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xexerss The typical venue for requesting a third opinion is Wikipedia:Third opinion (aka "3O"). However, it looks like you've already gotten a third opinion here from @Crestfalling. Also, I think you meant to post this to ANI, not AN (at least, that's the notification you gave this TA). Anyhow, I have partially blocked them from that talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Export review blacklog

BACKLOG REMOVED

Phew Mfield (Oi!) 23:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions has a huge backlog of 173 files that need review. These are files to be moved to Commons that need hidden revisions examined beforey an admin, such as files that were downscaled by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On it, gonna need more help though as this is a lot Mfield (Oi!) 07:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users Smallangryplanet and Raskolnikov.Rev: persistent disruptive editing

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Raskolnikov.Rev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 21Nov2025,14:36, I made a fairly surveyable edit in the lead section of article Hamas, with a careful motivation placed on talk page. This edit was reverted a day later, by editor Smallangryplanet, who appeared not able (neither in edit summary 22Nov,15:17, nor on talk page 15:33) to give any valid reason for his reverting. Alaexis re-reverted that revert (21:37). That version was again reverted, by Raskolnikov.Rev (22Nov,21:43), who also did not give (neither in edit summary, nor on talk page 22:12) any valid reason for his reverting.
I strongly object against these practices, and request the administrators to act against these practices, by warning these two contributors. As for ‘first dealing with their incivility myself’: I’ve often and extensively warned Raskolnikov about this type of actions of his, for example here on 16Oct2025, but he does not yield an inch and only throws mud in my direction. Also Smallangryplanet has often been addressed by me about his strange discussion posts and dubious editing, most recently in this talk posting (3Nov2025), but also Smp seems to simply ignore messages that displease him.

The central and indispensable element in the Wikipedia logic and philosophy is that editors openly and fairly explain their motives for their edits. Without editors being clear in their edit summaries about their motives and reasons and respecting the careful work of colleagues Wikipedia can’t possibly function well and prosper, but is doomed.
You can find my analysis of these two in my opinion invalid, thus disruptive, reverts in talk-page-subsection Talk:Hamas#Criticism on the revert summaries and (absent) revert motivations of Smallangryplanet (22Nov,15:17), Alaexis(22Nov,21:37) and Raskolnikov.Rev (22Nov,21:43), which is a subsection of Talk:Hamas#Motivation for edit lead section (‘1967 borders’) date 21Nov2025. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I responded both in my edit summary and in the talk explaining why your edit did not align with standard Wikipedia policy and you need to obtain consensus for it. You did not reply on the talk page, and instead brought the case here while presenting the dispute in a way that does not accurately reflect the core issue. To start with, @Corriebertus has for years attempted to change the Hamas page in order to remove references to what the consensus in RS states: that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, accepted the 1967 borders, and that this is understood by those sources as consistent with the two-state framework. Corriebertus disputes this interpretation, arguing that such statements from Hamas are inherently unreliable, and that any RS including the widely recognized scholars of Hamas stating otherwise are merely repeating Hamas propaganda.

Editors have raised concerns regarding this, noting that it does not align with Wikipedia policy: we follow what the consensus among RS is, and we do not dismiss sources based on personal assessments that they are "spreading Hamas propaganda". Some of the earlier discussions on this point are linked in my recent talk reply, and @Smallangryplanet provided further links in their responses here and here.

There is a more fundamental issue with Corriebertus' edit as noted in my reply to him on the talk page. The content of the edit was entirely redundant and unrelated to the argument provided for it:

The content of your revision is virtually identical to what was already stated before. You changed: "It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007" to "As of 2005, in agreements with Fatah, Hamas has expressed willingness to accept a state in the 1967 borders."

I don't understand what the purpose of this edit even is per your own reasoning. It is entirely superfluous.

Another editor, the one who had restored the edit, also defended the edit based on the same argumentation that has nothing to do with the actual content of the edit! And just now Corriebertus has reprimanded him for doing so and being off-topic. So it's a very strange situation where an argument is being made to justify an edit which content-wise doesn't have anything to do with the argument being made for it.

This has been a recurring pattern in interactions with Corriebertus. I encourage other editors to review the posts of his he linked on the Hamas page, as well as the discussions on Talk:2017 Hamas charter, and consider whether the explanations provided are clear or actionable. As other editors have pointed out, he keeps posting elaborate walls of text that are inscrutable, then making contentious edits on the basis of them, and then when it gets challenged he responds with more walls of text, and when that inevitably does not lead to the consensus he desires he becomes frustrated, leaves talk messages on my and other pages with further walls of text, and then after a period of quiet the same cycle repeats itself. This is going back years now on those two pages with many editors.

This is why I and others have repeatedly advised @Corriebertus to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and not WP:STONEWALL when they are unable to obtain consensus for their desired edit. Unfortunately, this has not resolved the issue and the cycle continues. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be at WP:AE. (t · c) buIdhe 03:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but it's here now. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are RfCs. Trying to do something other editors find contentious, especially to a lead section, without gaining consensus in the topic area is a great way to start fires and get topic banned. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warn Corriebertus for falsely stating that Raskolnikov.Rev did not explain his edit, against evidence which they themselves have brought up. Corriebertus possibly does not comprehend this evidence (the diff) and therefore does not understand that Raskolnikov.Rev did explain his edit, which is a serious competence problem. Corriebertus did not follow the minimum level of good practices in collaborative editing and dispute resolution.—Alalch E. 10:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: I’m just wondering what’s happening here. Raskolnikov does not give an explanation for reverting on 22Nov2025: he only suggests (says), in his edit summary 22Nov and again here on WP:ANI on 27Nov., that he has given an explanation nine months earlier (which seems mysterious because this edit proposal of November did not exist in February), which (alleged) ‘explanation’ for reverting he however does not deign to repeat in his revert; How does that rhyme with our obligation to assume good faith?

And then you Alalch also suggest Rsk has given an explanation and also you refuse to repeat the alleged explanation? It seems then, you effectively are saying it is enough for preserving an existing version to simply say you dislike it to be changed, without having to react on any given argument saying it seems incorrect and thus ought to be changed? How does that rhyme with your obligation to assume good faith? (No need to repeat here that also Smallangryplanet failed to motivate his revert on 22Nov.) By the way: Rsk here on 27Nov claims as “the core issue” between him and me, that I reject the interpretation that “Hamas has, on multiple occasions, accepted the 1967 borders”: no, I have not rejected that presumption (and still don’t reject it today nor on 21Nov: see my posting today with same time stamp on Talk:Hamas). And certainly I have not rejected that presumption in the posting of 1Feb2025 which Rsk links as ‘proof’. I’m not saying in retrospect that what I argued there is correct or still relevant, but that’s no alibi to project assertions in it that are not there. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe at least a warning is in order – I have explained myself many times, ad nauseum and at length and Corriebertus continues to cast aspersions rather than reply to my questions or comments. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of Articles for Deletion here, Jimbo Wales factor

Just noting for transparency that both Mar-A-Lago face and Republican makeup were nominated for deletion by an editor, through comments by User:Jimbo Wales on User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Face. Might not be a bad idea to eyeball/watch these pages and AfDs, given the potential of partisan rancor, and any amplification of any of this via Wales becoming involved.

AfDs:

FYI. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake. Do we need to TBAN Jimbo from AMPOL? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both AfDs have been closed by a non-admin as "snow keep". • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy (and most others in fact) have pretty wide latitude to say whatever they want on their own user talk pages so long as it isn't mean. Two AFDs speedy kept submitted by someone who isn't Jimmy falls into the nothingburger category. Izno (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't blame Jimbo for someone else construing their opinion as a "do my bidding", with a 2-day delay. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Jimbo for continuing to say dumb shit about NPOV and working people up over political culture wars bullshit. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JIMBOSAID and WP:QUOTEJIMBO should cover this tbf. CNC (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cremastra#Caught by autoblock

Could someone help me there? I am sure the user is not related to the vandal I blocked yesterday, but I am not sure what is the best course of action in this case. There is some degree of urgency. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared the autoblock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. So i should have gone to my block of the vandal and uncheck the autoblock, right? Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Cremestra's appeal there was a bolded "block ID" number, and beside that there was a link to unblock (you can see it here). That's probably the easiest option.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it now, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure review request at Talk:Israel#RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians

Closer: Cremastra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Coining (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User_talk:Cremastra#Closure_review

Reasoning: WP:BADNAC situation 1 (which says "The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial".) The closure also uses phrases like "completely ignoring", "not constructive", and "rather disappointed" that are not neutral in tone, which though not inherently required is probably advisable for a contentious RfC closure. Coining (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC) ~~-- Further explanation of the reasoning has been subsequently added by me below under Discussion. Coining (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

In response to requests to go beyond the closer being a non-admin, I'll note first that it wasn't the sole reason presented in the initial reasoning above -- the above comment notes that the wording in the closure could be viewed as disparaging and that undermines the argument that views of editors were seriously considered, and more generally this discussion of an especially contentious topic, interacting with what might have been the single most contentious RfC on Wikipedia in the past year, is an especially important one to be handled by an administrator. This goes well beyond saying that the close should be undone merely because the closer wasn't an admin.

Beyond the above points, having had more time to look at the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Requests for comment, I'll note that the scope of consensus is an issue with the close. Instead of relisting the RfC with a request that opposing editors specifically address this RfC assuming that the Gaza genocide RfC was sacrosanct/not subject to change in this RfC (despite WP:CCC), arguments that the closer objected to, the close wholesale rejected a main thrust of many opposing arguments. A better approach would be to ask for engagement with the more limited scope of what change to make, if any, if the RfC at Gaza genocide was binding on the Israel article, rather than closing the RfC without the closer believing that the discussion had been fully engaged. Something like 40-45% of editors were opposed to this RfC; they deserve more than to be told that a policy like WP:CCC is in practice inapplicable to this situation and that they were essentially foolish for trying to make the argument that it is. More generally, the criteria states Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form. This point also implicates the the need for closure criterion.

Related to the nature of the question criterion, the closer selected one editor's proposed alternative language, entered it into the article, and effectively seems to have locked it in behind a closed RfC. Attempts to edit this sentence in the article will be met with arguments that it cannot be changed without a new RfC. This is not the question most editors thought they were responding to. An alternative approach would have been to relist the discussion with a request to respond to the proposed alternative language, but that's not what this closure allowed.

Note: I had originally posted this addendum below in the Discussion, as I wasn't sure of the proper procedure, but I have been encouraged, now by multiple editors, to list it here now for easier reference. Coining (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer (Cremastra)

~~I'll write a detailed response tomorrow, as I don't have time right now,~~ I think my views are made sufficiently clear in my comments in this section and my replies elsewhere but in the interim I'll make a couple notes:

Discussions aren't votes.
I see nothing "non-neutral" about identifying poor !votes as poor !votes, if this is done civilly.
WP:BADNAC shouldn't be raised purely on the basis that the closer is not an admin.
Interpreting the widely advertised and well-attended Gaza genocide discussion is as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not seem to me a very accurate approach; secondly, oppose !voters could have provided specific arguments as to why the Israel article should not be consistent with the main article on the Gaza genocide. Instead, many of the oppose !votes relitigated the past RfC. I noted this in my close.

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note about the localcon question:

It is unreasonable to expect a major change in a central article on a topic not to affect other related articles. If we note in our beetle article in wikivoice that beetles are one of the largest and most successful groups of insects, we could reasonably assume similar remarks to be made in other articles.

In this case, the claim is very controversial, so RfCs and caution are necessary to be applied. But we should still apply a degree of consistency after the central article on a topic has been subjected to a major change – a type of change, I'll note, just in case anyone accuses me of bias, I twice urged the project not to adopt. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Extraordinary Writ ‒ I don't think I overcompensated, but I would say that, wouldn't I? I did not participate in the most recent RfC on the Gaza genocide, the one that put genocide in wikivoice, which I think is the most relevant change. In real life I'm genuinely conflicted as to whether what Israel is doing amounts to genocide, which is why I set out to close this, as I don't have strong leanings either way. I listed the diffs above as an automatic shield against editors accusing me of rampaging anti-Israeli bias, because this is a contentious area and feelings run high.

The Venn diagram of "editors interested and able to close the RfC" and "editors who have not participated in past discussions on the question" has a very small intersection; I think it's impractical to require that the closer really just needs to be completely uninvolved in the dispute. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participants

Speedy close: You didn't read the last sentence of BADNAC: "In non-deletion discussions, a non-admin closure should not be challenged solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you haven't pointed out any actual flaws with the close other than saying some language are not neutral in tone, which, as you acknowledge, is not a requirement. Do you have any actual arguments about how Cremastra's weighing of consensus is incorrect? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to my question, if the answer is yes, you should discuss any issues with Cremastra first (as is required before opening a close review) and only then open a new close review if there's actually a valid reason to do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without weighing in on the merits of the challenge, I don't agree with this reading of BADNAC because it would render it basically toothless (outside of deletion discussions, at least, which have special rules). By this logic, any close challenge based on the BADNAC criteria (user is too inexperienced, topic is too contentious, close will require administrator to implement) would be considered challenges based "solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin" and dismissed, which would thwart the intent to, say, prevent non-admins from closing a discussion with a consensus to CBAN. I read the line to mean something more narrow, like "a close should not be challenged just on the basis of it being a NAC (but it could still be challenged on the basis of being a BADNAC)". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the line to mean something more narrow, like "a close should not be challenged just on the basis of it being a NAC (but it could still be challenged on the basis of being a BADNAC)".

That's how it came accross the me that voorts had read it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I disagree with the application – the challenge says this close is a violation of BADNAC#1: A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. if we agree on the reading of BADNAC that the last line doesn't exclude BADNAC challenges, invoking BADNAC#1 should be enough to survive Voorts's challenge here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see my discussion comment below where I begin by explaining why my initial reasoning wasn't solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin. Coining (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my reading renders it toothless, and I think it's a bit absurd to say that my logic would lead to non-admins closing CBAN discussions without us having recourse to immediately reverse that. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to provide a rationale for that position, please do; if not, i'll just take your word for it instead of burning the time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Coining's new reasons below. This is still not sufficient reason to overturn an RfC and it wasn't discussed with Cremastra before this close review was opened. The point of the discussion requirement is to see if things can be worked out before dragging the community into this. In any event, there's still no argument being made that consensus was incorrectly assessed here, which is telling. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that this discussion should be closed and a new discussion needs to be opened? What do you think it is the path forward here? We can either keep this discussion open or it can be closed, we can continue to discuss with the closer and then start a new discussion. I hope the answer isn't close this one as malformed and final. Also note that two editors did raise closing concerns on the talk page before this discussion was opened. Springee (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think people need to stop litigating this issue, particularly if they're not willing to present any evidence that a genocide has not occurred or contend with the fact that almost all genocide schoalrs/experts call this a genocide. The community has already rejected the vibes-based arguments being made in opposition. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors did argue those points in the RfC discussion. Editors did present sources that didn't agree this was a genocide etc. You say the community has rejected the opposing view but that RfC was decided by a head count. Are we counting heads or not? If we are, then this RfC is clearly nocon. If we aren't then the other RfC needs to be reopened. Springee (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that it was decided by head count is factually incorrect. The head count was the cherry on the cake, that's all. M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did the closer note the head count? Certainly you aren't trying to claim that across 29 editors no valid objections we offered. If the closer didn't find them, well that would be yet another reason to overturn a clear 50/50 split RfC. Springee (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the objections (based on an issue that has been settled) carried no weight whatsoever. M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what, your opinion? What about the supports that said, "per other RfC", are you going to say they also don't count? The closer didn't address a number of the arguments and deferred to the prior RfC which was closed with a head count. Springee (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the Genocide in Wikipedia's voice has been settled through a very lengthy and well attended RfC. If some editors want to keep banging on about it, they can, but that won't change a thing. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~A RfC that was closed based on a head count... the sort of thing you have said shouldn't happen.~~ Springee (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, it wasn't based on a head count. Second, if that's your objection, you should've raised a close review for that RFC. Third, how that closer closed that RFC has no bearing on how this RFC should've been closed. Drop the stick. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. In that closing, a closing we are expected to adhere to on a separate RfC, head count was a primary justification. Here we have a very clear NOCON per head count as well as all the for/oppose arguments made during the discussion. Yet, we are told that head count doesn't matter this time. I don't disagree with the use of a head count in the previous close. That is on those who are waving the NOTVOTE flag. Springee (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the other RfC did not use head count as a primary justification. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per the closing, "Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome."~~ Springee (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing here is the definition of WP:CHERRYPICKING. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm reading the closing. That was a closing that acknowledged arguments on both sides yet said, based on the numbers the result is a consensus for option 1. We might as well accept that we aren't going to convince tone another and move on. Springee (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I closed the previous RFC, and I can say for sure that it is incorrect that it was closed on the basis of a simple counting of votes with no consideration to policy or sourcing.

Consensus is neither determined 100% of the time by counting votes, nor 100% of the time by policy. As Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus points out, there are situations where it's unclear which policy should determine the outcome. In these cases, counting votes resolves the question. The previous RFC close had a long passage (before the part quoted) explaining why this was a situation where the vote count mattered. It was a question of whether the reliable sources for a given claim met a certain threshold. Because the answer is not obvious from policy alone, the participants had thoughtfully discussed exactly this core question at length, and the closer is not entitled to a supervote, the last step of determining the outcome was to count votes. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not saying you only counted votes. Instead you had sound arguments on both sides of the issue (same as this RfC). When the relative merits are equal a head count makes sense. In this case the merits were the same if not stronger for the oppose side because an academic paper had come out specifically calling this a controversy. In this case the head count was 50/50. If a head count was the ultimate tie breaker last time why not this time? Especially given the extremely controversial nature of the claim and NPOV staying that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Honestly, in RfC you closed I would have said 2:1 is just the threshold for consensus by a head count and given the nature of the claim error on the side of no consensus would have been an equally valid close. Springee (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you said it and repeated it multiple times.

Since when "a paper" can contradict a raft of rock solid RS? M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~You said numbers don't count. Clearly they did per the close. You invented the part about me claiming it was only numbers (I never claimed and would reject that view).~~ Springee (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors responded to your baseless assertions (about the head count). M.Bitton (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is pointless to reply to you since you fail to understand that I never claimed headcount alone is the deciding factor and you posts don't show that. At the same time you have, falsely, said that headcount doesn't matter when clearly it did in the previous close. I would suggest we stop replying to one another since I don't think either of us will change the other's mind. Springee (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closes are different because the second RFC raised a consistency question which the first did not. You can think of this close as either 1.) finding the headcount was not 50/50 after discarding weak comments that did not engage the new concern, or 2.) finding there were not good arguments on both sides, so it's not a context where a headcount should be used to resolve the question. In the previous RFC, both sides more substantively argued the core sourcing question. -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with discarding weak comments is it presumes the weak comment was the only reason the poster agrees with. Consider a hypothetical where editors argue to include a contentious claim about a BLP subject. One person argues against based on BLP policy. A second editor says the new material reads poorly. The second reason isn't a good reason for removal even if it is a good reason for at least changing the added text. However, discounting their !vote without asking if that is the only reason they object is an issue. It's quite possible they agree with the BLP concerns but want to further the need for removal with the second claim. In this context, a number of editors only said, "support" to keep the two articles consistent. Should we discount their votes because they didn't address any of the concerns regarding if this was a NPOV violation? The mix of the questions represented in the answers is, in my view, a good reason to look at both RfC's together. As a hypothetical, if say 100% of the supports, also !voted in the other RfC and 100% of the opposes did not (as a fact I don't think this is true), that would add 29 opposes to the prior RfC head count. The previous RfC was about 80 editors with a bit more than 2/3rd in favor. Call that say 55 to 25 (again, numbers for argument sake). With an additional 29 it would be basically a 50/50 split. If that were the ratio of the last RfC would you, as the closer, still have called it consensus? I do think this is a case where wikipedia needs to show caution and not weigh into the debate by picking a side (per NPOV). Springee (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee, if my word counter is to be trusted, you have breached the 1000-word limit by 1,171 words. Please stop replying here and strike/hat your most recent comments. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do I have the option of striking others? I would prefer to keep the stronger comments vs some of the back and forth ones (and this one would go as well).~~ Springee (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I do impute the strongest arguments from each faction to everyone who identifies with that faction, on the assumption that people won't repeat arguments that have already been made. In this RFC, it appears the "oppose" faction as a whole was simply left with no strong arguments.

Some closers do drop any comment that doesn't explicitly make an argument, either directly or by reference. If you think there should be a guideline against that, I recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Consensus or similar. -- Beland (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, I went through the trouble of combining the two RfCs, 130 editors !voted. First, it was interesting that there were just 18 editors in common. The editors in common favored "in wiki voice" 2:1. When both sets of results are grouped and editors in common are given just 1 !vote, the result is 79 to 51. That results in a 1.54:1 vs 1.93:1 for the Gaza RfC. I've seen 2:1 used as the consensus by numbers. If these groups were combined, would you have still closed as consensus? Also, given the rather limited overlap between the groups I would be concerned about treating an article level RfC to justify a site wide result. Springee (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: you are way above the 1000 words limit, please refrain from making further comments. FYI, striking the comments to comply with the restriction doesn't reset the counter. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I count 528 words over the limit, accounting for strikes. @M.Bitton, striking the comments to comply with the restriction doesn't reset the counter – where is that said? Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that makes sense, but I don't remember reading it anywhere. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Perhaps we need clarification. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it' said anywhere, but that's what I gathered from the various AE discussions and their 500 words limit restrictions. The bottom line, if someone has reached, or exceeded the limit, it means that they already said too much and should step back. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The point is to prevent editors bludgeoning discussions, not to allow bludgeoning, unbludgeoning, then rebluegeoning. If you've gone over then respectfully please step aside, and if you want to participate in discussions for longer, engage less frequently. The spirit of the restriction is as important as the letter here. CNC (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA5 introduced word limits to formal discussions. See WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) for details. Once that limit is reached editors should disengage permanently from that particular discussion. Editors should be aware of the limit and economise their comments in formal discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how are editors supposed to tell if they have reached the word limit besides people telling them? Is there a way to check? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 04:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a record of your replies and put into a word doc or similar. CNC (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close/Endorse per Voorts. Frankly we don't have enough admins to expect that all closes in CTOP areas are conducted by admins. TarnishedPath^talk 00:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per voorts and TPath. We don't need to discourage future participation in the process with these overly bureaucratic reviews. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a type of change, I'll note, just in case anyone accuses me of bias, I twice urged the project not to adopt — I know I may not be in the majority on this, but I do think that's a problem. There's no WP:INVOLVED exception for actions running contrary to a previous position, and I think that's for good reason: while it may not have happened here, it's very easy for a closer to consciously or unconsciously "overcompensate" for their previous actions/biases, and I've definitely seen that lead to suboptimal decisions in the past. Especially in such a contentious area, I think the closer really just needs to be completely uninvolved in the dispute (and I do think the two discussions linked fall within the same dispute). Overturn and reclose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No adequate reason has been provided for the closure to be overturned. An admin closure isn't required, especially not if the question here is fundamentally the same as that of another admin-closed AfD. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~What? No adequate reason? Sorry, when you have 62 editors reply and it results in a near 50:50 split you need to have a very good reason to call that anything other than no consensus.~~ Springee (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it's not a vote. However, suggesting that 29 editors gave answers that should be ignored in favor of the replies of 32 others suggest a super vote rather than a careful weighing of the issues. If not a vote is the issue then why did the previous close, the one that seems to be the justification for the closing here, specifically mention a 2:1 !vote in favor of the outcome? ("Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome." [20]) Why do numbers matter that time but not this time? Springee (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
!Votes that don't carry any weight should be ignored. That's how RfCs' results are determined.

What previous close? M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~See the close for the RfC that, per this close, decided for all of Wikipedia that this should be called genocide in Wiki voice (see link next to the quote).~~ Springee (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was that close challenged? If so, what was the result of the challenge? M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a moving goal. It's logically inconsistent to say we can't consider numbers here and should instead base this closing on a previous closing that was based on a head count. Springee (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of another close (that mentions the NPOV policy in its first sentence and the enormous number of sources that have been presented). M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza genocide close said, and I quote, Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome. The closing admin has twice referred to the result of the Gaza genocide RfC as a "supermajority", indicating it was decided by a vote (see here and here); they have also referred to it as an "enlightened poll" (here). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to quote anything, especially if you intend on cherry picking sentences out of context. I understand that you don't agree with the consensus (you made that amply clear), but hat's not a good reason to keep banging on about. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said to Springee that Your conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of another close. What is your interpretation of the close? If I had to guess, it'd be something like "a sufficient number of reliable sources have been provided to support the wikivoice phrasing." Would that be an accurate description of your views? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I said doesn't anyone's interpretation. The only worth saying at this time is: attempts to circumvent the consensus will be noted. M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. And to respond to your accusation of consensus-dodging, I have not edited the Gaza genocide article since December 5 and I am not planning to make any edits to it or the Israel article that could be considered controversial in the near future. If I do try to circumvent the consensus despite this just let me know and I'll self-revert. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - In the current political environment, more topics are contentious and contentious topics are becoming moreso. Even if it could be argued that a close was not technically perfect per BADNAC, I think there must be another good reason to overturn. And as Cortador says, particularly if the same subject was admin-closed previously. I don’t see worthwhile reasons for taking editor or admin time for another shot at closing this with a different result. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you !voted in the Gaza Genocide RfC. Springee (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be that I !voted in another RfC. Although I can't find it. And I'm not going to get into a lengthy back-and-forth with you. My statement above is all I have to say about this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Gaza Genocide" RfC you !voted to put it in wikivoice [21]. (18:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)) Springee (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)added link Springee (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could just note it yourself and provide a link to the diff. -- Beland (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, A briefly stated !vote back in August on another RfC. I'm so embarrassed. I may have miscounted; but it looks like you have now stricken 21 of your own posts in this section. Perhaps using a bludgeon isn't the most effective policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It appears to me the close is a good one. I make no judgement on the matter under dispute, merely the merits of the close, and commend the non-admin for stepping up. Jusdafax (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

Overturn This was simply a bad close and objections have been raised at the closer's talk page. Due to limited time at this moment I will only provide a high level summary with an understanding I would like to add to my reply later. A simple place to start is that this RfC had 62 !votes by my quick count. 33 support, 29 oppose. If we assume any sort of reasonable arguments on both sides then this can't be reasonably called anything but no consensus. SuperPianoMan9167 opened a discussion with the closer here [22]. The closer seems to hang their hat on the idea that the Gaza Genocide close was well attended and thus should have decided the issue across all of Wikipedia. However, this RfC was also well attended. Using that logic, this RfC should now carry across Wikipedia. Of course, RfC's at the article level can influence content in other articles but they don't dictate it. It might be interesting to combine the results of the two discussions and see if the influx of editor who weren't involved with the first would have swayed the earlier result had they participated. Given there are reasons to challenge this beyond it was a non-admin close in a very contested area, I would say that one should also apply here. Springee (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this challenge, but open a new one Although I did not !vote in the RfC, I made so many comments on it that I cannot consider myself uninvolved. The given reason for overturning the close does not apply, as correctly stated by editors above, but there are other issues with the close (besides it being a controversial NAC) that I raised on Cremastra's talk page. If the issues with the close cannot be resolved there, then a close challenge is warranted. Voorts stated it perfectly in this comment. Accordingly, this specific close challenge should be discarded and a new one written up that specifically addresses issues with the close itself if they cannot be resolved via discussion (such as whether or not it was a supervote, or if there are problems with the closing language). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC) I give up. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

As an example of issues with the close, consider this quote:

Most oppose !votes failed to respond to these points and instead argued broadly against identifying the genocide as such in wikivoice at all, either discarding or completely ignoring the consensus that emerged from the past RfC. This was not a constructive approach, and regrettably I gave little weight to some oppose !votes which appeared to be for an RfC that had already happened.
If you think the best argument the opposers can come up with is "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome" or "we shouldn't be putting that in wikivoice because x", then I'm rather disappointed. They could have far better arguments than that.

This reads not as a neutral summary of the discussion but as an argument that most oppose !votes should be completely discounted because the result of the previous RfC is binding. That is not a valid argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a valid argument. The prior RFC was open for over three months and advertised at T:CENT. This one was open for one month and not advertised to the entire community. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaza genocide RFC, by its own words, only applied to the article Gaza genocide and not to any other articles. I do not think that an RfC on one article that did not explicitly state it applies to all articles can be used as justification for making the same controversial change across all articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperPianoMan9167 See my response in the section above. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. However, I do think that a bit more caution is necessary in such contentious topic areas. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caution should most certainly be taken. That's why we had an RfC, nearly the highest level of discussion available to us. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why have a RfC if you are going to close it based on a different RfC?~~ Springee (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC was held as a direct result of this ANI discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of poor !votes, an significant number of supports barely said anything more than "per Gaza genocide RfC". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that consistency across articles is important, but a large number of comments all making the same argument can quickly become unhelpful unless consensus is obvious (in this case, it wasn't). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that !votes which say "per (editor xyz)" were strongly discouraged, or maybe even "not to be considered". Am I wrong? David10244 (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If editor xyz is giving a good WP:PAG argument and you agree with it, I personally see absolutely no problem with saying per xyz. TarnishedPath^talk 13:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute agreement here ^ Springee (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I see no issue with that. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I get that consistency across articles is important, is it? This seems to be true from a commonsense perspective, but is this thing many of us assume is an important objective written down anywhere in policies or guidelines? Does anyone know? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT officially encourages making titles consistent across articles.

Making factual claims consistent across articles seems to be one of those things that is too obvious to write down, but we do have infrastructure to support that task, like {{contradicts others}} and Category:Articles contradicting other articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is entirely obvious in a multi-agent system like Wikipedia. It strikes me as more of a choice. If you think about statements in different articles that address the same specific subject as if they are competing to optimize something, let's say the various policy compliance requirements, the process of editors (with their individual source searching and sampling biases) nudging things towards better compliance over time relies on allowing some variation, mutation etc. across the project. I think imposing/enforcing cross-article consistency probably works well when there is not much variation in what sources say about X. When there is a lot of variation, maybe cross-article consistency isn't such a good idea, or at least it might have unintended consequences. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Benefits of inconsistency. -- Beland (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we really should write a guideline on consistency across articles. Just add a sentences somewhere to something existing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where there isn't a word limit nor a contentious context. -- Beland (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we should be consistent across articles. However, that raises issues when a decision is made in article A which now isn't consensus in article B. For example, should a subtopic article RfC become consensus for the parent article? What if the original RfC was not well attended (obviously doesn't apply in this case), would the consensus of a few become the new consensus for all? One of the concerns in this RfC was if the original RfC should count across all of Wikipedia or if it's an article level consensus. In general, a RfC at a specific article is a consensus for that article only. Part of the reason for that is to avoid special interest articles dominating primary articles. A previous consensus in a previous article should count for something but, unless the RfC is really site wide, it shouldn't be seen as applying to other articles absent a consensus at those articles. Springee (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and started Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Consistency and consensus for both of your questions. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't offer an opinion in the RFC, but I did leave a couple posts so I'll put this here. In the event this discussion isn't speedily closed, I think Cremastra's analysis of the !votes in the RFC may be of interest. I'm also the one who posted the closure request, if that matters. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and speedy close. As voorts rightly said, the OP hasn't pointed out any actual flaws with the close. M.Bitton (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While I beleive they should have made a neutral closing statement as said above it is not required and NAC is allowed in this area so that is not a reason to overturn. As for the close reasoning, having read Cremastra's analysis of the !votes in the RFC I can see why they weighed certain !votes lower so in terms of the decision on consensus I see no reason to overturn. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are the participants of this close review under the 1000-word limit of WP:CT/A-I? if so, I think this should be explicitly stated somewhere. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- PIA usually is, yes. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support an overturn to no consensus, but SuperPianoMan is correct that this should have been fully approached on the talk page first. I dont think the closer is not neutral or supervoted, and they provided a lengthy assessment of each contribution, which is above and beyond for a closer. Their concern about consistency is important, but that should probably have been cited in the closure of no consensus referring to a broad community RFC for a global consensus (or that it should be localized, which I think there may be a case for). Given that we are already here, its probably pointless to procedurally close what is inevitably ending up here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn --- BADNAC: "The non-admin is involved in the discussion, or otherwise has an actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest that could cast doubt on their closure."

---Closer has been making edits on this war since 7 October 2023
---Closer created the page War crimes in the Gaza war on 21 October 2023
---Closer has previously stated "Given that the ICJ has not yet ruled, it is still in question." in reference to a genocide description. As of today, the ICJ has still not made a ruling. LDW5432 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the second point, the "creation", was an administrative split agreed upon on the talk page, not an independent action and not an original creation.

Making copyedits to the article on the war does not constitute a conflict of interest, nor does having opinions on the topic, as practically every human alive who isn't living under a rock has some opinion on the topic. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 04:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reeeal stretch. The closer was not involved in the discussion and there is no actual, potential or apparent COI. If anything, you've provided evidence that the closer has historically been sympathetic to the other "side" of the debate, which supports the objectivity of the close. WillowCity^(talk) 14:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even doing this? I can't imagine a rationale here that doesn't just effectively amount to restating the arguments made during the RfC itself (e.g. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which was discussed in the RfC), which is explicitly not the point of closure review. To me it feels like we're just dragging it out. casualdejekyll 20:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that most parts, if not all, of the Reasoning listed for this closure review above are not points that could have been raised until after the closure occurred (and therefore are not restating the arguments made during the RfC itself, but please let me know if things I wrote there are duplicative of the RfC. Thanks. Coining (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The close seems perfectly acceptable. David A (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This is clearly one of the most controversial topics in Wikipedia these days, and a non-admin close was totally inappropriate to begin with. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, the closer uses non-neutral language. There is an entire conversation taking place in WP:GENOCIDE and a non-admin taking a position here is out of line. Nehushtani (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: I am not convinced that this was a BADNAC. Cremastra did not !vote in the RFC, so they are not involved in the discussion. Administrators may be preferred for more controversial closures, but they are not required when the close doesn't involve an administrative action (ex. an AFD discussion where there is consensus to delete an article). This close was likely to be controversial no matter who closed it with what result. The use of neutral language also isn't a requirement. The question of whether the RFC at Gaza genocide should apply to Israel was discussed in the Israel RFC, so I would consider further comments on the matter to be relitigating the discussion, which is not what close reviews are for. As has been said by others, consensus is not determined by a simple headcount, but by the strength of the arguments, so it does not matter that the headcount was an even split. I believe that Cremastra accurately found that some arguments held more weight than others, and determined consensus that way. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A response to @Springee's argument. WP:DETCON is not a WP:HEADCOUNT. Quickly going through the !votes, I saw a not insigificant number of editors who were in the objecting camp who had arguments along the lines of 'the ICJ or ICC hasn't convicted'. If I was closing I would have disregarded any such arguments. We don't base how we describe things on the basis of what the ICJ or ICC does, that would be original research. We base how we describe things on the basis of what reliable secondary sources state. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a head count. However, when the head count is 50/50 you need a strong reason to find something other than no consensus. The closer didn't find that strong reason beyond, "well the other one was closed as consensus". Since you are going to dismiss some arguments on one side, are you going to claim all the "supports" all have valid claims? Springee (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, I quickly went through. I didn't conduct a full analysis. However, GothicGolem has linked to Cremastra's analysis above. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE @Springee: The closer seems to hang their hat on the idea that the Gaza Genocide close was well attended and thus should have decided the issue across all of Wikipedia. However, this RfC was also well attended. Using that logic, this RfC should now carry across Wikipedia. The Gaza genocide discussion was advertised at T:CENT and remained open for several months. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this one came after that RfC and had a different result. How many people don't follow notices from T:CENT? Regardless, if this were say a RfC with just 5-10 participants, sure. However, this one was not far off the other one in terms of participation numbers (I think the other was 80 vs 62 here). Both are large enough that neither should be seen as controlling the other. Springee (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response to User:Cremastra on neutrality. I do believe the closing statement was not neutral as you expressed your disappointment with the arguments made and also said this quote" "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome". Both the uh statement and you stating your own disappointment is not neutral and goes beyond explaining the weight of the arguments. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re @Cremastra: It makes sense that the Gaza genocide RfC must be overturned at Talk:Gaza genocide, and I see your point about major articles getting similar changes, but a quick scan of the Gaza genocide talk page shows a lot of what could be considered status quo stonewalling. Just look at discussions like this one, which involved an edit war over the inclusion of a {{POV}} template, and this one, which came out of the previously mentioned discussion; disputes have been going on for three weeks over just the infobox. (I know infoboxes are controversial, but there's been a lot of unproductive bickering going on regardless.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to requests to go beyond the closer being a non-admin, I'll note first that it wasn't the sole reason presented in the initial reasoning above -- the above comment notes that the wording in the closure could be viewed as disparaging and that undermines the argument that views of editors were seriously considered, and more generally this discussion of an especially contentious topic, interacting with what might have been the single most contentious RfC on Wikipedia in the past year, is an especially important one to be handled by an administrator. This goes well beyond saying that the close should be undone merely because the closer wasn't an admin.

Beyond the above points, having had more time to look at the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Requests for comment, I'll note that the scope of consensus is an issue with the close. Instead of relisting the RfC with a request that opposing editors specifically address this RfC assuming that the Gaza genocide RfC was sacrosanct/not subject to change in this RfC (despite WP:CCC), arguments that the closer objected to, the close wholesale rejected a main thrust of many opposing arguments. A better approach would be to ask for engagement with the more limited scope of what change to make, if any, if the RfC at Gaza genocide was binding on the Israel article, rather than closing the RfC without the closer believing that the discussion had been fully engaged. Something like 40-45% of editors were opposed to this RfC; they deserve more than to be told that a policy like WP:CCC is in practice inapplicable to this situation and that they were essentially foolish for trying to make the argument that it is. More generally, the criteria states Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form. This point also implicates the the need for closure criterion.

Related to the nature of the question criterion, the closer selected one editor's proposed alternative language, entered it into the article, and effectively seems to have locked it in behind a closed RfC. Attempts to edit this sentence in the article will be met with arguments that it cannot be changed without a new RfC. This is not the question most editors thought they were responding to. An alternative approach would have been to relist the discussion with a request to respond to the proposed alternative language, but that's not what this closure allowed. Coining (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to relist an RfC. Cremastea didn't invent the argument that the other RfC controls out of thin air. The fact that editors didn't respond to those arguments in a convincing manner and instead made virtually no argument other than "I don't like it" and "the ICJ/ICC haven't ruled yet" is not the closer's problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. There were bad opposes like this one and this one. It is also true that many oppose !votes did, in fact, make valid responses to the idea that the other RfC controls (see this comment and this comment). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did, but the general consensus clearly did not lean in that direction. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phirazo's argument was not a valid response. Let's go through it point by point:

This is a general article on Israel, and it should take into account opinions beyond academia, especially since academia is at least perceived as having an anti-Israel bias (for example, Harvard's Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias) Genocide isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. The fact that experts on genocide overwhelmingly call it one cannot be answered with "well, politicians and journalists say differently!" It's also ironic to assert that academia is biased against Israel by citing a source from a task force that is itself biased in favor of Israel.
The idea that there is an academic consensus should explicitly cited, not implied by Wikivoice. The primary source given is Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate which is a WP:SYNTH of academic sources. If it can't be used in the article, it can't be used to justify Wikivoice. This is a ridiculous argument. How else do we determine if there's academic consensus without looking at what academics have to say?
It is easy to find sources in reliable, non-academic sources that the war in Gaza isn't genocidal (The New York Times, for example, is willing to run a piece called "No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza"). Bret Stephens is not a reliable source for what is or is not genocide.
The debate exists, and the text should reflect that. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the denials of genocide should be excluded from this article. It's also prominently featured in the lead of the Gaza genocide article.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Genocide isn't a matter of opinon it's a matter of fact". People can and do have opinons on if something is or isn't a genocide all the time so it can be a matter of opinon before court cases rule on it then it becomes a legal matter(though Wiki of course goes by what reliable sources say rather than looking for what is a fact.)

I agree they are not a reliable source.

"I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the denials of genocide should be excluded from this article. It's also prominently featured in the lead of the Gaza genocide article." This argument from what I have seen is more that the articles statement on genocide should reflect the debate stating what scholars etc rather than using wilivoice on it not that scholars who disagree that it is genocide are not included in the article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, pointless arguing from me. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of bludgeoning or exceeding a word limit (please let me know if this too much), here are my responses to each of your points:

Genocide isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. I respectfully disagree. Genocide is defined as the intentional effort to destroy a people. As telepathy is not possible, any statement about a person's motivations (including saying they have the intent to destroy a group of people) is an opinion by definition, as it's impossible to verify their intentions.
Phirazo's argument is supported by policy: A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. (emphasis mine)
Maybe, but he does provide a relevant opinion.
No one is suggesting removing this because it isn't there in the first place. In the Gaza genocide article, the opposing viewpoints are not mentioned until the last paragraph of the lead. That does not seem very prominent. Edits introducing sourced opinions in opposition have been repeatedly reverted ([23] [24] [25] [26])

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of intention beyond a reasonable doubt is obtained all the time in criminal cases. It's usually based on statements made or actions taken that could not be reasonably interpreted as consistent with any other intention. (For example, shoving someone off the roof of a 100-story building is compatible with the intention of murdering someone, but not with the intention of "just scaring them", and a video can determine whether the physics of the action were compatible with an accident, an intention to dangle near the edge, or an intention to fully push them off the roof.) -- Beland (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, irrelevant arguing from me. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of intention beyond a reasonable doubt is obtained all the time in criminal cases. (emphasis mine)

This is why editors argued that Wikipedia should not call the events in Gaza a genocide until the ICJ issues a ruling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of bludgeoning or exceeding a word limit your last two comments put you over the 1000 word limit. Please self-revert both of them. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: I'm sorry. Do you know by how many words I am over so I can condense my comments to meet the limit? I don't think I can remove my own comments now that people have replied to them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubscribed from the topic. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing that court cases are the only way to determine facts, only that telepathy is not the only way to determine intentionality. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Motive" and "intent" are different things. No one is reading minds. The sources are applying fixed legal standards to the evidence. Editors, bound by the weight of the sources, picked a wording consistent with NPOV, which requires us to acknowledge the reality of genocide in Gaza, as the sources do. Anyway, all of this is beside the point, because the question is whether the close was fine, which it was. Simply disagreeing with a conclusion is not grounds to challenge it. WillowCity^(talk) 23:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coining: I think it would be a good idea to add this additional reasoning to the main reasoning section above. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I wasn't sure I could. I will do so now. Coining (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They already added a note about it, and others have replied to the "further explanation". M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New contributors to this discussion will benefit from seeing the full reasoning up front. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty they can read the note that says Further explanation of the reasoning has been subsequently added by me below under Discussion.. M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have been more useful and more cordial if you had, at most, deleted that note rather than deleted my extended explanation in the section above. Being an editor coming to the Administrators' noticeboard is intimidating enough as is without having my edits reverted. I don't even understand the point about others having already replied to the further explanation being a reason for deleting my extension of the Reasoning, because those replies would in any case be below in later subsections given how this page is organized. Coining (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a note and the same "extended explanation" in two places feels like an attempt at ramming something down the readers' throats. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what it was; it was an attempt to put the information in the most useful place once I learned that was allowed and when publicly recommended by another editor, just a few comments above this one. It's not "ramming" when a news organization puts a story on both its homepage and in the section devoted to news articles on that topic. It's being helpful to readers. I didn't accuse you of trying to silence me, though I easily could have, so please don't assert that I was in any way close to the disruptive editing practice of bludgeoning. Coining (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many participants in this discussion are saying "no valid reason given for close challenge"; I don't think you intended to open a close challenge solely based on BADNAC #1. I think you should re-add the extra reasoning to the top. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree, it shouldn't have been removed. It would be appropriate to indicate it was added after the original opening.~~ Springee (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had done that when I readded it originally. I will restore. Coining (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a critical question is, would this close be different if it were considered absent the other recent close? One of my concerns here is this is basically a 50:50 split. A number of editors say that doesn't matter since NOTVOTE says it's not a numbers game. However, the previous close specifically said, " Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome." [27]. The previous RfC was closed based on a head count. Why do head counts not matter this time? Springee (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpringeeHeadcount *can* be useful if its overwhelming in one direction and most of the !votes on both sides are good. A 50:50 !vote split does not necessarily mean that there is no consensus, if, as in this case, many of the !votes on one side are poorly reasoned.

Secondly, and more straightforwardly, your claim that the other RfC was closed only on the basis of headcount is out-and-out false. If you read the closing statement you can find out the set of reasons the closer found there to be consensus one way. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a 50:50 split you better have a damn strong reason to decide head count doesn't matter. You didn't provide much beyond, "well that's how the other one closed". I didn't say the other RfC was based only on head count but it was clearly a big part of the close. There were also arguments on both sides. The same is true here yet you ignored that. I'm sorry, this could easily be confused for a super vote. That is absolutely not the sort of close we should have for such a contentious issue. That is why the best way to handle this would be to have a panel close rather than a nonadmin close, especially one that is questionable. Springee (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "ignore" the oppose !votes, I just gave some of them less weight because they were relitigating an old issue and weren't pertinent to the discussion at hand. It's a fairly bold type of closure, I agree, but so is picking one proposed alt text and flying with that rather than the original proposal, and no-one's complained about that. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did ignore them yet you didn't ignore "support per other RfC" arguments. If you want to mix the results then actually mix the results and evaluate the two as if they were a single RfC. I know that's a bit unorthedoxed but better than making a mess of something like we have here. Editors did argue the case in the discussion. BTW, it's also bad form to assume that an editor who provides an argument you don't like doesn't also support the strong arguments. Again this is why head count shouldn't be just dismissed as you did. Springee (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking them or telling them? M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor disagreeing with that RfC's consensus I suppose the only way to change it is to make a new RfC, as Beland's close was reasonable. But how soon is too soon? How long does it take for proposing to change a recently established consensus to not be disruptive? And I'm sure many will oppose a new RfC on the grounds that "the situation has not changed", which was also one of the most prominent arguments made in that September RfC. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should take it to AE and find out about what you're suggesting as well as what consensus means. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the previous RFC, I can say for sure that it was not closed simply based on headcount. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus says the use of headcounts in closing can be good or bad depending on the context. Sometimes they are used straightforwardly to resolve questions like which policy should control, but in other cases the tallying is strongly influenced by discarding bad arguments. Sometimes headcount is completely ignored, based on the policy context. (I recently closed a libel RFC as "not subject to consensus".) The first RFC close had a long explanation based on policy and reliable sources presented about why that was a situation where a counting of votes was the last step in determining the outcome. This RFC has a different context, because it raises questions of consistency, rather than a from-scratch question about source consensus on a factual claim. It makes sense that it's not judged in exactly the same way. -- Beland (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I have never claimed it was only a close on the headcount. My read is the arguments on both sides were effectively 50/50 thus the close was decided on headcount. In the case of this RfC we had largely the same arguments but a 50/59 head count. If the previous close was ultimately decided based on a head count, and this one has the same facts but a different headcount, why not use headcount again? If we are going to say "for consistency" then we should pool all the replies from the two RfCs and see if headcount still carries the day. Consider this, if we put the claim in Wikivoice and are wrong, then it's discrediting to Wikipedia. If we attribute the claim we cannot be wrong since clearly many have made the claim. Springee (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did say that RfC was decided by a head count. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how it's a misrepresentation of the facts when I quote the closing that it was decided on headcount, "Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome.", but you think you aren't misrepresenting me by claiming I mean only headcount. Which is it? You certainly aren't consistent. At this point I've already, clearly, said it's not only that but clearly the closer said that was the decider. It is pointless to argue with you since you don't seem to care about about these pesky facts. Springee (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't (as you are now claiming), then this whole "head count" thing is just a strawman argument. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no personal attacks. If you don't have anything to say about the merits of the question, please just don't say anything. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CU/OS rolling appointment application – December 2025

The Arbitration Committee has received an application for CheckUser and Oversight access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacy and comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#CU/OS rolling appointment application – December 2025 until 23:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CU/OS rolling appointment application – December 2025

Template:Disputed

No admin action needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, apologies if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a need to inform admins if this tag is added to an article. Is that so, or have I confused it with another process? Thanks, Jack (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to clearly explain on the talk page of the article what is disputed and why, but there is no need to inform admins. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I had already added a piece on the talk page, but I got this thought of needing to contact yourselves. Must have been about something else, and probably a long time ago. Never mind. :) Thanks very much. Jack (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review a ban I lifted out of process

Back in January of this year there was a discussion at ANI regarding two users, D.18th and Aidillia, who seemed to be creating copies of each other's drafts and uploading copies of each other's images; that discussion is here. Among other sanctions they were banned from interacting with each other. A few weeks later Aidillia was blocked for repeatedly violating the iban and for sockpuppetry. D.18th then emailed me to ask how that block affected their interaction ban, and I looked back at the original complaint and determined (with the benefit of retrospect) that Aidillia really was the antagonist in that incident. I told D.18th (here) that I was "vacating" their interaction ban, which I thought was a reasonable application of WP:IAR at the time.

In August D.18th appealed their ban anyway ([28]). I reiterated then that it was already lifted and they didn't need to appeal, but I probably should have taken that as a sign that this wasn't as simple as I expected.

Aidillia successfully appealed their block in October, but did not appeal any of the sanctions coming out of the first incident. The two editors have significant common interests, and it wasn't long before another administrator noticed the discrepancy in the sanctions, assumed that I had forgotten to properly log the sanctions at WP:EDR, corrected the log, and blocked D.18th for violating the interaction ban that I had told them was moot. I felt that was unfair and reversed those actions. I did not mean to imply that the admin had done anything wrong (they didn't) but also was in a bit of a rush and not very careful about my choice of words, and for that I apologize.

However, this now leaves a situation with uneven sanctions between these two editors, resulting from an administrator (me) modifying a community sanction without community endorsement, and a few admins have come to me to ask about it, most recently on my talk page. A few of us agree that the sanctions should be made equal again, but that the community should decide whether to reimpose D.18th's iban or also drop it for Aidillia. I lean towards the latter: it has been nine months since I told D.18th their iban was dropped and it seems very unfair to reimpose it only because of my mistake when there hasn't been any other disruption that I'm aware of. Likewise Aidillia's contributions seem to be free of complaint since being unblocked, and their talk page shows a few successful AFC submissions in that time.

But of course I am posting this here for more opinions on the best way forward. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with these editors before, my recollection is that both editors were being disruptive in interacting with each other. It doesn't matter who the antagonist was. It's not unfair to reimpose a IBAN that never should have been lifted because the goal is to prevent disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that it would be preventing disruption if it was re-imposed? I haven't been following them closely but judging from their talk pages there has been no disruption other than this procedural issue, which is not their fault but mine. They both remain pblocked from the file namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was the administrator that blocked initially, then I thought it was mislogged at EDR and edited there. I blocked because I saw a draftification of Aidillia's article creation from well over a year ago - an absolute violation of WP:DRAFTNO that I also warned D.18th about and I believe won't happen again. I'm not going to advocate for dropping or reimposing, but I think something like the probationary removal of sanctions that Arbcom will do where any uninvolved admin can reimpose a restriction if the person returns to the same disruptive behavior that caused the restriction would be useful if the community does want to drop the IBAN for Aidillia. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarification about the IBAN and the chance to respond here. Since being told that my IBAN was vacated, I've been editing constructively and widen my areas of interest here in WP. Since Aidillia and I share similar areas of interest here, I'm open to working collaboratively or at minimum interacting normally if the community feels that is acceptable. I would prefer a resolution that treats us evenly and reflects our recent conduct, and I will gladly follow whatever the decision of the community determines is fairest. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ban discussion close review

Geez, my name is here a lot today. An editor whose ban discussion I closed earlier today has asked for a close review on the basis of involvement. The discussion is buried up the page at ANI so I am posting a link to it here for additional visibility. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Close review: Horse Eye's Back. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a diff of that request as I don't see it. Thank you. edited to add: the ANI has been closed and barring an explicit request by HEB I don't see why it should be reopened. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls, here. – bradv 00:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened it. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Mess Up

Handled per request. No further action needed. Star Mississippi 21:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created AuHD due to request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Psychology#A–B but it was supposed to be at AuDHD. Can someone help me fix? Docmoates (talk) Docmoates (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this yourself by moving the article and then tagging the leftover redirect with {{db-r3}} (if you feel it's not useful as a common typo). – bradv 19:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv - Correct, but there is a redirect on the current page and so its blocked on my end.

"The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Docmoates (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i got you- next time, you can make this kind of request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests :) thanks for making the page! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, @Theleekycauldron. Will do, next time! Docmoates (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being disruptive on a page I try to contribute to

Hello, I hope this is the right page to report. I’ve been trying to contribute to a page on Wikipedia called The Chosen (TV series) and I feel a user called User:Butlerblog is being disruptive, whenever I contribute to improve the page this user removes it and even if this is a formula even used on Wikipedia. I’m not sure if it’s warranted or the user doesn’t want me specifically to contribute to the page (Myplus25 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)).[reply]

You should hold a discussion on Talk:The Chosen (TV series) and if need be seek a Wikipedia:Third Opinion. There isn't a need to report it here. PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should have notified Butlerblog of this thread - I've now done that for you. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PhilKnight for the ping. I was unaware. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warning requested for violation of deletion policy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian art now exists for those interested in the content discussion. If there are conduct issues beyond disagreement over a redirect, someone is welcome to open a new thread. This one is going nowhere productive. Star Mississippi 13:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Johnbod redirected the page at Asian art, without any notification to anyone, which is not a good practice (per WP:DELPOL, see also WP:Stealth deletion), namely "Pages that do not fall in the [...] three categories [of copyvio, speedy and prod] may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussion venues". I noticed the stealth deletion few weeks later, and I restored the article with an edit summary " take it to AfD. No stealth deletion because IDONTLIKE it, please". Johnbod did not start a new discussion as recommended by best practice of WP:BRD, just made a comment at an older one at Talk:History of Asian art without even pinging me, while reverting me. In the discussion there, Johnbod refused to revert themself and restore the article, despite my requests in that discussion to do this, with no prejdudice for an AfD. I would like to ask for a review of their actions, which I consider distuptive and in clear violation of deletion policy (blanking of an article that is ineligible for speedy, prod, and is not a copyvio), i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as well as what seems like WP:OWN (preventing its recreation, without any community consensus for that). I believe Johnbod needs to be reminded that if they don't like an article, they should follow the deletion policy, not edit war to prevent its existence. PS. In their latest comment in the relevant talk page discussion they accuse me of "bullying", claim to have 2:1 majority (despite nobody commenting there except the two of us), and accuse me of edit warring (despite the recent history of the page, from the last week or so, having only one revert by me, and two by them). Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous bullying and distortion of the facts, which I am not going to respond to at 3:20 AM. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Then I'll ask for a second warning, for violating NPA, to be considered as well. And the facts are very simple. You are blanking an article rather than take it to AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion is at Talk:History_of_Asian_art#Partial_merge_to_Asian_art_needed (it might be easiest to start from the bottom). My position, to restore a redirect that has been in place for 10 years, may have only what he calls a "mini-consensus", but his has received no support at all at any point. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus is required for restoring an article or creating a new one; articles that should not exist can be removed only by following the steps of deletion policy. John, seriously, just like me you are one of the most active editors here, this is Wiki 101. And taking that article to AfD would be much faster and less stressful for everyone that what will happen here. C'mon... just take it to AfD, and we can close this thread and stop wasting everyone's time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this discussion belongs here. You should, however, get the disambig project involved, or other projects as you see fit. Probably a centralized discussion somewhere. And ping AndyTheGrump as they have shown interest. However, I do recommend that this noticeboard complaint move towards closure as this is just a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Note that Wikipedia:Stealth deletion was created by the OP here, who appears to have an idiosyncratic viewpoint that WP:BLARing an article is "stealth deletion", despite multiple editors contesting that fact on the essay's talk page. Redirecting is not WP:BLANKing, no matter how many times you insist it is; claiming that it is in an edit summary is also not kosher. That said, once a BLAR is challenged by reverting the redirect, the correct next step is in fact AfD, not simply restoring the redirect. On the gripping hand, this is a content dispute and absolutely is not a clear violation of deletion policy; in addition, Johnbod is not an administrator and thus AN is not an appropriate venue even if this was a valid conduct dispute. Both participants here need to be {{minnow}}ed and directed to use the proper methods of dispute resolution for this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully on the analysis of deletion policy, but I'm not exactly thrilled by Johnbod's conduct here. He shouldn't be holding up something he and another person said nine years ago like it's a binding judgment; BLARing without notifying the creator (although I'll admit I've done it); accusing Piotrus of edit warring when he's arguably made more reverts; accusing Piotrus of "bullying" without evidence; or implying that Piotrus's opinion is worth less because he's "not a regular in this field". WP:OWN#Statements specifically calls out comments like that as suggestive of ownership behavior, especially when combined with when they occur along with some form of dogged insistence and relentless pushing, without good policy back up, and often including edit warring. Check, check, and check.

Also, it's unorthodox, but there's nothing stopping Piotrus from going to AfD with a procedural nomination and then voting "keep" on it (since I assume that's his opinion). Probably notify Johnbod on his talk if that happens, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Good idea, I'l do just that (send it to AfD myself) and ping all editors who may be interested. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian art. Content issues can be discussed there. Whether any behavioral problems merit action, I'll leave it up to folks here(feel free to copy this thread to ANI; I posted here since I thought ANI is for more serious issues, and "lighter" issues are for AN... goes to show what I know after two decades here, eh? :P). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now Piotyrus has put his WP:FORK stub up to be a Vital Article: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society#Add_Asian_art - more procedural nonsense to get round a long-established community decision in a well-attended move discussion in 2016 to redirect the term to the main article. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards