Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a request for review of my denial of FMSky's request for TAIV access. In March-April of this year, @FMSky had two arbitration enforcement sanctions. One, a two-week pblock for personal attacks and disruption, and 2, topic ban from CT/GG. Based on the ongoing topic ban, I denied his request. FMSky felt that was not a sufficient reason for denial. I opened up the discussion for more opinions, and @Femke weighed in with a different, but not definitive, opinion. Femke noted that we're all still figuring it out here, which I thoroughly agree with, and would like to hear opinions from other administrators, either here or at the original request. As I stated in response to FMSky, any admin is welcome to reverse my decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it would be just nice to have to revert genre warriors popping up all over album articles etc, otherwise Binksternet would have to do all the work lmao FMSky (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @rsjaffe. Both the recent pblock and the topic ban are independently disqualifying in my view. Unlike other userrights, this one requires a high degree of trust per the WMF's policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that an editor needs to show enough competence to be able to read the instructions, and no pattern of something that indicates they might ignore the rules like harassment or outing. A topic ban in itself doesn't indicate they would break the rules at vandalism fighting, given that vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions compared to contentious topics. There's some personal attacks involved in the two sanctions, which gives me a bit more pause. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think we should be leaving it to admin discretion with regard to active sanctions, since admins can reasonably disagree as to what sanctions are or are not disqualifying. I think we have some discretion with regard to expired sanctions. For example, in my view the recent block for personal attacks is disqualifying, but if that had happened three years ago, it probably wouldn't be. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin commentAs a Wikipedian since 2007, I disagree that "vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions." I would hope that hitting rollback on the addition of "ksajdhgkoasdh" to a benign article like glass or telephone would not evoke strong emotion in a Wikipedian, but it could evoke stronger emotion if one sees some moron write "Black Politician A is a retarded sodomite who rapes female Muslim Politician B in the butt inside a Jewish synagogue which is across the street from the Holy Mother Mary Catholic Church while screaming Daddy Martin Luther King at the top of her lungs to get bills about abortion passed" on an article, let alone when vandals respond to vandal fighters directly with "your mom" insults, death threats, racist/sexist/Xphobic/otherwise discriminatory garbage, and doxing. Sometimes the vandalism itself is contentious, other times the vandalism may be benign but the subject they're desecrating can be contentious, and it takes thick skin to take some of it with a grain of salt. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation policy for reference [1]. It does not mention 'high degree of trust', and I've treated somewhat similar to pending changes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't say that, but I think that it is since it requires editors to keep certain information confidential. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to grant the TAIV. I see no indication that it's likely to be abused, plus they have a record of AIV reports and so on. I think perhaps some input from the previously involved admins would give an opportunity to raise any concerns that I've missed, but I don't see a topic ban as disqualifying per se. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) If TAIV was used to reveal the IP of an editor based on edits they've made in the CT/GG space, would that be a topic ban violation? It's not technically an edit as described at WP:TBAN. But if it would be a violation then it'd be very hard to check or enforce since only CUs have TAIV log access. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBANs are broadly construed, so yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should mostly be used when dealing with vandalism which is WP:BANEXEMPT so it's not so cut and dry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BANEXEMPT has exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism or blpvios, reverts can be performed without using TAIV even if deeper investigations cannot. It also specifies that obvious means cases in which no reasonable person could disagree, and I believe that reasonable people can disagree with a topic banned editor accessing non-public account information in the space they are topic banned from.

I think it should be considered a TBAN violation, in which case monitoring and enforcement is an issue worth considering before granting the permission. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that would be a TBAN violation. Obvious vandalism is obvious in and of itself, without further investigation. So any potential vandalism requiring investigation using TAIV would not be covered by WP:BANEXEMPT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify why the investigation touching a banned topic would violate the ban, it is the actions a banned person would take based upon the investigation that would violate the ban. For example, the person may want to delete more, non-obvious, vandalism by a linked account, or the person may want to make a report at AIV pointing out the issue with the IP or with the linked accounts. I can not think of any actions based on investigation of a banned topic using TAIV that would not violate the ban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Throughout the discussion that occurred which established the minimum baseline, a large amount of those participating expressed a desire for the absolute minimum requirements, with some expressing demonstrated need, and some expressing admin discretion to decline. The request ultimately seems to meet both the minimum baseline and a demonstrated need, so the only missing requirement here would be admin discretion. A TBAN in and of itself doesn't necessarily consist of a reason to lack trust in other areas. Hell, we've had administrators with active TBANs, and they still were pretty trustworthy as admins. Also noteworthy is that the topic ban is from early April, with a quick warning a few days later which resolved amicably, but otherwise no further issues noted in the enforcement log. I fail to see how this constitutes a lack of trust. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imposed the pblock in question and was part of the consensus that led to the TBAN, which I subsequently issued a warning for violating. I don't see anything in that chain of events that precludes FMSky from being granted TAIV, which per Eggroll and contra Voorts is something that the WMF has not indicated is a highly trusted role and the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of. FMSky meets the criteria under WP:TAIVGRANT, and while that section gives admins discretion to deny, I don't see any reason that that discretion should be exercised here. The disruption that led to the pblock, TBAN, and warning is wholly unrelated to the kind of misconduct we're worried about with TAIV; I could see declining if it was within the past month or two on the basis that the editor can't be trusted to follow policy, but we have 7 months of evidence that FMSky can follow his ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of [TAIV]" – I don't think this is an accurate description of the situation. The RfC in question explicitly gave admins discretion in granting and required a "demonstrated need", both of which go beyond the absolute minimum set by the WMF. The close additionally says: There is clear and substantial consensus that admins have the discretion to decline the right even if the requirements are met (emphasis in original). As such, I endorse Rsjaffe declining to grant TAIV in this case. (This does not mean that another admin would have been wrong to grant TAIV when confronted with the same situation.) Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this from the archive since this probably should be closed by an uninvolved admin, as there is a request for action either in favor of the declination of granting, or in favor of granting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago restrictions were imposed on me regarding new article creations and Articles for Deletion discussion participation. How do I go about requesting they be lifted? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy weighing in here not as an admin but as a fellow editor who enjoys working alongside you on the underrepresented pieces of English wikipedia.

I think a successful request would include how you've improved your research and writing, and other ways you've addressed the concerns that were raised that led to the sanctions. It will probably be helpful too to include the link(s) that led to the sanctions so that uninvolved editors or those of us who have forgotten can review. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Bushranger thanks for the link. I have read through the linked section and the section it links to "above" and I have absolutely no idea what it is you'd like me to do to request my restriction be lifted. Can you please clarify for me? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FloridaArmy, it's just the paragraph immediately above it, one line up.

WP:GAB is for blocks but still has good advice on how to compose your appeal. You can also see the same instructions about halfway down the page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several years since the imposition of restrictions on me for making a lot of good faith additions of new entries on notable subjects and participation at Articles for Deletion. I've been working up new subjects in draftspace and will continue to do so before introducing them into mainspace. I understand that the community evolved to expect substantial content and sourcing for new subjects and that very short starts of subjects in mainspace, even if the subject is notable, are no longer allowed. I understand new article subjects with very limited content aren't considered acceptable. I will limit my comments at Articles for Deletion to avoid extended back and forths and simply lay out the sources and reasoning why a subject meets inclusion criteria or the lack thereof that makes the subject fall short in my opinion. Thanks for your kind consideration. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#FloridaArmy_and_AfC_woes FA limited to 20 drafts at AfC, June 2020. FA, was there another that addressed AfD? Star Mississippi 03:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984 § CIR problems? for the thread that led to the AfD restriction. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking a (very!) quick look through user Talk - over the past two weeks we have two accepted AFC drafts, seven rejects and two speedy delete nominations (only nominated, not actioned). The most common reason for AFC rejection is sourcing/notability. I've not counted the notifications for old articles because that's most of the Talk page.

  If anyone wants the pure figures then here's a link: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/FloridaArmy. There are no deleted pages until item #87 and a deletion rate of 0.8% overall. Roughly 3 out of 5 are Stub-class, around 1.5 out of 5 are Start-class.

  Honestly, this might be useless info but I found it interesting & figured I may as well write it down on the off-chance that is actually helpful for someone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blue-Sonnet I don't think those speedies were correctly tagged (misclick, not deliberate human action). From the history with edits to reset G13, I don't think they were true G2s and nothing in article or @FloridaArmy's editing history indicates any tests. I'll drop a note on @Liz's talk since I mentioned her here, but 99% sure those two shouldn't be held against FA. Love the data you pulled. Star Mississippi 13:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! They didn't look right to me so I thought I'd better add that little disclaimer.

  Here are the last ten reviewed articles, these should make it a bit easier for everyone to assess the appeal (accepted articles are in italics):

  • Draft:Samuel W. Chubbuck - single sentence article, moved to draft by another editor after being created in mainspace
  • Draft:Melvin Redmond - declined for notability (sigcov)
  • Draft:Julian La Mothe - one paragraph with filmography list. Declined due to lack of context.
  • Henry Carey Baird - accepted
  • Draft:Patricia Li - declined for notability (sigcov)
  • Draft:I. N. Moore - declined for notability (sigcov), unfinished (too short/written like a list)
  • Draft:Robert J. Guidry - declined twice for notability (sigcov)
  • Draft:E. O. Rothra - declined twice for notability (sigcov), also see CMD's analysis
  • Draft:Open University of Sudan - declined due to LLM signs (no specifics given but there are some phrases that AI likes to use in there)
  • Al-Mazmum - accepted

  Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just wanted to note that the Open University of Sudan draft wasn't created or heavily edited by FloridaArmy (who only made very small edits to it) before they submitted it. I don't think FloridaArmy used any LLMs in that article. I don't know if they use LLMs or not but I figure from a very quick skim and what I vaguely remember it's way more likely they don't. Sorry if I haven't signed in (this is a temporary account), hoping it'll automatically sign my post. ~2025-35897-41 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep the LLM part isn't really explained - I included it since the person submitting the article is confirming that they feel the draft meets the criteria for inclusion as a full article, ergo they've checked and verified that it's ready to be included in mainspace. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to miss that the issue was not just about length, but about the amount of cleanup needed on what was there. Looking at Draft:E. O. Rothra, it was submitted to AfC while still having editing notes, and bare urls are still being used (some were caught by citationbot). CMD (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose lifting these restrictions in part due to FloridaArmy's behavior with Luther Palmer House where I have most interacted with them. I brough it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendleton Hill due to lacking notability; it was closed as redirect. After the close, FloridaArmy left a rather odd message on my talkpage. They then moved the redirected article to draftspace and submitted it to AfC almost unchanged from the version that was redirected. Despite the unchanged prose, they submitted it with a new title - that of a (likely notable) house that is scarcely mentioned in the prose. The article, which I believe should have not been accepted at AfC, has basic citation issues including bare URLs, incorrect parameters, and non-RS that I specifically pointed out in the DR.

In the drafts linked above by BlueSonnet, I don't see any indication that FloridaArmy has improved their editing in any way. One of the drafts was created in mainspace in violation of their editing restriction; they already have two blocks for previous violations. Of the two accepted drafts, Henry Carey Baird has numerous incomplete or improperly formatted references, and Al-Mazmum needed significant cleanup by the AfC reviewer. These are issues I would expect to see with newer editors, not someone with 200,000 edits over 9 years who knows that asking for a lifting of restrictions will put scrutiny on their recent edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If I tagged a draft as a CSD G2, that shouldn't be held against FA. Consider that an oversight on my part. I look at hundreds of expiring drafts on a daily basis and sometimes drafts get mistagged. It's more likely my fault than FAs. I do see a lot of incomplete drafts they've created but G13 deletion is often postponed for several very prolific editors and FA is one of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hordaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hordaland is a deceased editor. The home page is locked. On the page is a URL hijacked by spammers. It should be modified to make safe. The old link is readabilityofwikipedia dot com and the new link is readability.nl -- per project Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#readabilityofwikipedia.com - thanks. -- GreenC 17:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The Weeknd - Hurry Up Tomorrow.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If a bot is enabled, I can't upload an album cover that doesn't contain the Parental Advisory label. So can you please do exactly what I think you're gonna do? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bot owner, and you were pretty vague in explaining the issue, but have you tried WP:FFU? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is unable to be parsed. What bot? Why can't you upload? Why does the label not need to be on the cover? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most album covers in the pages don't have the Parental Advisory warning label. For example, We Don't Trust You. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That happens, but that doesn't mean it's a standard to exclude it. And that still doesn't answer what bot are you requesting be disabled? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN) has reached a consensus that topic bans should be imposed. How should this be progressed further? The guidance on the COIN does not explain how to proceed once consensus that a COI exists has been achieved. cagliost (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Per WP:CBAN, Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Put it another way: not at WP:COIN. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. cagliost (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chungli Ao language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oklopfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users continually strongly insist that we legitimately base the phonological charts of this article off of a source that is a bit dated and also poorly written when it came to the articulation of the palatal consonants, and also a had listed a supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" that is clearly non-existent according to the newer sources. They keep insisting we literally base the chart off of the old source's word-for-word description of the palatal consonant sounds (which they insist is a pure-palatal stop /cç/, /si/ allophone being a pure-palatal fricative [ç]). When meanwhile, newer sources (like Temsunungsang, 2021; Bruhn, 2010) list the sounds as palato-alveolar /tʃ/, [ʃ], and the supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" actually being an alveolar approximant /ɹ/. But yet any newer source I point too, they immediately criticize and delegitimize, just because the sources are not written like they would be as a phonological-description, like the main source they keep pointing to (Gowda 1972). Sure it would be much better if the newer sources were a phonological-description, but the more I imply that we should "work with what we have at the moment", the more they get pedantic and resistant and continue to promote the transcriptions of the older and poorly-written source. I have listened to several different speakers of the language, and based off of the audio, their pronunciation exactly matches what the newer sources state, rather than what the older sources state. Any assistance from an admin here would be quite helpful to solve this conundrum. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the AN/I that you opened up:

Temsunungsang (2021) calls it a palatal affricate, not palato-alveolar. The top of International Phonetic Alphabet#Description explains why you're incorrect about symbol usage. Please stop misrepresenting sources. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to take every word verbatim. Sometimes linguists use the term “palatal” to either shorten the term “palato-alveolar”, or when broadly speaking since it is still considered to be partially palatal. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In his 2025 paper he refers to the Changki affricate as palato-alveolar, so I can only assume he knew what he was talking about. Reinterpreting is WP:OR ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. Based on opinion. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why Temsunungsang has been reached out to for clarification. Trying to force this through an administrative process is only time wasting for everyone. Learn some patience, please. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you learn some patience and be open to other sources of info, that users would want to temporarily use during the waiting process that are still fairly accurate. Besides your own, which may not be consistent with newer sources. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are reinterpreting those sources, which is antithetical to building an encyclopedia. If the paper does not say palato-alveolar, you cannot either. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with reinterpreting, as long as it is feasible. And in this case it is. You just can’t help yourself because you are way too rigid and stubborn. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you continuing to show your incivility and inability to drop the stick. It is going to make anyone else reviewing this have a much easier time. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like anybody's winning here? Fdom5997 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can't weigh in on content disputes on admin noticeboards (that's not what they're for), plus this really looks like forum shopping. I've already gone into the appropriate options for resolution here and none of those involved AN.

I'm worried that you're destined for a boomerang. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this looks like forum shopping given they now have two posts up on two different administrator noticeboards. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said that it did not belong in ANI. So I moved it here. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were also told where you could go for content disputes, which was not AN and which you still haven't tried to engage with TwoNineNineOne (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comment here, Fdom is well aware of where he should go. TwoNineNineOne (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked my post just in case I wasn't clear, but I really think I was.

I definitely said you should be exploring either dispute resolution or third opinion processes - I also included links to both so you could easily find out more about them, decide on an option then get the ball rolling.

The reason it doesn't belong at ANI is because those other processes exist and haven't been tried yet.

If an editor refuses to engage with dispute resolution for example, that would be a different matter and could be considered a behavioural problem - admins deal with these behavioural problems, not content disputes.

They're volunteers too and have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise they'd never be able to get anything done!

Wikipedia content is decided by editor debate and consensus, that's normal and happens every day. People disagree on content so we have processes to sort that out without needing to bother admins.

Admins deal with editors who can't/won't engage with this set process. That's not normal and needs intervention.

Does that make more sense? Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rudzani Mudau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's page seems to be some sort of scam, someone might be trying to pass the user page as a legitimate article. Of the 4 contributions outside of user-space, two of them are also spam.

This doesn't fit neatly at AIV or UAA, and I probably could have filed a G11, but I wasn't sure that was it. This user isn't actively vandalizing mainspace, but they seem to be here to run some sort of scam, and not build an encyclopedia. Unless it's all an elaborate joke that I'm not getting. Mlkj (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards "joke" over "scam". Regardless, I've deleted the userpage under U7 and G3 (hoax). Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, whoops, U7 doesn't apply (not 6 months old)...the other one still should though. Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate the 2nd opinion. Incidentally I think U7 doesn't apply to top-level user-pages anyways, but G3 is a good fit, I'll remember G3 for next time. Mlkj (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range block that affects me was recently made global across all projects, so I now have a global exemption for it. Therefore I no longer need it locally here on en-wp and request it removed. Rose Abrams (T C L) 14:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GIPBE only exempts you from global IP blocks, not local ones. Are you sure that you don't need it here locally? Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I didn't know, thanks for clarifying. Okay, in that case I will keep it until the local block expires in April. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rose Abrams Your local IP block exemption expires on 22 February 2026. If the local block expires in April, would you like me to extend your IPBE to the end of April? Toadspike [Talk] 15:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, yes🙂 Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit considered as a revert ? [4] I moved some content into a new section and deleted 3 sentences.

ie. i created `Public opinion in Israel and abroad` and moved contents from Denial sections there - and deleted denial section headers

The edit is not disputed and still stands on the page.

Original discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cinaroot Cinaroot (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It's hard to tell given that that edit is more than a week old; but considering that article's talk page, it seems that WP:DRN would be a better venue for all of this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk-page discussion is about whether to include it in the first para of lead, and if so, how it should be presented there. My edit concerns the body of the article. I felt that having a dedicated section was undue, so I created a new section and relocated the content there. Its not disputed rn - im just asking as some editors is saying its a revert. But i disgaree Cinaroot (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that there is currently an arbitration enforcement request open against the OP concerning this edit and a possible violation of WP:1RR. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user @ChildrenWillListen has falsely accused me of writing a Wikipedia page with an LLM. I have tried to discuss this with him via replacing references, but he has tagged the page for speedy deletion twice. I feel this is unacceptable behaviour which is why I am bringing it up. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain where the titles for the references added here came from? CMD (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:ChildrenWillListen § It appears you have made a mistake. and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molems. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, they did admit to using an LLM and being Molems: [5]. Perhaps this report can be closed? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following this in detail but, on a quick glance, I am confused. If the SPI concluded that they were the same person then why was no action taken? It seems that we have both sockpuppetry and disruption here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DE is DE regardless of whether they need to be blocked as a sock. I have INDEFfed RFKTNG and leave the master to our better paid ;-) CU friends. Star Mississippi 15:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: They self-admitted they're a sock, and have said they won't use AI or sock again. I say we give them a chance. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope they do better - their last edit before being blocked was to blank their draft, they've also been giving themselves trouts and barnstars before being found out.

Fingers crossed! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet @ChildrenWillListen I hope so. Molems remains unblocked for their (hopefully) productive use. Star Mississippi 17:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my request: Template:Il ("Indigo Lima") is salted; please will someone make it a redirect to Template:Interwiki link, which I have recently created?

If this isn't the right place to ask; please advise me where to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing A slightly more appropriate venue would be RfPP, which has sections both for edit requests and for requesting unprotection. I'm guessing nobody took action last time because templates are scary. I've now created the redirect, please let me know if I did it correctly. Toadspike [Talk] 12:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:Dschor states that @Dschor was blocked because they were a sockpuppet of @Dschor; certainly this can't be correct, because you cannot be a sockpuppet of your own username.

Could an admin please step in and clarify the situation? GrinningIodize (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this log explains it—although it's more of a forest than a log. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked twenty years ago. How did you even find this page? -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rabbithole. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin here. Someone used the wrong template (Special:Diff/319386280) back in 2009, three years after the indefinite block. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd:386 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is the master, then. Secretlondon (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I’ve noticed that some of my contributions on ANI have been deleted. I have re-added the content, but I am concerned it may be removed again. My edits were made in good faith, and comply with Wikipedia policies.

I would appreciate it if an administrator could review these deletions to ensure they are justified and to prevent repeated removal of content that adheres to Wikipedia standards. For reference, the edits in question include:

• Orlando Davis LLM

Thank you for your time and assistance. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please anyone here for fix the double redirects in redirect pages Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information. Thanks. ~2025-37499-53 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]