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, (un)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}}

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)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	102	77	179
TfD	0	1	0	55	56
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	3	6	2	38	49
RfD	0	0	0	51	51
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 12 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 sockpuppet investigations
• 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 10 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 2 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 87 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

Request for advice/help about problems with a user

Collapsing too long request, please read short version. ~2026-45946-99 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Goodday everyone. I'm an extendedconfirmed user from Italy, my username is Junghiano. I have no choice but to edit as an anonymous user right now because, in this vacation time, I have no access to my usual device, where my password is saved, but as soon as I get back I'll immediately restart using it, this specification was owed before anything else. The reason why I'm writing in the Administrators' noticeboard is that I'm having problems with another user, Emanuele6, who's been correctly notified about this discussion and warned 3 times before I finally decided to open it. I'm not here to tell you that he's a vandal or a troll and that he needs to be blocked, absolutely not. I'm here to ask you admins if some of his actions, which I'm going to describe, are legitimate or not and, if they aren't, to suggest me what to do or, if necessary, to take direct action. I'm going to explain the background and then to list the actions which I consider illegitimate.

• Background: I deal with incorrect or improper Italian phonetic transcriptions, my edits are mainly corrections of phonetic transcriptions. Emanuele6 had never dealt with this matter before February 2026, when he started modifying a few phonetic transcriptions in a way which I don't consider correct, or at least proper. The present discussion isn't about our different points of view about this matter, so I'm not illustrating it here. Well, when I came across a pair of phonetic transcriptions edited by him, I restored the previous (stable, consensual) versions of both pages. His response was to revert these edits of mine and to scroll my contributions to find similar edits to revert massively. When I noticed that, I restored my edits. Then he wrote a message in English in my talk page to ask for an explanation. I sent him 2 emails by using the function "Email this user" because we're both Italians and I preferred to speak in our language than in English (on each Wikipedia it's advisable to avoid using different languages than the language used in that Wikipedia in talk pages). I thought he read my emails, but after a few days he reverted again all my edits claiming that he didn't receive any comment. Instead of restoring the previous versions again, I wrote in his talk page and pasted the text of my last email, inviting him to revert his edits himself. Instead, he started a discussion in Help talk:IPA/Italian entitled "On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" which is ongoing. This is the background, now I'll ask my questions about the attitude which Emanuele6 has been manifesting towards me since the beginning.
• Question 1: is "On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" an acceptable title? I don't think so, because not only he claimed that certain edits of mine are "bizarre" in the title of a discussion, but also he named "me" as if I were the only user who makes such edits while most users dealing with Italian phonetic transcriptions do (or there wouldn't be a precentage close to 99% of pages containing the phonetic transcription which he considers erroneous). I tried changing the title to a more neutral (NPOV) "On transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" (diff) and corrected the link in the Teahouse where he added a topic to point out the discussion (diff), but he reverted me. Actually, the most proper title would be "On transcriptions of [sC] clusters (+more)" because the discussion isn't about "heterosyllabic consonant clusters" but about how to consider [sC] clusters, either heterosyllabic or tautosyllabic: inserting "heterosyllabic" in the title of a discussion created to establish if the consonants are heterosyllabic "or" tautosyllabic isn't neutral (POV). He was also invited by an autoreviewer, Marchjuly, to change the title because of WP:TALKHEADPOV ("Don't criticize in headings", "Don't address other users in a heading", "Never use headings to attack other users") in order not to risk WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PERSONALATTACK, but he didn't listen to him. So, is it possible to change the title of this discussion?
• Question 2: since the beginning, he threatened to "report" me and my edits. Well, I think that I know Wikipedia enough to say that my actions didn't break any rules unlike his. It's "he" who started modifying phonetic transcriptions and then went on reverting my edits when I restored the previous versions. If a new edit by a user is challenged by another user, the correct way to proceed is starting a discussion "while the last stable and consensual version is kept", isn't it? In this case, instead, "I" am the user who stopped restoring the previous versions, while "he" is the user who went on reverting my edits to keep "his" new version even if the discussion about the phonetic transcriptions to choose is ongoing. A pair of examples here: , , ; , , . My second question is: shouldn't the stable consensual versions previous to his edits be the right versions to keep, for the moment? Isn't "he" the user who should be reverted because his edits to stable consensual versions were challenged? So, am I allowed to restore again the versions which he edited according to his point of view about this issue?
• Question 3: it's years that I've being a Wikipedian, I've never ever had problems with any other users, even when some of my edits have been modified or even reverted, even when I discussed with them both in talk pages and via email. What's happening to me in this days is something I'd have never thought that I could experience on Wikipedia. Since I started dealing with Emanuele6 (a compatriot!), I've undergone: threats of report each time I did something he doesn't agree with (even for following the consensus diagramme); personal attacks starting with the title of a discussion opened by him (which he refuses to change and which he doesn't allow me to change, but I don't think he'd have been happy if "I" had started a discussion entitling it "On User:Emanuele6's bizarre transcriptions of tautosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)"); bad faith accusation despite WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH (here: I have sent emails "not" to speak with another Italian like me in our language but "not to be seen by administrators" (but, you know, the text is pasted on his talk page) and suchlike; I have manually reverted his edits "not" because I'm used to edit phonetic transcriptions manually (as I've "always" done, as anybody can verify) but specifically to keep "him" in the dark about these reverts; I have made a new edit in the way he doesn't agree with "not" because I found a series of wrong phonetic trasncriptions by another user among which a case of [sC] and corrected all of them including this (as I wrote on 5th August) but because I was monitoring new cases of [sC] in order to edit them (as he wrote the next day); I have not told him about a previous and thinly attended discussion where there was "1" more vote agreeing with his point of view than mine (closed with the recommendation not to start massive edits based on such a poor result, which is exactly what he's been doing) "not" because in my 1st message about our issue I thought that a long answer to his short question would be enough but again to "hide things" (including the recommendation not to start massive edits by the closing admin, which is exactly what he's been doing); and, new entry, he's not sure that I'm not the only user in Wikipedia with this opinion about the phonetic transcription of [sC] clusters (even if in the old discussion there was another user with my opinion and I wrote just "3" lines in total) because I might use multiple accounts or even edit anonymously)... Is a user allowed to talk like this, over and over again, to another user, ignoring deliberately the said "AGF"? This is my last question.

I know that this text is long, but I wanted to add as much information as possible to allow you admins to have a 360° view, and also not to be accused by Emanuele6 to have omitted something, even if I can't honestly say that I didn't forget something (or that he won't find anyways something else to accuse me). ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is reading all of this. Try less than 200 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You may read only the 3 questions. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That is 883 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You may read the short version in the next section. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You could have pinged Emanuele6, in this way they will get a notification regarding this discussion. I am linking your account Junghiano for ease of navigation.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I notified him about this discussion in his talk page. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Q1) The way the talk heading at Help talk:IPA/Italian#On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more) mentioned you specifically is a clear violation of WP:TALKHEADPOV. But you should look after the main matter that was brought up by Emanuele6 rather than going to edit war.

• Q2A) "Well, I think that I know Wikipedia enough to say that my actions didn't break any rules unlike his" is infact a very bold statement. Your disagreement with Emanuele6 has expanded to talk page discussion of article to user talk. you both should come out and find a middle ground. You cannot say at any point that you know more cause you are a senior editor, it's not always true.
• Q2B) This discussion is not the only discussion ongoing regarding this, you should consider prioritize that ipa talk page discussion which will make a consensus regarding your matter, till then you should keep yourself away from reverting anything to affected articles.
• Q3) That depends on intention and feeling personal attack from your POV is different from person to person.

P.S.: There is another discussion initiated by Emanuele6 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seemingly unjustified reverts of Italian IPA transcriptions.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1: thank you for confirming that the title is a clear violation. I'm not doing an edit war, I tried changing the title when I added my 1st reply in the discussion and then 1 just more time by explaining why in the edit summary, nothing more than this. You confirmed it's a violation, so I'm asking you if it's possible to change it to "On transcriptions of [sC] clusters (+more)".

2A: but I didn't mean that I'm more expert because I'm older or something else. I said that he doesn't know as well as me the rules of Wikipedia, in fact he broke some of them while accusing me to be the one who breaks rules. I've tried since the beginning to show a cooperative attitude, give explanations, listen to his requests about edits. He acted like I've illustrated, instead.

2B: while we wait for an explicit consensus to arrive in the discussion about Italian phonetic transcriptions, the challenged edits should be restored to the last stable version. If it isn't like that tell me.

3: that's why I'm here. I've made a list of his accusations of bad faith towards me. You admins are able to evaluate users' actions and words, so I'm counting on you for a correct judgement. As far as I can see about "assuming good faith", I think that I can say that he broke this rule more than once.

P.S.: I've replied to that discussion, just let me say that he anticipated me by opening that useless topic because there's no incident and that I made an error by assuming good faith towards him instead of opening the present topic immediately. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Voorts & User:KEmel49: may I ask you, please, to read the short version of my requests and give me your reply? ~2026-43835-36 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Request in short

I'm reassuming the 3 questions in this section using less than 200 words in total.

1. Is it possible to change the title chosen by Emanuele6 for a discussion "On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" to "On transcriptions of [sC] clusters (+more)" because of the rule "Keep headings neutral"?
2. Emanuele6 reverted a series of old edits of mine and opened that discussion about phonetic transcriptions concerning my edits: shouldn't we restore the previous, consensual and stable versions of those pages as long as the discussion in ongoing and unless an explicit consensus to keep those edits is reached? Should I restore the previous versions myself, what would happen? Should Emanuele6 revert my restorations again, what would happen?
3. Is it allowed on Wikipedia that a user is continuously subjected to threatens, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith by another user? I don't think so, but that's the attitude which Emanuele6 showed to me since the beginning (more details in the full request in the previous paragraph). Is there anything I can do to make him stop?

There, less than 190 words, I did it. ~2026-43746-11 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

After a week, I'm pinging the admins who wrote replies in the higher sections: @Asilvering, Ponyo, RoySmith, Yamla, Hammersoft, and Bonadea: (I tried posting this message yesterday but there was a filter preventing me from publishing it). ~2026-44762-70 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why I was pinged, as I didn't contribute in the section above. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@User:Hammersoft: when I tried publishing this comment, the day before yesterday, there was an older section ("NomanPK44 ban appeal") where you wrote a reply. ~2026-45136-01 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with this? --Hammersoft (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I opened a new request over a week ago. No admin has given me a reply about my request so far. I decided to ping some admins who wrote replies in the higher sections in the hope that I could be helped by one of them. No need to say that no admin has to feel obliged to reply and help me with my request. ~2026-45136-01 (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

1. yes.
2. I would recommend following WP:BRD.
3. no. You can make a report about this behaviour at WP:ANI. Keep it clear and short, and provide diffs.

In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'm going to change the title violating WP:TALKHEADPOV. If Emanuele6 reverts my edit I'll report him in WP:ANI. ~2026-46052-96 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to make 1 more and last attempt to have an answer about the central point: why, if Emanuele6 changed the stable and consensual versions of a number of pages, can't those pages be restored to the previous version as long as the discussion about his edits is ongoing and unless a clear consensus to keep his version is reached (as stated in the consensus diagramme)? I'm pinging the admins who wrote replies in the lower sections: @Extraordinary Writ, Pppery, Spartaz, SarekOfVulcan, Rsjaffe, Euryalus, Malcolmxl5, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Mackensen: (no need to say that none of the pinged admin has to feel obliged to reply and help me with my request). ~2026-46898-38 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion here

IP, you were not wrong to reach out directly, but given the dynamic nature of your temporary account it makes it hard to follow the discussions. Please keep the conversation here for the ease of all participants. (NB: have not reviewed the underlying issue and will not as I was contacted directly) Star Mississippi 17:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That's what I tried doing since the beginning, but so far only "1" admin replied here to my questions and I can't get why... ~2026-45939-72 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There are a whole host of reasons. Not everything here resolves. It's a time for many vacations. Admins are volunteers whose time may be taken up with other things. Maybe it doesn't need admin input. My .02, collapse the initial post. It's length is a turn off as it looks like you were already advised @~2026-45939-72. Focus on the core issues with diffs or maybe revisit this in September if it's not time sensitive. Star Mississippi 10:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. ~2026-45946-99 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I understand you want feedback for how to resolve this issue. It seems to me that Emanuele6 has gone a bit inactive since filing their AN/I report about you. Therefore, you don't have a lot to worry about since that got archived.
To answer your questions, it is bad manners to edit someone else's header even with a good justification. If you have to do so, it used to be standard practice to note it somewhere before the post to make it clear that it was changed (usually in small text). Regardless, I do not know why they were posting on Help talk:IPA/Italian about you specifically; it's not a place to talk about conduct. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For next steps, I think you should post a new section on that talk page and create a more formal RFC. Link to the previous discussion 6 years ago and Emanuele6's post. If there is consensus to restore the transcriptions as you had them, then you'd be free to implement that.
I think both of you are trying to do what is best for the project but clearly have different views about how to go about it. Ignore each other for now and try to get third party responses regarding the underlying content dispute. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@User:MJL: thanks for your comment. Emanuele6's report in WP:ANI was ignored and archived, as it should be, because there was no incident and I didn't violate any rule. The point which I can't get is the following: if there was a stable and consensual version in all the pages which he edited, "why" can't I restore the previous versions as long as the discussion is ongoing and unless a clear consensus to keep his version is reached? I'd like admins to answer this question, but so far I've only been told to wait I-don't-know-how-long for a consensus which will never realistically arrive... ~2026-46551-13 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban (Rathfelder)

Collapsing previous appeal. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can I ask for my topic bans to be lifted? I have been careful not to participate in anything about categorisation and I havent edited any pages about living people. I did wrong seven years ago but I have seen the error of my ways, and the circumstances which led me to create sock puppets will not recur. I have been busy on Simple English and Wikimedia, and have edited a few English wikipedia articles. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice to see you again. Can you link your original topic ban announcement? Accesscrawl (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I can do that. It was . However, it's no longer on the page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'no longer on the page' - it is listed at WP:RESTRICT#Voluntary. That being said, the diff linked does not tell the whole story here. I'm not trying to give Rathfelder a hard time here, but I do think he would be well-advised to provide links to the various discussions that led to my indef, my unblock with restrictions, his subsequent CBAN, eventual unban with restrictions still in place, and also his temporary block in February for breaching editing restrictions. I would advise him to set it all out for people to review, rather than making them rely on memory / go digging. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion isn't preserved on the current version of the user talk. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I would sugggst withdrawing this request for now and drafting a better appeal. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I remember, there have been many blocks and bans historically. I agree with voorts that a better appeal is necessary Katzrockso (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

"I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019. Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportunity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it. I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits to those pages after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintained my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. "Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)" I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have editted, but I have not participated in any of those discussions. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary.

These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I didnt understand that XfD was part of the ban. However they dont really relate to the stuff that got me in trouble in the first place. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation. But I have never done a lot work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I follishly made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article." I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have edited, but I have not participated in any of those discussions - and I wouldnt want to contribute to most of them even if I was allowed to. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary. These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation discussions. I have never done a lot of work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. What got me in trouble in the first place was a conflict in my personal life, and it seems very unlikely that such a situation will arise again. Can these bans now be lifted please? Rathfelder Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the prior discussion (last week) as a subthread. I believe this is a better request, but am neutral on the ban as I don't have the on wiki time right now to evaluate the history. Star Mississippi 01:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have collapsed the old appeal and put it at the top to avoid confusion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You really should have linked to the key previous discussions in your request to make it easier for editors to assess the history. But since this is already your second attempt I'll just link them. Unblock discussion which lead to the topic ban, CBAN discussion, and unban discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this ban permanent? Its now more than 6 years since my foolish use of sockpuppets. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I have my Extended confirmed account status restored? Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Special:UserRights/Rathfelder, you already have extended confirmed status and indeed have never had it revoked. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit on Kurdistan Workers' Party but it doesnt appear. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't rendering properly due to an improperly closed <ref> tag; I've fixed it.

If you didn't have extended confirmed rights you wouldn't have been able to make the edit at all – the "edit" button literally doesn't appear on pages you don't have the right to edit, and if you try to pass the &action=edit argument to the url it just shows the source with a warning that you are unable to edit due to the protection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The editing related to Alex Scott-Samuel and the Socialist Health Association was really egregious (and I honestly wonder why we didn't impose a topic ban from that area), but none of it had anything to do with the completely separate restrictions that are being appealed here. I believe the one-account restriction is sufficient to prevent the a recurrence of the double !voting that led to the XfD and categorization bans, and as to that issue I think Rathfelder has learned his lesson at this point even the appeals haven't been a master class in persuasion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Rathfelder, I've already given my opinion, but I'll ask this anyway since I think others might want to hear your answer: could you talk a bit about your using multiple accounts to !vote in CfD discussions? I know you said before that you had gotten too obsessive about categorisation and wanted to !vote twice in discussions that you thought were unfair or where you felt personally attacked. How do you plan to avoid ending up in that kind of situation again? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

    I have found a new place to keep my obsessions with categorisation occupied. Wikimedia will keep me busy - I'm working through 100,000 unidentified logos there, and there are plenty more jobs to be done there so I am not planning to get into a lot of discussions about categorisation here, but I would like to be able to actually categorise articles. I still get lots of notices about deletion of categories I have created or edited, I am happy to ignore almost all of them, but I dont want to feel that I would get in trouble if I were to respond. Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am happy to agree not to edit either of those articles - as I havent for the past 6 years. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Although I entirely accept that using sockpuppets in discussions was wrong I dont think my doing that made any substantial difference to anything, so I am not in the least tempted to do it again. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Community Unblock Appeal from User:Zubarkokar

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

Hello Administrators!

I am submitting an unblock request after 6 months under "Standard Offer". I was blocked for sock puppetry on my first account User: Muhammad Ahsan2233 but instead of following Wikipedia guide lines, i start creating multiple accounts to avoid my block in that process I created 16 account (which I fully listed and disclosed during the CheckUser review on my talk page) plus I also involved in meatpuppetry i copy source code from wiki fandom and discord history servers and publish on Wikipedia. I was caught each time now I am changed and I see now that I was just wasting the administrators' time and my own.

I realised creating multiple accounts gives unfair advantage to that person in any argument or bypassing previous blocks without accountability this destroyed Wikipedia culture. I do not have access to my first account due to password issue, so I am using this as my only account account. I have been using this account on there platforms like Urdu Wikipedia, where I have made many constructive edits under the same username. I hope this track record shows that I have truly changed. If the block is lifted from me, I will play my positive role in the pages about Pakistan's history.

Copied from User talk:Zubarkokar - there's a lot of discussion on that talk page worth reading here as well. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to appeal on the sock master account? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 22:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

They said they do not have access to [their] first account due to password issue. And this is the account they've been using on the Simple and Urdu Wikipedias. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a topic ban and a one-account restriction on the subject of Indian military history, broadly construed. Given there was some problematic editing in this area originally, the extensive list of recognized sockpuppets were used to continued posting in this area, and that this is now an extended-confirmed restricted topic, I think this is a natural protection for the project. While Zubarkokar is not extended-confirmed and can't make edits in this top anyway for a while, I think it's prudent to have a review rather than it automatically being granted due to the sensitivity of the topic area. I think the one-account restriction is there for obvious reasons. I oppose an unban without these two restrictions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unban. User appears to be unrelated to سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ anyway. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  See the talk page of @Akaspo- seems they're not the only one who were wrongfully blocked in relation to سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Moving out of archive, where it was prematurely automatically archived. PhilKnight (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Unban with a one-account restriction - user seems to have grown, but I do think a one-account restriction is still necessary. Jishara (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unarchiving. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Support unban with one-account restriction per @CoffeeCrumbs. --ABx11 (she/they) 22:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeat TBAN behaviour at DRV.

CSGinger14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am involved in this.

On 7 August, this editor was involved in an AfD which was bludgeoned and disrupted by them. This led to them filing a DRV, during which an AE case was opened by @Voorts (as an involved editor) for the various disruptive reasons that can be read there. The word count limit was exceeded exponentially, and it closed with a TBAN from the now deleted article. They were given a pretty clear warning from @Sennecaster to cease the behaviour.

Fast forward to 18 August, and this editor decided to storm into a recently opened DRV and accuse @Spartaz (pinging as an involved party) of WP:WikiBullying and WP:HARASSMENT toward the closer. They refused to listen to my reasoning and efforts to get them to stop, and continued posting large (sometimes collapsed) WP:WALLSOFTEXT, which were unsurprisingly later collapsed by Spartaz. They were again warned. Unfortunately, they decided to uncollapse the RPA and double down on their behaviour. I'll also add they have abused Template:Hidden ping to call me out several times, a feature of which I forgot existed, which is why I initially expressed confusion at being pinged, said ping not being visible.

I believe, with the added abuse of hidden pings and this now being the second time they have caused disruption at AfD/DRV, that a TBAN should be implemented for this editor at this venue. At the very least, a final, final warning that if this behaviour repeats itself at any time in the future, a TBAN can and will be given by any administrator (including from Spartaz).

Usually, I would leave a notice of having posted this AN, but I'm unable to do so due to currently being banned from their talk page. They used the phrase "giving enforcement charges", which I take to mean actually giving a block or ban (which obviously I'm not able to do as I am not an administrator). I invite any willing editor, in good faith, to leave the notice on my behalf. Thank you.

(I didn't think this was urgent enough for a posting at AN/I. As ever, I do not object to this being relocated there. If that does occur, I likely will choose not to engage too much in the discussion due to the high chance of edit conflicts occurring and general page lag on my end.) 11WB 💬 16:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I brought the AE as an involved editor, not as an admin.

I can't say I'm surprised to see us here because CSGinger14 was expressing IDHT up to the end of the AE thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, I will amend that part of my message. 11WB 💬 16:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that broad strokes be used to describe my actions. I retracted all statements that were raised as problematic (or had them retracted for me), and solely broke policy (in the above instance that 11WB is highlighting) by raising a conduct issue at the wrong venue. Describing my actions otherwise broadly as disruptive walls of text makes no effort to analyze my responses, which are broadly respectful and use the same tone that's been used to correct me in discussions previously.

I had every right to be in that DRV, because I was one of the original contributors to the discussion under review. It is unfair for a previous TBAN to be used to justify an insinuation that I've continued to act disruptively, and to thereafter shut down my engagement, when this has thus far been the only venue after my TBAN (among many at AfD) where anyone has taken issue with my conduct.

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

CSGinger14, No, there are no such carveouts for TBANs: your TBAN is in full force and you are expected to disengage from said DRV. No further warnings will be issued prior to blocking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't engaged in any discussion to do with Ryan Call (politician) or related politicians. This was on an entirely separate topic. No indication has been made to me whatsoever that I wasn't allowed to participate broadly at DRV.

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your explanation as asserting that you had a right to engage in DRV discussions relating to the prior TBAN topic. This was a misreading on my part, striking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a note, as CSG has now posted here, the notice is technically moot. Most editors here who are familiar with me will know that I do notify those who I've opened threads about at this venue. I was complying with WP:USERTALKSTOP in this instance, at their request. 11WB 💬 17:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

RPA / Irrelevant commentary removal CSGinger14 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

CSGinger, the issue is that whenever someone disagrees with you, you act like you've been personally attacked and you post long walls of text attacking back. You need to either learn what is a personal attack or isn't, or stop engaging in Wikipedia processes where disagreement is common. Otherwise, I fear you are on the path to an indef. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I invite editors to review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 August 18 and question whether CSG's contribution has been helpful. It is worth noting that they identify as being on the spectrum on their user page and the behaviours exhibited are not unknown when some autistic editors are triggered. I have no doubt that they mean well but their policing of other editors is unhelpfully disruptive. What we need is a way for CSG to be able to participate without getting triggered. Obviously I'm one of the triggers so this will be my only contribution to this thread. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

My personal take on that is, it's automatically not fair. One individual should not feel they are unable to participate (anywhere), simply because that may provoke a reaction from another party. The fault rests with the "triggered" individual. You're a regular at DRV Spartaz, other editors, whether or not they like/dislike/hate whatever, need to (to be blunt) get over it and either do something else, or ignore that person. That's the primary problem here with CSG. (I say this as somebody who is also on the spectrum.) 11WB 💬 17:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that anyone who disagrees with them seems to be a trigger. That's not a healthy way to go about editing for CSG or the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not particularly worth noting, and I'm really surprised you went there, Spartaz. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts I'm sorry, I had a whole response that I was typing out, but I see no reason to complete it if I'm going to be marginalized by you three like this. Can you stop pointing to my autism as though it's a trigger that can't be managed? I'd remind you that if you plan to respond that it was done in good faith, so were all of mine.

Contrary to your assertion that "anyone who disagrees with [me] seems to be a trigger", I've managed to engage perfectly well with other editors with whom I strongly disagreed in the past week at AfD. You have no right to raise me up as [having accused someone of a conduct violation absent evidence], and then turn around and disparagingly refer to my mental health in broad strokes in a public forum (i.e he can't handle disagreement, etc.). Please retract, otherwise three responses all questioning whether there's any way ANI can find a way around my autism represents a serious POV Railroading concern similar, coincidentally, to that I was raising in this discussion.

At this point I have other responsibilities to handle today. I'll respond again tonight.

Regards,

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to your conduct, not your mental health. I don't think your autism is an excuse for your behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be about my autism. You don't get to treat my mental health as a conduct violation waiting to happen, which is what you're directly implying here, even if you don't state it explicitly. The fact that you have autism isn't a pre-qualifier for you to invalidate me. It's a spectrum, and there's no evidence your experience is anything akin to mine. Nor do you have a right to describe me as incapable of civil conversation with those with whom I disagree. There is no presumption of guilt.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that it's been argued here that I can't engage civilly in discussions in this namespace, I'd like to show three diffs from AfDs I was involved in just yesterday that challenge that idea.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I will provide a more in-depth response this evening, but otherwise have things I need to attend to. Please note my earlier commentary, and avoid bringing such topics into the conversation again.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, the pinging that started this whole thing wasn't intentional. It was a remnant from my moving my vote out of the collapsed personal attack box, where a lack of caution had led it to be placed. I had been told by @Spartaz upon collapsing his statement that I considered to be offensive that I couldn't collapse votes that weren't RPAs.

Though I had initially inquired as to this fact on my talk page, given that I didn't feel much of my statement was an RPA, the whole of my response was labelled as a conduct discussion, and shut down when I tried to push back on that idea, in asserting that I was analyzing other editors' analysis. Given that my vote wasn't an RPA, I opted to move it out of the RPA collapse. There was a hidden ping previously located there from earlier in the discussion, which I opted not to remove because I assumed they would want it as a record for this type of occurrence. It was not intentional, but a misunderstanding of how the ping system worked, which isn't abuse.

Also the charging editor seems to imply that I intentionally collapsed Spartaz's statement, which is directly refuted by this point made on my talk page by Spartaz themselves. Once again an instance of a misunderstanding that's being portrayed as malicious. I have more unless I've reached the hypothetical word limit. A note from an admin as to that fact might be appreciated.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I urge you to stop bludgeoning this discussion. You are entitled to defend yourself at condcut noticeboards, but you are not entitled to post walls of text and decide which parts of the discussion should be collapsed and which parts should not. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok I don't know how much more clear cut it can get than this. You do not have a right to instantly label my response in a discussion as a wall of text or abuse, which is exactly what POV Railroading is. The response is 6 sentences long. You've written effectively the same amount as I have in this discussion. You are of no more privilege than I am.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

And I'm perfectly within my rights to do that. That's the exact same thing that we're here about, is User:Spartaz collapsing something he felt to be a personal attack, which I believed to be true of his statement, and your statement as well. WP:RPA is left ambiguous for that exact reason. Even if I'm the sole focus of discussion, that gives no editor a right to disparage me here because they're not the one under investigation. My response directly addresses my place in the discussion at a reasonable length and with polite language. You're seriously antagonizing me at this point for no reason.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to point out this is the administrator noticeboard. Voorts being an admin has complete jurisdiction over this venue. If they request you to do something, just do it. (Trust me, I've learnt this the hard way myself.) 11WB 💬 18:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm here as an involved editor. I am obviously involved with CSG. I do not intend to take any administrative action here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, my point extends broadly to any admin here I think. It probably isn't a stretch to say this editor would have said the same to any admin making that request. I accept that point again however, I will be more careful with my wording from here. 11WB 💬 18:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Including this comment, I've used approximately 238 words in this discussion. You've already posted over 1,000 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to note, that's over 1/3 of the words in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

If you remove the actively collapsed parts in response to discussions of my autism that were raised by you all in the first place, it comes out to about 400. The rest of it comes from direct responses to points that you all made about your addressal of my autism. Just because you disagree with its length doesn't mean that I don't have a right to make the response. Tell me what is disruptive, especially now that those sections are collapsed and out of view, when my statement is otherwise direct and concise? Why am I the only one we're attempting to hold to account for an attack on my character, which I responded completely civilly to?

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

CSG, this'll be my final reply in this discussion now that the motion is opened. I opened this about two and a half hours ago, had you actually reflected on things and agreed to find a better way to participate (rather than the mess that has resulted), I wouldn't have needed to escalate. I still don't have any ill will toward you, even after banning me from your talk page. One editor cannot be made more important than the rest of the project, else everything would fall into ruin. I hope in the future you can come back and participate properly. 11WB 💬 19:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't raise your autism; Spartaz did. I will also note that at the AE thread, you are the one who asserted your autism as a defense to posting walls of text: I'm autistic, I write a lot, I write more when something makes me angry, I'm good at it, and it's extremely difficult for me to collapse my line of reasoning in any instance.

In any event, as I've said, I don't believe your autism is an excuse for your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Irrelevant commentary / RPA removal CSGinger14 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel the need to stress here that accusing three editors who have independently come to the same conclusion of "POV railroading" actually violates that very principle. Competence is required on Wikipedia. Yes, I'm aware that's an essay, but it is generally followed and respected by the vast majority of editors on the project. If your autism (or anyone's own personal problems) causes behaviour to become incompatible with the site, then it isn't the guidelines that are expected to change. Wikipedia doesn't adapt for the editor, the editor has to adapt to Wikipedia, else they cannot contribute here effectively. 11WB 💬 17:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You can be supported by as many editors as you want, but that doesn't mean that you get to blanket portray me as in violation of policy. That's the point I'm raising to which you haven't responded. You're still implying that you're fully within, and I'm fully outside of policy. The point I'm making is you don't get to do that, no matter how long you've been here.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's bring this back to focus (yet again this is an attempt to sidetrack, as you previously did at AE by circumventing the word count limit). This is about your conduct at DRV. 11WB 💬 17:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That's quite the claim to make, given that you three all felt more than happy to give responses about my mental health, but only now that I've responded is it considered a distraction. It was fewer words than your all's response, and is my getting triggered by everything not something to do with my conduct? Is that not why it was brought up in the first place, to argue that there may be no adequate solution?

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate your qualifying Voorts' right to state that anyone who disagrees with me seems to be a trigger, given that's now been portrayed as a conduct concern, outside of the evidence from the specific discussions we've shared. Otherwise, that's exactly what POV railroading is.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the issues I've raised here and I will attempt, within my capacity, to keep this from going off-topic. If you want to discuss autism on the project, that can be held somewhere else. 11WB 💬 18:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, but then I plan to collapse the section, including your above commentary, because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. There is no reason that my mental health needed to be analyzed in relation to this.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I've no problem with that being collapsed. It was a tangent and the focus needs to be on the case I made originally. Further input is welcome from others. 11WB 💬 18:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I do. CSG thinking everyone else is wrong and their text needs to be collapsed is part of the issue. The irony of doing that while accusing others of attempting to silence them is stark. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. Based on my time interacting with this editor, the collapse boxes are not a hill I wish to die on. Another editor or admin is fully within their right to uncollapse, but I don't participate in what would likely become a pointless edit war. 11WB 💬 18:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Partial block from Wikipedia namespace

I think we've reached end the of what can be tolerated, with this same behaviour continuing here. There is nothing to be gained from allowing this to continue. I'm opening a motion for a partial block from the Wikipedia namespace, which covers DRV and AfD. As the proposer I obviously support this. Per convention, CSG is welcome to oppose but generally the editor who has the motion filed against them is conflicted. 11WB 💬 19:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Support ban from Wikipedia namespace per above discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

This proposal as a second choice. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom, Voorts and discussion. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone involved in this dispute should be particularly proud. It's walls of text all round, wikilawyering, posturing, talking past each other, and escalating rather than trying to take the heat out. Fine, you find them annoying. These games of collapsing each other's comments and weaponising mental health in conduct discussions leave me cold. This did not need to go like this and I don't feel like adding to a pile on by supporting this proposal - it feels like kicking someone when they're down. This will be my only comment, so please don't ping me. Fences&Windows 23:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Support namespace ban. I while I agree with F&W that there were opportunities to defuse that weren't taken, this editor's sledgehammer-like approach to arguing just makes any noticeboard discussion into a (not literal) WWI-esque WP:BATTLEGROUND. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I will say that I am not in favor of only a word count restriction. It's not just the bludgeoning that's a problems. It's also what's contained within those words, not just the quantity. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I will also note here that if my not being in favor of it is the straw that breaks the consensus' back, I rather have the word count restriction than nothing at all happening, so call word count restriction on my second choice. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Also, I'd be fine with a voluntary/self-imposed tban, basically a voluntary break from projectspace. Levivich (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Support - after reading the drv, afd, ae, and npol discussion, looks like a case where one editor's apparent lack of skill and understanding in projectspace is taking up too much time from too many other editors. Levivich (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

BTW, I support a projectspace WP:TBAN, not WP:PBLOCK, at this juncture. Namespace pblocks are only WP:PREVENTATIVE when TBANs aren't followed. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Support with final warning that repeat of the bludgeoning in other spaces such as the articles' Talk pages won't be tolerated either and will result in a site ban. Regardless of any underlying reason, the conduct is disruptive which is the issue. Star Mississippi 14:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting I do not think the word count is sufficient as they're already negotiating it and while that's a no now, it does not bode well for the future. Blocks are preventative and we need to prevent further exhaustion of the community. Star Mississippi 00:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

In their defence, they did immediately retract and strike that comment after I flagged it. 11WB 💬 00:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Not all of the comment, though, just parts of it; even post-striking, it's still an attempt to negotiate. It makes the word count sanction a distant second choice for me. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Support While F&W is correct that there's a lot of suboptimal behavior upthread, CSG seems to be taking the lead on a lot of it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – As a preface: yes, I read the previous discussion, including the walls of text.

The evidence to sanction is there in theory, but we have discretion in deciding on remedies, and to me this feels like singling out an editor out of discussions that contained multiple instances of incivility, because they are annoying and the others involved are (rightfully) highly respected editors.

I understand that bludgeoning is much easier to be annoyed at than other things, but the words in a wall of text are not automatically more uncivil than than the words in a single sentence merely because there are more of them. CSG got needled a lot in those past discussions, and while that's not an excuse for their behaviour, are we seriously going to sanction someone for the bad habit of posting a lot of words when frustrated by dealing with poor communication and tiny acts of incivility, while responding to an ad hoc dramaboard session of pseudo-analysing of an editor's mental health/psychology and speculating on how it might affect their editing with nothing more than vaguely hinting that the discussion had some issues?

Perhaps I'm alone on thinking this is a farce, but I have to say something when I think the easy way forward is being chosen only because it is easy. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

What would be your suggestion in regards to a potential remedy? 11WB 💬 19:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I would give CSG a final warning to reign in their walls of text because they clearly only worsen the communication issues because they, regardless of intent, bludgeon discussions. If they violate it, then block them. It's at most one more wall of text. I prefer that to giving a thumbs up (thumbs up as in approve an action, not as in commending a person) to admins – should be leading by example – going around baiting editors into looking bad at AN by speculating about their psyches. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Spartaz's intent was to bait CSG. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I cannot speak to intent obviously, but just like I think CSG did bludgeon discussions even though I don't necessarily think it was CSG's intent to do so, I think Spartaz – regardless of intent – effectively baited CSG here by speculating on their personal life and how it affects their editing. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but see my comment above. I have no opinion on what is causing CSG's behavior and I'm not going to speculate, but since CSG knows that this is how they react when they're angry, and yet they let their anger control them anyways, that makes their behavior less excusable in my view. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, which is why I would still support a final warning, but the context of the outburst above makes me think that allowing that to be the final straw is farsical. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I would've supported a topic ban based on the DRV and CSG's continued assertions that they were wronged there, particularly since this is a continuation of the behavior that got them a TBAN at AE, notwithstanding the other stuff in this discussion. I don't think CSG is really listening to anyone and a warning won't get us anywhere. There's no point in giving a warning that will go unheeded. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

And I say give them some WP:ROPE. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other to change their mind; we seem to simply have a differences in principles here. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think our principles are that far off. I'm generally inclined to give editors rope. In my view, the rope has already been provided in this case, but it's fair enough your view is diffeernt. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but for me the answer to "are we seriously going to sanction someone for ..." is no, because the stuff at the end of that sentence isn't why I'm voting in support. Levivich (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, but going off others !votes it seemed to me like bludgeoning was the main target. I did actually consider that you in particular might have meant something else, but your comment was somewhat ambiguous. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The bludgeoning is an issue, and it's not about "annoying" other editors, as you put it, it's about disrupting Wikipedia processes (like AfDs and DRVs). voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Accusing Spartaz of baiting (which is just nonsensical) is no better (or different) to what led us here in the first place. I'm really disappointed in how this AN has gone, especially some of the perspectives that have been given. One editor is not more important than every other editor. 11WB 💬 22:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's lower the heat a bit. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As I already clarified above, "baiting" was not speaking to intent, but rather effect, in the exact same way that I have said CSG has bludgeoned discussions while not meaning to say they intended to do so. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This can be closed I think. CBAN mandates 24 hours for proposals. I don't think anything can be gained by having meta discussions analysing what the intent of certain involved individuals might be. It's just going to wind people up even more. I've got nothing more to say on this. 11WB 💬 22:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why you would think I want a meta discussion about intent just because I clarified that I'm not trying to accuse people of wilful misconduct. I most certainly do not. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd urge both of you to end this sub-dispute. It is needlessly raising the temperature. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I had a reply to something they said above, but sure. I've addressed my main issue, happy to leave it there. 11WB 💬 23:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean I agree, although I would characterize it as a misunderstanding rather than a dispute. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Also fair: if I'm going to say "that's not the reason I'm supporting," I should probably clarify what is the reason I'm supporting, what I meant by "lack of skill and understanding." IMO, in discussions on-wiki, to be productive, or at least non-disruptive, one must have two things: (1) understanding of how WP:PAGs are applied and (2) the skill to be able to discuss their application with other editors.

Understanding PAGs means not only reading them and being familiar with what they say, but also knowing how they are interpreted and applied "in the wild" by other editors--which is often not at all obvious from the text on the pages of the PAGs themselves (sometimes directly contradictory to the text), and cannot be learned except by being "on the front lines" and reading how other people interpret and apply the PAGs in actual disputes over them. One needs to read a lot of AFDs and DRVs to understand how WP:N, WP:NOT, the various WP:SNGs, etc., are applied in individual AFDs, how WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DELPOL, etc., are applied in DRVs, and so on for all of the alphabet soup of discussions. Reading the PAGs alone isn't enough to gain the requisite understanding.

Skill means knowing how to "read the room": how to talk to other people on-wiki in a way that is productive. It's knowing how much is too much (WP:BLUDGEON, WP:STICK), what kind of arguments are WP:WIKILAWYERing, when to respond and when to ignore, how to respond when responding (WP:PEPPER), when to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and what to write when challenging a close, etc., up to and including when to escalate to AE/ANI, what to say when you're being complained about there, and how to act afterwards.

This combination of skill and understanding doesn't come natural or easy, at least not to everybody. And to be clear, it has nothing to do with neurodiversity, mental health, or any of that. I am neurotypical with no mental health diagnoses, and yet I really struggled early on. Meanwhile, some others who are neurodiverse or have mental health diagnoses absolutely flourish here right from the start, nobody even suspects unless they self-disclose.

It's also not a constant: everybody slips up now and again; sometimes we're better at it, sometimes we're worse at it (examples from this very thread of skill slip-ups by experienced editors: Spartaz raising autism, 11WB proposing a sanction and then suggesting it can be closed after 24hrs; both of those comments were faux pas). People gain the requisite skill and understanding in one area, and find they still lack it when they venture into a new area. Let me show you something really cringy: my first DRV. I thought I had the requisite skill and understanding, but I didn't, I had no idea "how to do this." I wasted a few people's time on that one, I was disruptive.

The reason I support a projectspace ban and not a warning is that the AE was the warning, and a serious one at that. Not heeding that warning is evidence of the lack of skill part. I do not think another warning is going to make any difference. Rather, I think the projectspace ban is the right tool: CSG should work on the skill and understanding on article talk pages, e.g. in WP:RFCs, and develop competency before venturing back out into projectspace areas. Levivich (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I realize that I've kicked the hornets' nest here, but due to a severe case of being European any further discussion with me is going to have to wait, as bed calls. I won't object to the discussion being closed, for the record; I've had the opportunity to voice my displeasure at the situation. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we're all here in good faith. Enjoy your evening. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Maltazarian. I haven't commented here yet, but this entire course of action has made me feel uneasy and I was wondering if I was totally crazy for thinking that this whole situation was unnecessarily escalatory. If a sanction is necessary, I don't see why some sort of word limit restriction or some restriction on the number of comments they can make in a discussion wouldn't be sufficient. Katzrockso (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I know I've probably replied here enough that it could be reasonably called out as bludgeoning. I want to say however, that on reflection, I agree. This is a particularly harsh sanction for what is only their second "offence" (if it can be called that). Unfortunately, I'm now caught between a rock and a hard place. If I withdraw this proposal, those that have already supported will question it. On the other hand, the optics (on top of what has already gone on) would be worsened still. I thought that by replying to CSG and offering my advice I was guiding them correctly. That hasn't transpired and I'm now seeing that this has been managed extremely poorly. I take full responsibility for that. What is an alternative, better way forward here? (I know I asked this earlier and it resulted in an argument. I'll keep my replies brief this time and aim at resolution, rather than disagreement.) 11WB 💬 02:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to change your mind. You can simply oppose your own proposal. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. To me, this is a remedial proposal as only part of Wikipedia is blocked. But multiple others have expressed the same opposing viewpoint. This entire thing leaves a major sour taste in my mouth. I'm not going to speak ill of other editors, especially those I've only recently sorted things with, but I dislike that autism was brought into this AN discussion, even if it was with good intentions. 11WB 💬 02:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I'll sleep on it, should this still be open when I return. No good going back and forth in my mind about it here. I need to clear my head. 11WB 💬 02:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going to make one comment on this and provide context. I mentioned the autism because my son is autistic and I see echos of this behaviour in the way he responds to stress and triggers. I genuinely meant the comment as a form of mitigation and to spur some kindness to the discussion. I see this blew up spectacularly in my face and I am genuinely remorseful if this has caused CSG any distress.

I personally oppose the proposal, it's too broad and I have seen a lot of good afd contributions from CSG. I would prefer we looked at a word count limit or limitations to a single or two contributions to any one discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've been able to sleep on this. Having read Spartaz's reply just above, as the main target of this behaviour who doesn't support the proposal, it doesn't make sense to continue proposing this if they themself believe the sanction is not proportionate. The current consensus is split anyway, so this will come down to the closing administrator's discretion. I had hoped AN would be less drama-filled than AN/I, it seems I was vastly mistaken. I'm obviously a contributor of that myself, which I take responsibility for. I'm going to withdraw my support and abstain (which I should've done in the first place). I'm conflicted from being able to withdraw the entire proposal now due to the many editors that have weighed in. Hopefully something agreeable can result from all this... 11WB 💬 20:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I mulled over this too, and I would also support some kind of word count limit. A raw word count on XfD and DRV makes sense as that's where the disruption has taken place, and those venues are almost guaranteed to have admin oversight so if there is legitimate reason to exceed the word limit CSG can ask for an extension. That, coupled with a warning that continued bludgeoning in discussion outside these venues is all but certain to lead to further sanctions, would make sense to me.

As a sidenote, just to be extra super-duper clear: I genuinely did not intend to make any accusation of bad faith and I apologize if I made it seem like I did. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Tensions were high yesterday, I personally forgot how stressful these venues are. They aren't particularly fun (which is why I requested a closure inappropriately). I fear that enforcing a word count limit for one editor directly goes against the principle that was discussed a few days ago. Specifically, the editor has to adapt to Wikipedia, and not the reverse. This would be a case of the latter, which I can't support. Admins and editors at AfD/DRV shouldn't be expected to have to keep track of how many words one specific editor is saying, simply because they can't participate otherwise. 11WB 💬 22:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking that admins would have any responsibility of keeping track of CSG's word count, per se. I was thinking it's up to CSG to keep track of it, with a sanction for exceeding it being applied if someone reports it or an admin acts on it independently, which is the really just the same way any sanctiom for a breach of conduct is handled. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue is, AE enforced a word limit and CSG knowingly circumvented both at the AE thread and on participant talk pages. I don't think it will be effective at all as a sanction, but I also don't know of a good alternative. A pblock is harsh, but a TBAN/word count limit can just be ignored. What's the middle ground? 11WB 💬 00:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring a sanction is grounds for blocking. If CSG can't comply with a word limit or TBAN, then they aren't compatible with editing Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. Have been trying to stay out of this conversation for the past few days, and was planning to respond last night but got into a pretty bad bike accident, so was briefly out of commission.

All I'll say is that I'd happily comply with an explicit word/response limit at AfD/DRV or in the wiki namespace. Ambiguity is my primary difficulty, and absent that I can by and large hold myself to account.

Regards,

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your bike accident, hope you are okay!

I hope I didn't imply that you would not comply with a word limit or something like that - I just wanted to make it clear that I don't think the sanction would be unenforceable. Katzrockso (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, let's put some flesh on this so we can draw this to an end. @CSGinger14 are you prepared to be restricted to 2 responses in any deletion or noticeboard discussion with a maximum word count of 250 words per response? Additionally, you would be prohibited to continue discussions on your talk page as well as explicitly prohibited from pinging users outside your agreed 2 responses.

If passed, this would be a community sanction enforceable for admins so I hope that provides the clarity about expectations you prefer?

On a personal note I hope you are not too badly hurt after your accident. I will state explicitly that I consider myself involved with you so would not enforce the restriction myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this proposal is reasonable. As with all sanctions, they can be appealed or eased at a later date, but I would suggest a minimum of 6 months in this case. Katzrockso (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If it can be adhered to, and using the standard offer timeframe, I also support this. My only concern is the 4-5 editors who have already supported a pblock. 11WB 💬 06:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, many thanks for your well wishes. With the exception of a reasonably sizeable chunk of my elbow (no fractures, woo!), the injury was largely superficial. Road burn'll take some time to heal but my pride's damaged more than anything else. There were some aftereffects, though, that I did not expect at the time I wrote that last message, which I'll leave as the explanation for my absence, though I'd rather not expound further. Nonetheless I do apologize for not responding sooner.

As pertains to the question of sanctions, I'd be amenable provided that it be more explicitly defined and slightly amended:

• First, referring to the parameters Spartaz initially laid out, I'd ask that one response be be adjusted to 300 words for an initial response adjustable to 2 indirectly addressed responses of a maximum 125 words each, for a total change of +100 words .
• Second, I want to make sure that I'd still be able to ensure that I remain allowed as other users are to respond to direct requests of / replies to me. I'd be prepared to accept a word limit set between 75-150 for such responses, with an understanding that I would only respond to question's directly and explicitly addressed to me, and would not seek to prod the conversation further unnecessarily.

*Third, how would we define instances where I feel the user's conduct needs to be addressed, as that would presumably take place on their talk page?

*Lastly, given I suspect I'll start a fair number of discussions over an ostensibly 6 month+ period, I'd ask that terms recognizing the somewhat broader role of the initial filing editor in such discussions be defined. {Strikethrough

Hope these are reasonable requests, but am open to counters, and look forward to a response in any event. I appreciate all your thoughts regardless.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Glad you're okay. On your requests, I don't think it's convention to negotiate sanctions. They are pretty black and white. Your third bullet point would definitely not be acceptable regardless, as that's what brought us here originally. I think applying the WP:SO time of six months for this being reassessed is fair. 11WB 💬 22:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, all requests for amendment struck through.

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The standard offer is optional - sanctions can typically be immediately appealed. I would suggest making it mandatory in this case to wait a minimum of 6 months. Katzrockso (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Is the proposal against CSGinger14 or 11WB? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Me?? I opened the discussion, why would I propose a sanction for myself?! 11WB 💬 06:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

CSG of course Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I had hoped this would have closed by now, but I understand that an uninvolved administrator will need to assess this before being able to do so. I'm concerned that @CoffeeCrumbs has voiced opposition to the word count restriction proposal. If this is too lenient and a pblock is too harsh, it begs the question, what is a proportionate outcome here? I'm out of ideas and at this point am not fussed if this closes with no further action. 11WB 💬 06:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I've clarified that to being my second choice, as doing nothing is the worst outcome, I feel, and I don't want to be the one who stubbornly results in there being no consensus. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. a partial block doesn't make much sense to me - this discussion rapidly devolved, clearly, and I don't think it was just on Ginger's side by any means. I'd support essentially granting a mulligan - a lot of users said things they didn't mean, seems like - if this continues further later then other options can be discussed. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Just want to clarify the meaning of "mulligan" here, as that isn't standard Wiki-vocab. Do you mean extending the WP:ROPE with no further action at this time? 11WB 💬 06:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not quite how I'd phrase it, but essentially yes. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Mulligan (games). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That is the meaning I was going with - thanks for finding it, i forgot what context it came from Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Some type of action is very much needed for this poor behavior. They must reform and show they have improved their behavior upon appeal. Orientls (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:The Greater Hanes Mall District and self-identifyng edit summaries

I stumbled upon Draft:The Greater Hanes Mall District indirectly via another user's talk page when responding to an unrelated query. It looks like the draft might've been blanked by its creator, who replaced the content with a personal comment (that seems like a WP:G7 request). I think this probably can be delated asap instead of waiting six months for a WP:G13 deletion to kick in, but I'm not sure.

The same user also seems to be self-identifying in the edit summaries they're leaving. They were asked about this once before but have continued doing so. I'm not sure whether such a thing is expressly disallowed by relevant policy or even whether the user is using their really name; it does, though, seem a bit odd, which is why I'm bringing it up here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I've history-merged the draft with the article and redirected the draft page. Graham87 (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank for doing that Graham87. However, I think the draft was originally an article that was draftified by someone else. Because of this, the draft's creator appears to have merged its content into Hanes Mall, which is why they blanked the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The content actually comes from Hanes Mall (eg: Special:diff/1368699950). They decided to spin it off into a new article Greater Hanes Mall District, which was moved back into draft space by A412 and copy pasted back into article space shortly after. I've disputed the content's inclusion in Hanes Mall, hence the spin off apparently. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Does a district with this name even exist? That is the most important issue, not whether the editor identifies themself, which I do with every edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No, nothing that I have researched indicates that this strip of road with various power centers is even named Greater Hanes Mall District. I came across all this after working on Hanes Mall. A search for the term shows just how many articles the probably original research was added to by the editor. I have concerns with original research and unsourced edits from this editor, which I have briefly discussed with them, that are marginally relevant to this case. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Good point about the "self-identifying" in edit summaries since it could be a way the editor is trying to sign their posts; however, it does seem to be a point of ongoing point of contention that might need someone to step in a make clear it's not an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment:: This thread can probably be closed now since the issue with the blanking of the draft appears to be resolved (though AfD might still be an option) and the self-identifying in the edit summaries is now being discussed at WP:ANI#Beejayhelper. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Jako96

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

---

• Jako96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is really leaning into a biting the newbie kinda vibe with repeat warnings after I removed some old vandalism. vandalism removal repeat warnings Maybe someone could tell them to stop, thank you! ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You should've warned me about taking the issue here. I'm not biting you. I have all the right to delete content from my talk page. Good luck with this here. Jako96 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say you didn't revert vandalism, your edit was sourceless. That's the issue. Jako96 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You should have desisted from that first warning, and not sought escalation after I advised you of your mistake. I will repeat: It was a revision of old vandalism, it was using an edit summary indicating exactly that, and the user who initially reverted immediately realised their mistake, and that should have been the end of it. You instead chose to leave your inappropriate warning in place rather than following the other user's lead and reverting yourself. And then you escalated from there. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I just saw your edit and placed one unsourced warning. I placed the other warnings because you sent a vandalism warning template to me, when I didn't vandalise. You also disrupted my talk page. Get over things when they're done. Jako96 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You need to understand an important principle here. If you fire the first shot, it is YOUR job to desist from escalating, not the job of the person you shot at. Some might go so far as to say when you take a bad aim at a new user, you should apologise, and you had two hours to remove your faulty warning before I saw it. Two hours in which you were content to do absolutely nothing about your initial mistake. To then have the gall to send a further multiple warnings is really begging the question of whether we're still debating newbie biting here or actual harrassment. And you're still justifying everything, apparently believing you have behaved perfectly. That's not the kind of person that should be engaging in any kind of "patrolling" of other users. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time nor need to check back after I warn somebody when patrolling. Your edit was sourceless, which perfectly justifies the warning. I won't reply further here. Good luck. Jako96 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The edit was a vandalism revert, was marked as such and required no warning of any kind. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

it is YOUR job to desist from escalating You didn't do a very good job in not escalating yourself by 1) adding a vandalism template to the user's page, despite there not being any vandalism, 2) replying to that warning with the edit summary fair is fair, right?, 3) creating a snarky-toned new section after the warning was removed, and 4) taking this to AN over essentially nothing. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 22:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

We really just need some quick admin attention here, because your characterisation of a final block warning as "nothing" is just going absolutely nowhere, and honestly just piling on top of the behavioural problems being observed here. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

1, 2, 3) The fact that they're tried to reach Jako96 on their page is a good proof of them being a new user — they're been unaware of it being a timewasting futility. It doesn't excuse it, but explain a built-up in frustration leading to it. It's way more worrying when "seasoned" editor relentlessly attack, not listening at all in the process, a new user, who essentially did everything right in their initial edit.

4) It is not "essentially nothing", it is another example of Jako96's usual conduct, that shows that it is not getting any better, but possibly even deteriorate. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the "usual yap" of IPs. Sending a vandalism template when you know someone didn't do any vandalism is deliberately in bad faith, i.e. vandalism. And that requires a warning. Jako96 (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, don't ping people three times in the same place. It makes you look very premature. Jako96 (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It makes you look very premature. Sigh. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify the possible misunderstanding: Jako96 is more on point there than it could looks. I shouldn't had used the {{u| username}} form 3 times in 2 messages there; I forgot it would generate a ping for the user for every instance. But due to their unhelpful habit of removing or editing other's messages, they've removed those links here, making that further reply of them looking weird. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time nor need to check back after I warn somebody when patrolling.

Adding those temporal problems to a persistent aggression and overall lack of civility from Jako96, maybe it is possible to at least redistribute a time spent by them on patrolling to a significantly lower amount, also for their own benefit? ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't come here and yap when you don't know a thing about patrolling. Jako96 (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Jako96, please don’t close reports about yourself. Leave it to an uninvolved administrator. —- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. The reason I closed it was that there is no discussion here. Crying for apologies when a template is justifiably sent is not a discussion. But good luck with this anyway. Jako96 (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Not to bother, since you sent a thanks to my reply here, is there any chance you'de be interested in this ANI discussion? Thanks, Jako96 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

IPs yapping isn't helpful

No more to discuss here. This "issue" isn't appropriate for here. Wikipedia is not the place to want and cry for apologizes, nor there is any admin action here for it. In anyway, admins will see this discussion here. If OP really wants to continue, they should go to WP:DRN. Good luck. Jako96 (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The TA's edit was good, it was vandalism, they reverted vandalism. Giving a ‘unsourced' warning was a mistake (the fact has a citation). The subsequent behaviour, including describing a TA complaint as 'yap', is unbecoming. Use this as a learning point to be better in future. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? The source doesn't support the info there. Learn to read the sources before accusing people, please. Jako96 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I won't reply further in this discussion. Good luck with these lies here. May God be with you! Jako96 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96: if you aren't going to participate in this discussion, don't be surprised if you're blocked indefinitely as result as there's no way to address the problems with your behaviour. Unfortunately the lack of proper diffs has made this discussion confusion, but it seems to concern this edit . I've personally checked the source via the Open Library and it says "Maximum age is estimated to be about 30 years (Kusher et al. 1992)." perfectly supporting the reversion. I did not check the earlier info against the source because it's moot as it wasn't in dispute. I'm not surprised by this since giving a minimum lifespan for complex animals is a weird thing to do. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion "The source doesn't support the info there."? Also what do you mean by "doesn't support the info". If you'd read the source and it doesn't mention either a maximum or minimum lifespan the best solution would be to either remove the info, or tag it as being unsourced. Reverting to "minimum lifespan" only made sense if the source actually said it had a 30 years minimum lifespan which as I've said seems fairly unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I couldn't find it. In which page? Jako96 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

On page 282. The ref gives the range 281-283 and these are the pages which discuss the Leopard shark so it isn't hard to find. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I checked Google Books and searched it there, couldn't access open library, but looks like the preview in Google Books is limited. I'm trying to access it rn from somewhere else. You could very well be right here right now honestly. I apologize from that "unsourced" claim. Jako96 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

When I check it out on Google Books , I get some book in French which seems to be about environmental problems in Senegal. It doesn't have the title of the citation given and is under 200 pages. Google Books itself gives a different title from the book it provides, a title which matches the one given by our citation. Weirdly the French book does seem to give the correct ISBN. It's possible IUCN made a mistake and reused an ISBN or just put the wrong ISBN inside the book, I don't know. Since the book I received from Google Books didn't even seem to match the title Google was giving for it, I concluded Google was not giving me the right book for the citation and looked at the Open Library instead which fortunately did give me the correct book. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You were right on that "maximum" claim. I apologize about the issue. Though I'd still support myself with those other things recently. Jako96 (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

(I checked the book from somewhere else) Jako96 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I was really hoping someone else would ask, but... what "other things" are you keeping exempt from a change in approach by that phrasing? ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Like warning you about vandalism when you disrupted my talk page several times, for example. Also, removing unsourced info that's not quite supported by the ref cited there from Nepalese Civil War, for example. Jako96 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And just to further clarify why I brought up the "not surprised" thing. The ~2026-46084-3 was indeed reverting an earlier edit . Even before checking, my gut feeling was that ~2026-46084-30 was in the right the and ~2026-29987-52 if not vandalising at a minimum made an inappropriate edit just because it's very weird to talk about the minimum life span for complex animals in the general sense. (You could quibble whether ~2026-29987-52 edit was definite vandalism or some other form of mistaken edit but in a case like that is IMO unimportant.) The might be cases in highly specific circumstances where it makes sense to talk about a minimum lifespan but not like that. In my opinion, unless the source did mention a minimum lifespan, it made no sense to claim ~2026-46084-3 edits were vandalism even if you couldn't find the part about maximum age in the source. The solution would be to either remove the info entirely, or tag it as needing citation while leaving it as maximum life span. Because talking about a maximum lifespan makes a lot more sense than talking about a minimum lifespan so if we are going to keep unsourced info, we should keep the part which makes a lot more sense. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. If reverting an unsourced edit and sending a warning template would result in instantly an indefinite block from admins, I'd just laugh it off. You're not quite an admin, so do not talk you're one of them. The edit is clearly sourceless. Also, I'd not be surprised (I mean, there's a chance, after all of this) if after I just said this one more admin would come and oppose me for protecting Wikipedia. There's quite nothing to say more here. I'm done with this here. Jako96 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I am an admin, and you're doing everything you can to talk yourself into a block right now. You could have just said, "Sorry, my mistake" but instead you're doubling and tripling down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes just to clarify, the only reason I said an indefinite block might be necessary is because there is no way to address your behaviour if you aren't willing to address it or accept you made a mistake. The problem itself is IMO probably a minor thing but it does need addressing and unless you're willing to engage in good faith and accept when you made a mistake, it's likely to keep repeating. Some editors prefer to just leave it be and see if it does repeat before blocking and you might escape a block because of that. But ultimately it's much better to engage in discussion and understand how and why you went wrong and therefore how you can avoid repeating it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I will reply here. Jako96 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

See my replies above. I found the source now... I honestly apologize for wrongly warning on that shark issue. Jako96 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason I didn't was that I thought I had accessed the right/full source, and the claim wasn't in it. That was the reason. Therefore, I accept that I was not right about the shark issue and apologized here. Jako96 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm also an admin and I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish. You need to change your entire approach right now. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Your choice of "IPs yapping isn't helpful" isn't helpful either. IPs and TAs are people too, and "yapping" is frankly dismissive. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. That was needlessly sharp. I found that claim about the shark now. Jako96 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic editing against established consensus by Jako96

Jako96 has yet to give any rationale for changing the wording (twice) of Nepalese Civil War (NCW) away from the long-standing consensus version. The NCW is part of contentious topic area "All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups" per Template:Contentious_topics/list, see also the underlying ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You are correct in your edit summary at 08:12, 24 August 2026 that the phrase had been in the article since March 2023. It was removed here by a TA sockpuppet of User:Juddhasumsher. That alone justifies a revert as the editor was evading a block, as well as restoring a long-standing phrasing. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It was not supported by THAT ref cited at the end of the article. I did give a rationale to the relevant editor. See User talk:~2026-46001-44#c-Jako96-20260824070100-August 2026. Jako96 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll write a short one only about that particular thing now, as it worryingly more and more looks like a competence issue indeed. While my edit merely was a blockrevert, I did in fact check if it was a good edit in case. It is cited in the "Transitional justice bodies" section, and it is directly cited from the source, that is, thankfully, trivial to check in this case. Reading now that It was not supported by THAT ref cited at the end of the article. and Also, removing unsourced info that's not quite supported by the ref cited there from Nepalese Civil War, for example. shows that you're not moved past even this purely technical minor thing yet, while the real actual problem is not it, but your general conduct. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not about that section. It is about the ref cited at the end of that paragraph, not some random section. If the ref doesn't support the whole paragraph, then it shouldn't be the only ref in the paragraph. I don't quite understand what's the issue here. If you can't think logically, then don't reply to AN discussions. This would be beneficial to other users, and also you :) Jako96 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so we're not done yet, apparently. Jako has now made an even more incisive edit to Nepalese Civil War. I suspect the problem here is that they do not understand the concept of the lede being a summary of the article, where the references are being given. I think we're closing in on a competence issue here. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That Nepali page is ECR contentious topic, as I understand you shouldn't edit it at all, maybe except obvious vandalism/banrevert actions (that was my initial edit, and if I understand it wrong, and it also should been done only via edit request, some admin, tell please). As you're actively arguing there in summaries, it's definitely goes beyond it, better to leave it as it by now. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:ECR does not apply to that article, so it's fine to edit it constructively, even if you’re using a temporary account. BUT WP:EW definitely applies to every article, and TA~30 and Jako have both made three reverts. So, it's better to just step away from that article for a while... — Raihanur (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. I misunderstood the Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region line. "Region" there is "India", not "South Asia". (Also Bhutan in not included there, it is special enough?) ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The point remains that particularly in contentious topics, there needs to be clear communication, and if you edit without edit summaries and don't use the talk page either, that's a problem. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46084-30, you added the same info with new sources (I didn't really check these new ones you added). That's good. Before, I removed some info there (not revert) in my last edit because the only source cited there didn't support the claims. The "whole article" doesn't matter when there's only one source cited in a lead paragraph. It's hella misleading. Jako96 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The lede introduces and summarises the article. Some editors hold that the lede^{[1][2][3][4][5]} should not be littered^[1][3][5] with references^[1][2][5] if those are already^[4][5] supplied in the article body.^[1][5] I hope that makes it obvious why some editors prefer and follow a style where the references are not repeated in the lede. I suspect this preference was applied at some point in the past to the Nepalese Civil War article. The bottom line is, if one is doing patrolling, one should ideally be aware of the diversity of editing styles and preferences that exist, be able to interpret articles and editing actions in that light. This is where your comment, "I don't have the time nor need to check back after I warn somebody when patrolling" shows an excessive disregard for other people's time and emotional bandwidth. Labelling yourself a "patroller" does not elevate you to some higher status that allows you to disregard conventions of editing, collaboration, communication and civility. That's a very important take-away from this discussion, please. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

"References given" only one reference was given at that time. Please be careful with these unnecessarily misleading comments about me. I've been here for an enough time to understand the lead. If one reference isn't enough for the lead, then that ref should be added with the relevant info in the article body and no refs should be used in the lead at all. Or, if it's only for a small thing in parantheses for example, you can cite near there, but otherwise is bad. Jako96 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the comment left by ~TA-30. Not that there is one reference but I read it as: "the [body of the] article, where the references are being given [is separate from] the lede [—] being a summary of the article". I suspect references given refers to the general location of references. Though if I'm wrong, please correct me. However, my through line with a lot of this is I'm seeing an inability to drop the stick and AGF from both parties. And reading this, I think this is a continued inability to change your approach that was acknowledged to less than 4 hours ago. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about before.. He put the refs now. See https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepalese_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=1371075319, I'm talking about this one. Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

"Inability to change" as I said in the bottom, it was before, not after. If you're gonna just come here and gashlight me without checking the edit history (hilariosly, a thing that was said to me instead), then I'd rather you not come here at all. I'm frankly tired of some people repeatedly casting aspersions about me, here. Please be careful when you post serious stuff like this. It gets pretty nonsensical. Jako96 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I won't probably reply longer here, if there's not a remaining real issue. The issues came to and end. It seems the remainings are just aspersions, which I'm quite tired of messing with. Jako96 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• General comment (Not just about the Nepal question) while I don't really prefer sanctions in this case I'd caution Jako96 to be more careful about civility with regard to TAs. Whether one likes it or not Wikipedia allows people to edit with anonymous temporary accounts. If a TA is editing in good faith (and honestly also if not) they should be treated like any other editor. The only area this should change is either in specific contentious topics that require extended confirmed privileges or if the TAs are being used to enable sockpuppetry. Barring those circumstances they're just editors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I know. A thing I just said about a TA here was out of anger there. I wouldn't let someone just come here (after I had been attacked by another TA) and tell me that I should stop patrolling almost ALTOGETHER just because of one mistake. It was just too much selfish of a comment there. It was too much rude to stay calm. A better way would be to point out that maybe Google Books "lied" (as pointed out above) to me, or something. I believe such IPs are acting very opportunistic when there's a discussion. I'll try and do better next time, but I don't have any bias for any IP, just the ones that jump on you from the back like a wolf (and almost with no edits) in AN and ANI discussions and I believe therefore being in very bad faith. I apologize if I had been misunderstood by the other, "regular" editors here. Jako96 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  That clarification about the personal attacks was a bit too much. Blocked 31 hours. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why are all the TAs on admins noticeboard? This is bizarre they appear out of nowhere and stumble onto AN? And are all editing adjacent to if not spilling directly into the ECR area of caste? (I cant recall if south asian military history is also included in this) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Huh per WP:CT/IMH indian military history is ecr, but this is nepal civil war? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  You can read the opening post in this section, which contains the exact quote from the list of contentious topics. Note particularly the two words "history" and "Nepal", which I chose not to highlight in order to maintain absolute integrity of the original quote. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why are all the TAs on admins noticeboard?

  Look, I'm already provided an answer on it to you earlier. It's one thing that you removed it with a gratuitous stay the fuck off my talkpage (not a real problem), but it means that you're still not get past that question of your that you see as important enough to keeping your attention on it, despite all the efforts. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:USERTALKSTOP, i may always ask someone to stay away from my user pages. If you want to discuss policy, keep it here.

  that exception to ecr is wrt if the nonXC account was involved in the incident and is being asked about it. It is not carte blanche to start intervening on other incidents not obviously related to you.

  A new user is unlikely to know this page exists and such immediate participation begs many questions. How did you find this page, what is your previous accounts, and why specifically jako97? I dont know how temporary accounts work or rotate so if there are other temporary accounts you are associated with, fine, but know that such TA participation with such sparse history will always raise MANY suspicions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I directly said that it was not a problem even taking your grateful (lets try this word now instead) response into account. Obviously you could remove messages and ask others to stay off your pages.

  Not sure why you keep adding that VEXBYSTERANG. You had a valid question, that luckily was answered already in the thread, so I just provided a link to it. From it is very unclear if 331dot actually had the exception you're about in their mind when they're wrote it. Because, likely, they wouldn't write it then, as it contradicts their point. Would be really nice if 333dot would clarify if I'm getting it wrong now (and ideally also about ZDRX reply and further actions there; as they're have no further comments it reads as if they're right with it, but as the related question is already here, I'd ask about clarity there too).

  Wikipedia:Temporary accounts is a good start. If there would be need to answer questions like "How did you find this page" after reading, say, please. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely clear on why I've been summoned here. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  It is about interpretation of your message here. I think it's answering Bluethricecreamman questions of what's with all the TA's commenting on an AN section? and Why are all the TAs on admins noticeboard?, but looks like its more complicated than I thought. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I believe I am correct about the exception, but the other user was correct that it must be something they are directly involved with, a dispute they are a party to. I have no knowledge of this matter beyond my comment. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Where is better to ask about it then (not to waste your time on it further)? I had read related Wikipedia:ECR prior and now again, and I'm unable to find it there. From it is more follow that in case in case it understood so broadly that any participation in discussion about somebody possibly violating ECR is fall under it, then no such participation is permitted. As your reply directly contradicted my reading of it, and I took it as an, obviously, more qualified reading. If you're, effectively, withdraw it now, as I understand, it left the questions open indeed. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  The reason TAs end up on noticeboards is because we get slapped with block threats. Bluethricecreamman, you've really not gone very far with putting yourself in the shoes of someone who has to make a decision to either keep doggedly editing in spite of block threats, or to not keep editing at gunpoint before some kind of clarification can be obtained. Am I clear enough? Will this make you think twice in future about comments like this, or are you on a dangerous path to building excuses for future bad behaviour like the stuff we're discussing here? Also, do you have solid evidence that TAs edit arbitration topics any more than they do other ones, or that the specific TAs involved in this discussion have any particular involvement or bias in that area? If not, I would suggest you drop the aspersions (seems to be the word of the day now). ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Editors, TA or registered, get "slapped" with block threats when they persist in repeatedly violating policies and/or guidelines. And, yes, they will get blocked if they continue to violate policies and/or guidelines after multiple warnings. The way for editors to continue to be able to edit after being warned is to stop the behavior that caused them to be warned. The vast majority of editors manage to contribute to the encyclopedia without being blocked for violating policies and/or guidelines. Donald Albury 20:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe you should get familiar with the specifics of the case before you inject yourself into a discussion in this manner. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:EarthDude

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

---

User:EarthDude has been repeatedly engaging in edit warring and showing blatant ownership behaviour.

This mainly concerns 1984 anti-Sikh riots although his disruptive behaviour seems to have extended to other articles.

He has been edit warring and reverting others over Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) being perpetrators of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. He is imposing his own rules of needing a broader consenus and claiming consenus on his side, see , , . I also removed the categories classifying them as terrorist attacks as riots don't fall under terrorism, but it was reverted by User:ZDRX .

He has engaged in an edit war in past as well, repeatedly reverting User:Gotitbro on the same issue , , .

As far as I can notice there hasn't been much discussion and he has had no consensus on his side. See . There have been seven editors (five if you remove non-ECP editors) against the inclusion and two have been its favour.

The sources used in the article don't really implicate RSS and BJP as a whole, only individual members.

The Scroll article used in the infobox states that:

Our report also implicates RSS people in the riots at some places.

But at some places the RSS people did play a role.

The book used in the infobox The Legacy of Militancy in Punjab: Long Road to ‘Normalcy’ also doesn't back up the claims. This is the only relevant statement, and it's from page 104 (not page 109 as the infobox claims):

On recommendations of the Jain-Aggarwal Committee, Delhi Police lodged 14 FIRs (arson, rioting, attempt to murder and dacoity) naming 49 BJP and RSS workers.

FIRs themselves however aren't an evidence of guilt.

Regardless there isn't any source proving a large scale conspiracy or the central leadership of BJP or RSS being involved. The sources themselves are reliable enough, but the way they're used is poor.

He has repeatedly struck comments of other users as they're not extended confirmed. He has also changed the notice of the talk page to prohibit non-ECP editors from making comment. He shouldn't be doing this as he is nkg an admin.

See , and .

While the article does seem to fall within WP:ECR arbitration, , a normal user shouldn't be performing an admin's job.

EarthDude'a behaviour been previously complained of by likes of User:Kautilya3 and User:Toddy1. See and .

He has been warned by others as well but he seems to not care and removes them .

I've reverted his disruptive edits but he keeps on edit warring despite me clearly telling him why and how what he is doing is wrong. This falls into WP:OWN

I request that the user be warned to desist from his behaviour. Linkin Prankster (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

There has been no edit warring; I reverted a contentious edit of yours a single time, since it went against consensus, and that was it. More importantly, the administrators' noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. There is already an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page and another one you started on my user talk page. — EarthDude (Talk) 09:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

As already shown by me you have reverted multiple users for the same thing on the 1984 riots article (removing BJP & RSS as perpetrators). You have also reverted me on the talk page and attempted to enforce arbitration rules yourselves.

This is a long term pattern. Linkin Prankster (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

attempted to enforce arbitration rules yourselves? I've already explained twice that simply adding a CT template to the talk page of an article that was protected due to it falling under a CT is not solely an admin's job. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You didn't just add a template, you're personally striking comments of others. Indeed both of them aren't your job. Nor is telling others a "broader consensus" is needed and repeatedly reverting them when consensus is against you. Nor is edit warring. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Striking non-ECP comments from ECP topics is not solely an admin's job. I had explained this too two times already before you posted this AN. Asking for consensus to remove content that has stood in the article for atleast three years is not edit warring. You being frustrated over content does not warrant opening an AN against an editor. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

EarthDude, there already is consensus against showing BJP and RSS as perpetrators. I've even posted links proving it. It's not your jobs to tell or stop others unless their behaviour is disruptive. And you should stop implying whether I'm frustrated or ignoring what you're saying. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Linkin Prankster: Please select an article where this edit warring you mentioned took place, and provide diffs that illustrate the edit warring. It would make it easier to comprehend, if each diff was accompanied by the time and date of the edit, and (if possible) whose edit was being reverted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You can see an example at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive510#User:EarthDude reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Both warned). Please pick another (more recent) example.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I already mentioned the article is 1984 anti-Sikh riots and its talk page in my original comment. Please check again.

The diffs are given as well. , , , , .

He also reverted me claiming broader consenus is needed , even though consensus is against him.

You too have warned him in past, see . Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Of the five reverts you linked, all of them are from over an year ago and two are duplicates. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, I was copying the diffs from my original comment. WP:EDITWARRING isn't limited to immediate reverts, long term repeated abuse and reverts also classify as edit warring. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Linkin Prankster: Can you provide evidence of edit warring that took place in the past week? If yes, please provide it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Not in past week. But he has reverted nearly everyone in past one and a half year who tries to remove it. He has been showing ownership behaviour and avoiding discussion of the issue for long.

Here's a list of his reverts:, , , , , , , , . Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

So there are no conduct issues, and the content disputes should be solved with the regular WP:Dispute resolution options: third opinion, an RFC, or DRN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Does repeatedly reverting people for over a year, ignoring that consensus isn't in your favour (there are 5 people against him and only 2 in his favour), repeatedly trying to act as an admin doesn't qualify as conduct issues? Why are we letting people hijack articles? Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course this isn’t a conduct issue. You apparently think that the number of people reverting to a particular version decides consensus? And thus EarthDude’s reversions “hijack” the article? I’m sorry to say that you are mistaken on both counts, and on your ridiculous notion of “acting like an admin”. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking of people who explicitly opposed it on the talk page. Please see my comment at the extreme bottom of this discussion in response to 11WB. The consensus was always against keeping it, I don't know why some people keep implying otherwise. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: With all due respect to @Linkin Prankster, this report is completely baseless. None of the diffs or links provided verify the accusations that have been made about @EarthDude. They have attempted to uphold consensus and encourage discussion where necessary, which is how editing articles collaboratively is supposed to be done. I would like to note that @LP has hit 3R according to this, so I advise that they cease reversions immediately. I think this should be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG. 11WB 💬 15:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  @11WB: A self revert of one's own edit doen't count in the 3RR limit.

  Also there's no consenus in his favour. In fact in anything most people have been against inclusion of BJP and RSS as perpetrators (five against and two for inclusion).

  I suggest you read the relevant discussions .

  Kindly point out where the consenus to keep the information in infobox was achieved, because I don't see a consenus in favour of it.

  Repeatedly reverting when most people don't support your edit isn't "upholding consensus". Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Also EarthDude has never really encouraged discussion except for keeping their preferred version of the article in place. They only discuss so if others make them. Dicussion can't be used to WP:STONEWALL. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you linked discussions @EarthDude actually participated in, as the first of those three they are absent from. Overall I don't see anything even remotely sanctionable. This feels like a rather desperate attempt at turning a content dispute into a conduct issue. I hate to be the one to burst that bubble, but this is a content dispute, nothing more. 11WB 💬 16:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I did link it . In both, no clear consensus was established in favour of any side unless you count the non-ECP users who are against his edits. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

He has reverted another user. I don't get how he keeps reverting to keep something which never had a consenus in its favour. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Linkin Prankster: your edit war looks like this. You are mistaken in criticising EarthDude. I recommend that you accept that you made an honest mistake. WP:STICK applies.

deletes BJP and RSS from infobox

• 06:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Debjyoti Gorai deletes
• 05:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC) TabahiKaBhagwan reverts Cutlass
• 11:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) TabahiKaBhagwan reverts ZDRX
• 00:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC) Linkin Prankster reverts Orientls
• 02:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC) Linkin Prankster reverts EarthDude
• 08:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC) Linkin Prankster reverts ZDRX 08:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC) Linkin Prankster self-reverts
• 12:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC) UnpetitproleX reverts

reverts deletion of BJP and RSS from infobox

• 21:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Cutlass reverts Debjyoti Gorai
• 07:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC) ZDRX reverts TabahiKaBhagwan
• 16:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Orientls reverts TabahiKaBhagwan
• 07:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC) EarthDude reverts Linkin Prankster
• 08:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC) ZDRX reverts Linkin Prankster
• 17:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC) EarthDude reverts UnpetitproleX

By the way, TabahiKaBhagwan got blocked on 1 August for "persistently removing sourced content for no good reason".-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1: How am I mistaken when I'm the one excercising restraint by avoiding an edit war and another user isn't? I specifically reverted myself to avoid an edit war. Btw I wasn't even aware of OrientIs' revert when I first removed the info because I didn't check the article history. I don't understand why you're taking EarthDude's side when you warned hismelf in past and I've proven there is no consensus on his side? Even your own list doesn't show that EarthDude has been reverting people for a long time. He's been doing that since May 2025 at least. You're not an admin, please don't tell other users what to do. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Also please look at my comment at the extreme bottom of the discussion. I've provided a full list of EarthDude's reverts with dates on the eame issue. If you still feel he has done nothing wrong, that's your opinion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Linkin Prankster:, just to make it entirely clear: :You didn't just add a template, you're personally striking comments of others. Indeed both of them aren't your job. Any extended confirmed editor may (indeed, is expected to) strike/remove comments made in violation of extended confirmed restrictions. Note also that reversions of ECR violations are exempt from 3RR and are never considered edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well if that's the case, then I do apologise. But he has still been edit wareing at the article for over a year against everyone Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Just want to point out that User:EarthDude is literally re-writing history by making the 1984 anti-Sikh riots a Hindutva terrorist incident. — Longewal (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's a list of all of EarthDude's reverts with dates, going as far back as May 2025:

• Reverts Sarvagyalal - 7 May 2025
• Reverts Lakshya2007 - 19 June 2025
• Reverts Gotitbro - 1 August 2025
• Reverts Gotitbro - 2 August 2025
• Reverts Lakshya2007 - 10 August 2025
• Reverts Gotitbro - 10 August 2025
• Reverts Suriohim - 24 August 2025
• Reverts Warrior23456 - 17 October 2025
• Reverts Linkin Prankster - 23 August 2026
• Reverts UnpetitproleX - 24 August 2026

This definitely classifies as long term edit warring. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• This report should wp:boomerang on the filer. Linkin Prankster's editing history is highly problematic, characterized by aggressive POV-pushing related to Hindutva ideology across multiple articles. The current report seems to be a continuation of this disruptive pattern rather than a genuine dispute.~2026-46301-46 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Kindly prove on which articles I've done aggressive POV-pushing related to Hindutva ideology.

  You're making baseless accusations because I've mostly avoided getting entangled with articles where Hindutva might be involved.

  I only ended up om 1984 riots article due to recent death of Sajjan Kumar. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Again, those diffs do not prove that @ED has done anything sanctionable. They have reverted to uphold a WP:STABLE version of the article based on article talk page consensus. I'll also add that many of those date back as much as a year, so if there were an actual issue, I imagine this would have been brought here much sooner. This remains a content dispute, not a sanctionable conduct issue. I recommend withdrawing this filing and focusing your efforts elsewhere for a while. 11WB 💬 06:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've already posted the relevant discussions that happened on this dispute.

  I've gone back and recounted properly this time. Please point out to me where I'm wrong and where the consenus is in favour of keeping BJP and RSS as perpetrators. I'll only be mentioning extended confirmed users.

  - 1 user favoured keeping it (CanadianSingh1469), 1 opposed keeping it (Southasianhistorian8)

  - 2 for keeping (EarthDude, D4iNa4), 2 against it (Gotitbro, Fylindfotberserk)

  - 2 for keeping (EarthDude, ZDRX), 2 oppose keeping (UnpetitproleX, Linkin Prankster)

  So as far I can see there are 5 unique individuals opposing keeping it, 4 for keeping it.

  BJP and RSS were first added in infobox by User:Orientls on 29 April 2023, but removed a few days later by User:Debashish84.

  It was unethically reinserted back through reverting and without seeking consensus by User:CanadianSingh1469, when WP:ONUS is on the one who made the controversial edit of inserting it. Neither Orientls nor CanadianSingh1469 attempted to start a discussion on the issue, only CanadianSingh1469 discussed it and that too only once User:Southasianhistorian8 started it here.

  There was never any consenus for keeping it and it's only remained in the article due to repeatedly reverting those who remove it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and there was no need to bring it here. Recommend closure. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 06:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a mere content dispute when one forces something that doesn't have consenus with long term edit warring. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  There are multiple editors now telling you that this is indeed a content dispute. Continuing to argue the point will very quickly turn into WP:IDHT. You should withdraw this filing and use other more appropriate venues, such as WP:DRN. 11WB 💬 07:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  THEZDRX is himself involved in the dispute had you checked the links to discussion I posted.

  You are not an admin, but a normal user. You repeatedly refuse to listen to me, despite me proving multiple times EarthDude never had consensus on his side and has been forcing his way through reverting lthers.

  Please stop telling others what they can or can't do. If actual admins are unsatisfied, then I'll close it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, I'm not an administrator, but that doesn't automatically discredit what I've said. You're bordering on WP:ADHOM by saying such things, just be aware of that. "You're not an admin, your opinion doesn't count" is not something somebody who believes they're in the right would feel the need to say. 11WB 💬 07:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  You incorrectoy claimed EarthDude was following consensus (even though I already proved he didn't have consensus by his side). You wrongly implied I hit 3RR. This falls under WP:TALKNO.

  You tried to imply I was desperately trying to make a content dispute into a conduct dispute. This violates WP:AGF and WP:ADHOM.

  And based on those wrong assumptions you tell people what they can or cannot do. That's WP:OWN.

  I have never tried to insult you, however this is a waste of time. If an admin decides it should be closed, I will. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Given how consistent Linkin Prankster has been in refusing to hear what other editors have repeatedly said, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is warranted here. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  First of all, they are not admins. If an admin says to shut it down, I will.

  Secondly, I've already proven that you never had consensus in your favour. Something that has been repeatedly ignored. And I keep getting accused myself of edit warring or being disingenuous.

  WP:ONUS is on you to prove there ever was a consenus in your favour in first place. Kindly prove where you or anyone obtained a consensus for keeping BJP or RSS as perpetrators in infobox. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Users with Extended Rights Conference 2026

Hiya admins! Wanted to send a note about the Users with Extended Rights Conference 2026 (aka UwERcon), which will be taking place in Portugal from 11-13 December 2026. Attendance is limited to scholarship recipients (who will have travel+hotel paid), and applications are open until September 4th. Please feel free to pass to UwERs (admin/cu/os/arbs/etc.) who you think may be interested, and lmk if you have questions :) RAdimer-WMF (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Self-imposed WP:TBAN

Is it possible to request a TBAN on myself for a certain duration of time? I am also wondering if I could also have the ability to automatically request a succesful remove of the ban after a set period of time. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The way you self-request and auto-remove a TBAN is by simply not editing the articles you want to be topic-banned from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I'm afraid that won't work. I cannot control which articles I edit sufficiently right now. I think a formal TBAN would be more effective. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If you truly cannot control which articles I edit then you either need a full wikibreak and/or a self-requested block, not a tban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no technical way to do this, unless you want to be partially blocked from specific pages or from namespaces. And it seems rather bizarre; you really can control what articles you edit. Speaking strictly from a procedural perspective, if you got self-topic-banned, your editing in that area could be construed as a desire for the ban to be concluded, and it would be absurd to sanction you for breaking it. After all, if someone gets topic banned, and later the requesting editor thinks it appropriate for the ban to be revoked (and nobody still wants the ban), we'd happily revoke the ban. If you want a partial block (or a full block), I'm happy to do that for you, as long as it's very clear what you want, so I don't accidentally block you more severely than you wish. Nyttend (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Binksternet

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

---

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

This user apparently didn't like the same small edit I made on three pages (Este Haim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Alana Haim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Mordechai Haim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))

23:40, 25 August 2026,

23:40, 25 August 2026,

23:41, 25 August 2026,

so he promptly reverted them

00:23, 26 August 2026

00:23, 26 August 2026

00:24, 26 August 2026

without any more explanation than stating on my talk page that my edits "seemed less than neutral". Still on my talk page, you'll see that when asked to explain himself, he gives a nonsensical answer, saying that my linking to the Yerida page was a negative framing. I told him that he's the one saying it's negative, not me, asked him several question regarding his own neutrality and POV pushing behaviour, told him I was reverting back because of the reasons I gave, and did so

10:41, 26 August 2026

10:41, 26 August 2026

10:42, 26 August 2026

only to have him revert my changes again, and again without explanation

11:25, 26 August 2026

11:25, 26 August 2026

11:26, 26 August 2026.

Instead, and without bothering to answer to anything I said to him, he proceeded to put an edit warring warning on my talk page. I cannot help but see bad faith and some sort of intimidation behind this behavior. Let's remember that I made one change and one revert only on those pages, whereas all he did was reverting my edits twice, refusing to genuinely discuss, and accusing me of what he's been doing from the start ; and it seems to me that this is a recurring pattern with this user, not only his block log shows he's been blocked many times throughout the years for the same reason (edit warring, 3RR and 1RR), his talk page shows he's constantly involved in edit warring and he prides himself on his page that he "spend[s] a lot of time reverting vandals when [he] would rather be expanding articles". My guess is he should take a close look at WP:NOTVANDALISM.

My report is less about the content of my edits than the behavior displayed by Binksternet. I hope appropriate actions will be taken, considering he has, in his own words, "an edit count of more than 500,000" throughout nearly two decades, and had multiple warnings, so it can't be considered an honest mistake. Maybe some editing restriction might help him concentrate on expanding articles instead of constantly undoing other people's work. Kenneddy (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd have reverted those edits as well. They fall afoul of WP:EASTEREGG and no one needs to link the common English word moved to anything. And it does come across as trying to connect a basic emmigration and movement that happens by hundreds of millions of people each year, to some specific policital and religious meaning. People can move away from Israel without it having any larger meaning.Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. These sorts of edits are not desired per EASTEREGG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I would have also reverted those edits per WP:EASTEREGG. This seems like a sour-grapes complaint and I suggest prompt closure. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Refusal to discuss

Is it common practice here to close a discussion within 6 minutes from the start ? What was the rush ?

I couldn't even finish writing my reply which was

As I said, my report doesn't concern the content of my edits. You can see here that I addressed WP:EASTEREGG : "Now, if WP:EASTEREGG is genuinely a concern, I can replace the verbs moved and relocated by something along the lines of "did/made his Yerida", but I find this formulation way more loaded and actually less neutral. Haim emigrated from Israel, emigration from Israel has a name, it even has an article in WP, so I linked to it. It's as simple as that."

What this report concerns is the habit of reverting without explaining, refusal to discuss, etc.

But apparently, refusal to discuss is a behavior also displayed by the admins ? Kenneddy (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Which "admins" are you accusing of "not discussing" here exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The one that close the discussion ? Do you want me to edit my post to "admins" from "admin" ? Kenneddy (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source this was Yerida specifically rather than just more neutrally emigrating? The discussion closed because Binksternet did nothing wrong and you shouldn't have brought this dispute here. However the answer to that question will decide whether the next advice is "take it to article talk" or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out if you were trying to accuse me of something, as you didn't identify the name (or apparently even the number) of Admin you were making accusations towards. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You yourself quoted the Yerida article saying, in the lede, that the term has traditionally carried a negative connotation. And you seemingly acknowledge that fact when you say that actually using the term would be loaded and non-neutral. Why do you assert that linking the term would still be neutral?

As for Binksternet, given that these are all BLPs, the rules for BLPs come into play, which prioritize removal of unsourced contentious material and place the burden of proof squarely on the editor who introduced the material, so I can't see that they did anything wrong. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The article also mentions to whom it carries a negative connotation : the Zionists, basically, but in Yerida#Emigration and Zionist ideology it shows that different interpretations coexists. So, saying it's negative is not neutral to me (as would be saying it's positive).

I'm sorry, but I busted my a** trying to explain my POV, providing all the necessary links, including to what I wrote on my talk page, and you didn't seem to bother reading much of it.

Please explain to me how it's not neutral, because that's not what I get from reading the Yerida article. What's the difference between "Yerida specifically" and "just more neutrally emigrating" ? Kenneddy (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest to answer that consider why we have two articles for Yerida and Emigration. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe because one is specifically emigration from Israel whereas the other is emigration in general ? Are you serious ? Kenneddy (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Next time you have a dispute, please look at the advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For example, you could have asked for a third opinion. Immediately bringing a content dispute to AN or ANI is problematic, as those noticeboards are not for content disputes. Most commonly, they’re for behavioral problems (and other things requiring administrative action), and your current disagreement is about content and proper use of piped links. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I could have asked for a third opinion, and maybe I would have, if Binksternet had been willing to pursue the discussion he started on my talk page. Instead, again, he kept reverting without discussing, and that's the behavior that I'm trying to bring forward here because, as I already said, I found out it's not new.

But you're all leaving that part aside and keep bringing back the subject to the content disagreement. If that was what I cared about, I would have reverted again. But I don't, at least not as much as you all seem to do, seeing how prompt you were to dismiss my concerns about the behavior of reverting without discussing.

Please tell me why you're all treating me like I'm engaging in bad faith, and if you're really not seeing that I'm actually engaging in good faith ? Because right now it really looks like you're the ones engaging in bad faith. I understand the context, and how "sensitive" it can be. Could we consider the fact that maybe you could be biased in the way that you approached my "complaint", as imperfect it was ? Kenneddy (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Lets make one thing clear. Binksternet wasn't reverting without discussing, you were reinserting material that had been removed because your edit clearly didn't have consensus and edit warring to put it back in. The onus is on the person inserting the material or making the change to obtain consensus for it, not the person reverting insertion on a BLP POV. You are the one that needs to discuss and obtain the consensus, not Binksternet. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd note in any case unless I've missed something it's not like you Kenneddy tried to properly discuss this either. Yes you replied to Binksternet after they warned you but that, some comments on Binksternet talk page after starting this discussion and this discussion seem to be the only talk page comments you have ever made. And none of these are the places to resolve content disputes. Last I checked, most of those article talk pages hadn't been touched for a while. So even if we put BLP and onus aside at best all we can say is both of you have failed to discuss. So if we were to block Binksternet for failing to discuss we should be blocking you Kenneddy for failing to discuss as well. Coming to AN to ask to be blocked because you don't discuss your disputes is very silly so the better solution would be to just discuss and not wait for the other party to initiate a discussion. Even if you feel the article talk pages are not the best place to resolve this given it involves several articles, editor talk pages are still not the place for content disputes so you should be considering WP:BLPN or some other noticeboard if need be. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, the policy on biographies of living persons mandate the prompt removal of unsourced, contentious material. In fact, reverting such material is one of the exemptions from the edit-warring policy (see point 7), though Binksternet did not explicitly claim BLP exemption in their edit summaries. Still, though, the onus is on you as the editor who is adding the controversial material to justify it through sources before re-adding it to the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

To answer your question with a question: why do you say that I find this formulation ["did/made his Yerida"] way more loaded and actually less neutral if you're also insisting that the term "Yerida" is just a neutral, more specific equivalent to "emigrated"? You're clearly drawing a distinction beyond specificity, and Binksternet's argument (which I agree with) is that any such distinction applies just as much to hidden link as to an explicit statement. If it's not neutral enough to say in Wikipedia's voice, it's not neutral enough to link to, since a wikilink is inherently in Wikipedia's voice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Just going to note that while I'm not sure who, the style of argument being advanced here is giving me strong sock vibes, becasue I've seen this exact "you're all the ones acting in bad faith" argument being made here before. Also the editing pattern is very much that of a 'returning' editor, too, sitting idle for a long time before suddenly activating, making contentious edits, immediately accusing those reverting them of POV pushing (a term a genuinely new editor would be unlikely to use so readily) coming straight to AN while pointing at Binksternet's block log (which no genuinely new editor would know to even look for, yet alone weaponize so readily). I'm pretty sure this is an editor who has crossed swords with Binks in the past coming back for another go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

A major factor here is the WP:EGG element. (Henceforth I'm ignoring the WP:OVERLINK issue of whether common terms should be linked, and looking only at EGG.) I don't understand why Kenneddy thinks this is a good idea. "Moved to the United States" could reasonably be linked to Immigration to the United States, but not to Yerida or to any other "emigration from X" articles. Similarly, if you find "left the United States" somewhere, you could link Emigration from the United States, but links to articles about immigration to somewhere would be out of place. Conversely, if you were looking at an article about an oleh who became a yorid, you could link "moved to Israel" to Aliyah and "left Israel" to Yerida, but linking those terms to Emigration from the United States and Immigration to the United States, respectively, would be out of place and confusing. Nyttend (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Isn't Yerida covered by the "Arab-Israeli conflict" contentious topic restrictions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No, emigrating from Israel doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the conflict. It's not everything involving Israel. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

From the lede of Yerida; "Reasons commonly cited for emigration include ... a desire to escape from the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That sentence falls under PIA. The remainder of the article does not, as it is not strictly related to the conflict. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this falls under CT (I agree, it doesn't), @Kenneddy is being disruptive in a sensitive topic area. This should be treated as a final warning and if they don't stop being disruptiive they should be subject to a topic ban, potentially from BLPs. Star Mississippi 17:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:PERM/R has large backlog despite being tagged for nearly 4 months

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a massive backlog, with the oldest untouched request being 42 days old without any acknowledgement of its existence. Most requests are at least ten days old, many are nearly 1 month old (26-28 days).

The absolute oldest request is 45 days old, but it has been "responded" to (by a non-admin), and it was 42 days old when it was acknowledged by this non-admin (the 45 day old request is still unresolved, but at least acknowledged). There are currently 19 requests and only 1 of them has received a response from an admin; this request was responded to by an admin who stated that they would not be handling the request and were giving it to another admin.

Of the 19 requests, 6 have received recognition/acknowledgement, and of those 6, 3 are bot responses and 2 are non-admin comments.

The page was marked with a backlog template by User:MusikBot almost 110 days ago on 3 May and has not dropped below 3 requests since then.

Thanks. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 21:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

User talk archive request

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

---

User talk:BrownHairedGirl was fully protected in May 2025 per community consensus to prevent editors from leaving both positive and negative messages. Could an admin please archive the two remaining sections which apparently were not auto-archived? –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

These are two year old threads. What is the issue requiring archival? Star Mississippi 17:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the supposed issue is that someone recently added a new comment to that talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Katzrockso

That was a new thread, so I don't think archiving would have made a difference. The admin reverted upon request. I think best to archive this thread to avoid Streisand effect but no objection should another admin decide to implement @Dlthewave's request Star Mississippi 18:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

As I recall the idea was to remove/archive all of the threads and lock the page so more wouldn't be added. I happened to notice the two remaining ones yesterday and figured they should be cleaned up as well. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The page is already protected. It was only editable because an administrator is the one who edited it. The only way to prevent that is to interface lock a page, which isn't supposed to be applied in this scenario per WP:REDLOCK. Katzrockso (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that the two existing threads be archived as a simple housekeeping task that must've been overlooked after last year's ANI discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 19:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Conditional Unblock Conditions Appeal

Hi. So I was conditionally unblocked and I was told that the restrictions that were placed would be appealable in a year. I haven't added any categories and edited the pages instead. Could the restrictions be lifted since a year has passed and I have followed the conditions? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest withdrawing this and writing a real appeal. Saying "please remove my editing restriction" without providing any information is a quick way to have your appeal rejected. Please read WP:GAB. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, you violated your editing restriction in January 2026 as > 50% of your edits were to namespaces other than mainspace or draftspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The unblock and restrictions are at User talk:DarknessGoth777/Archive 1#Unblock Request 2 and are:

1. You may not make any edits to articles that directly or indirectly add or remove categories to pages (such as by adding or removing templates), broadly construed.
2. At least 50% of your edits per month must be to mainspace and/or draftspace.

They were imposed by Voorts on 26 August 2025. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

RD2 request

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

---

https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLake_Ontario_naming_controversy&diff=1371845718&oldid=1371823611 ~2026-46858-03 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive in the added comments. If there is something specific, please show us. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Admin election October 2026 call for election clerks, scrutineers, and monitors

The next administrator elections are scheduled to be held in October 2026. This is a general call for interested administrators to sign up as election clerks or scrutineers or monitors at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#October 2026 elections.

On a separate note, the remainder of the Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase should be closed before the start of the October 2026 elections. The RfC was opened on 20 July 2026, about a month and a week ago. – robertsky (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Abortion stigma

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

---

The article was rejected for reasons that are impossible to take in good faith.

User talk:Mevsherd#Your submission at Articles for creation: Abortion stigma (August 29)

Draft:Abortion stigma

I would like to point out a few things here:

1. This article is about abortion, and contains specific info about Christianity stigmatizing abortion.

The reviewer who rejected this article has a bio that says: "My real jobs have primarily been in...theology...I now focus heavily on matters related to my faith (Catholic Christianity)"

2. The reasons for the rejection are entirely false:

a) "This draft contains medical, health, or psychological claims. Wikipedia requires a higher standard of sourcing for biomedical content." The guidelines specifically exclude this article's subject: "What is not biomedical information?...Social stigma against a condition or treatment, information about disease awareness campaigns or advocacy groups, public perception, public funding for research or treatment, etc." Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information?

b) The reject suggests it lacks "high-quality secondary sources: such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or medical textbooks from respected publishers;" These are not actually required for a non-biomedical article, but my submission has them.

c) "avoid primary sources: such as direct research papers, clinical trials, or news reports on early studies." I don't actually see where the policy on biomedical articles says this, but my article is not on a biomedical subject, and does cites several secondary sources and meta-studies; it is also not my understanding that "news reports on early studies" are a primary source.

d) "Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia." The article contains almost 40 citations.

e) "This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content." Exactly what is the evidence for that? I wrote the entire thing by hand, from scratch, and the edit history clearly shows that.

Requests:

1) Approve the draft, without forcing it to go through another weeks-long wait for review. Alternatively, explain what I'm missing in the critique above.

2) Get a policy on editors whose bio read " focus heavily on matters related to my faith (Catholic Christianity)." I don't know what the policy could be, since there's no duty to disclose that, but this is really frustrating. It is really frustrating to spend many hours researching and writing an article and finding sources, and have it rejected for fabricated reasons and be accused of being ChatGPT. The article contains over 50 edits by me, and is obviously not a copy/paste from AI, and is obviously on social stigma not biomedicine. Mevsherd (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this really a hill you want to have a fight on? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 14:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You bet. I spent many many hours on that article, and it was rejected for reasons so frivolous they point to an agenda. I spent days on that article. Mevsherd (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Then why are you stepping over your own message by, just like last time, not discussing it with the people you're in dispute with and running to a noticeboard to try and force changes in policy? You're the one who looks unreasonable here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mevsherd: have you discussed this with the declining reviewer, and/or raised the issue at the AfC help desk? Or did you bring this to AN straight away? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the AfC help desk, but:

1) That seems to be a process of revising and resubmitting and waiting in the queue of several hundreds of other article again

2) The rejection did not tell me what to revise, since it main reason was false: it is not a biomedical article, and the policy even specifies "Social stigma against a condition or treatment" as not biomedical.

3) I don't believe the reviewer acted in good faith (except in the sense that he thinks his religious faith is good). Mevsherd (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mevsherd: the AfC help desk is for raising questions related to drafts undergoing AfC review, or regarding the drafting and review process more generally. It would have been the second best place to bring this to initially, after the reviewer's own talk page.

I would suggest that you retract your bad-faith-accusation, unless you have evidence to support it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I already gave evidence to support it. Mevsherd (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Claims are not evidence, nor are oblique references. As you cannot read a reviewer's mind, you should provide specific diffs of their editing which clearly demonstrates this. Otherwise withdraw your accusation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the administrative action you are seeking? We do not intercede in content disputes or override normal community processes regarding article content. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the first I'm seeing any criticism of my decision to decline the draft at this time. Looking at the editor's contributions, the first edit they made after I declined the draft was to open this AN discussion. I tried to make it obvious in my decline that the draft could be an article, but that there were multiple issues I assessed as significant enough to prevent me from comfortably promoting the article. I am extraordinarily disappointed that this editor wants to Get a policy on editors whose bio read " focus heavily on matters related to my faith (Catholic Christianity)." Presumably, they believe I can't impartially review an article related to a topic that I have beliefs about. That's simply untrue (I rather enjoy the challenge that Wikipedia's insistence on NPOV–it gives me an opportunity to reflect on and critique my own beliefs!). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

"there were multiple issues "

Actually, you identified no issues, as I documented above. It is not a biomedical article, it doesn't violate the sourcing rules you mentioned, it would not have violated them even if it had been a biomedical topic, and nobody could honestly think it was written by an LLM.

"Presumably, they believe I can't impartially review an article related to a topic that I have beliefs about. "

It's actually based on the contrived reasons for rejection you gave, but it should also be pointed out that religion is not just "a topic [one] has beliefs about."

I spent days working on it, it is well-documented as notable, and thoroughly sourced. Mevsherd (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You're arguing content issues. This is not the place. Besides, an article with sections delineating impacts on mental health and healthcare quality squarely falls in the category of biomedicine. Not only that, but abortion is generally considered a medical procedure. An article about the effects of that procedure is inherently in the biomedicine topic area. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to accept or reject articles for content reasons. Those are settled by consensus. Acceptance of new articles is strictly notability and sourcing, both met here. So, if I am arguing content then you rejected because of content.

But, pointing out that your reasons for rejection are factually wrong is not content. Censorship is a legitimate concern, and someone who says they "focus heavily on matters related to my faith (Catholic Christianity" and then rejects a well-sourced article contrary to Christian doctrine and critical of Christian conduct--for non-legitimate reasons--is plausibly censoring. Mevsherd (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I will accept your honest answer: Does your faith obligate you to oppose abortion? Mevsherd (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to accept or reject articles for content reasons. We do. If something is not appropriately sourced, then we as AfC reviewers are supposed to decline it. It's the same if something is not appropriate as a stand-alone article, in fact, we have decline templates in our tool sets related to both. someone who says they "focus heavily on matters related to my faith (Catholic Christianity" and then rejects a well-sourced article contrary to Christian doctrine and critical of Christian conduct--for non-legitimate reasons--is plausibly censoring. This isn't a matter of censorship. Pbritti is a long-time trusted editor who declined your draft for legitimate reasons. Him being Catholic is not relevant here. As stated above, the AfC Help Desk is a more appropriate venue for this. Lynch44 15:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

"declined your draft for legitimate reasons."

Name one. Mevsherd (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Read the decline rationales on your draft. As multiple others have already stated, please assume good faith and retract your accusations against Pbritti. Thanks. Lynch44 15:38, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give a single "legitimate reason" or not? Mevsherd (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems like the wrong avenue for the article dispute.

Im not familiar with sourcing, maybe discuss if the sourcing makes sense for article? Does it make sense for this to be a standalone article? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Look, at this point, I'm requesting a BOOMERANG. I rejected the draft because of concerns regarding some of its medical claims being insufficiently sourced (while still others were exceptionally well sourced!). I also observed LLM-type text in this draft and believed that there was enough of an issue to warrant a decline in accordance with WP:AFCSTANDARDS. My decisions are certainly far from dogma and the editor would have been welcome to discuss them with me on the draft's talk page, their talk page, or even my talk page. However, they did not. They have made personal attacks against me and my editing, citing only the fact that I am Catholic. They have expressed unwillingness to engage with the conventional submit→decline→revise→resubmit AfC process. This follows a pattern of POINTy and disruptive editing elsewhere. Peaking at their edit history, they reverted a closure at XRV, apparently attempting to make a point about whether discussion closures are admin actions or not. That discussion stemmed from other POINTy edits at WT:RFA. I think something needs to be done before this editor wastes more time and attacks other editors. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said: "I will accept your honest answer: Does your faith obligate you to oppose abortion?" Say "No" and I will assume you acted in good faith. Mevsherd (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this question, I'm not sure what it's attempting to prove. Sure, I am Catholic and my stances on abortion are also mentioned on my user talk page–for the very reason of ensuring legitimate concerns about possible bias can be discussed candidly. If there were a legitimate case here, we'd see evidence for it. Wikipedia demands editors do their best to check (certain) biases at the door. I try to do that. If you think I've failed, please offer me evidence that goes beyond "he edited something about a topic he has beliefs about". Presumably, you have beliefs about the issue, too. They don't really matter here. The content does. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

If your faith obligates you to oppose abortion, then it would very likely obligate you to oppose this article (an article which specifically criticizes your faith, in fact). Mevsherd (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

No it doesn't and stop commenting on contributors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't obligate me to oppose this article. I'm not opposed to people publishing information. For example, I moved the article National Mobilization for Reproductive Justice to the mainspace after reviewing it as a draft and assisting its creator with some comments. If your objective was to create an article contrary to Christian doctrine and critical of Christian conduct, then that's not really a good approach. That said, I don't see how anything in that draft makes accepting it as an article objectionable to my religion. That said, I support a sanction for their obstinate refusal to stop attacking me. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Um, when did I "attack" you? In any case, I retract the censorship concern, based on your statement above. Mevsherd (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Um, when did I "attack" you? Here (also, canvassing for an AN discussion), here, here, and especially here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Support indef for trolling as normal admin action. Seems clear to me. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh. Thats starting to be WP:DE. If editor doesnt get the message, (they are very WP:NOOB) might be time to bring some kinda temp or perma sanction down.
Edit: the identity attack, presupposing anyone giving Mevsherd advice is a christian zealot who wants to bring the article down, is entirely inappropriate. I'd support some kinda block or ban if they continue this up. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

BOOMERANG delivered on ground of attacks on other editors' religion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is offensive: "Declining submission: med - Submission is about a medical or health claim that lacks sufficient sources and ai - Submission appears to be a large language model output"

Exactly how does it appear to be "a large language model output"? I've asked this three times now.

It has 34 sources, peer-reviewed research, meta-analysis, and reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia's own policy states stigma is not biomedical, Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information? but it looks like this article would meet the requirements even if it were. It meets all the requirements for notability and sourcing, easily.

So, what exactly am I supposed to think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Mevsherd, you don't have to use AfC. Just move it to mainspace and wait to see if it gets brought to AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The only option I see is "Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again." Mevsherd (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page. Just move it to article space and remove the afc templates. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See, this would have been the exact kind of thing to bring up long before going to AN. My understanding of WP:NOTBMI is that stigma itself is not biomedicine. That said, an article that contains material connecting said stigma to mental health and other medical effects does contain BMI. I could be wrong, though! If you had asked me about this elsewhere, you had provided strong evidence NOTBMI precluded that article from consideration under my decline rationale, you had asked me to clarify my AI concerns and countered them, and then resubmitted the draft, you wouldn't be in this situation and many editors wouldn't be in this timesink of a discussion. Heck, we might have already promoted that draft as an article. But that's not the approach you took. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

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

False tags on Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind

• Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While there have been disruptive comments on talk-page abusing me (since revdelled by @Chaotic Enby), I see addition of the tags of advert and POV as entirely unwarranted. LLM-generated comments posted by OP on the talk-page were also collapsed by @1234qwer1234qwer4. The more false thing, the OP tags these tags as from October 2024, which gives a very false presumption to readers. Wikipedia articles can't really please everybody and have every tid-bid of everything. This is an encyclopedia and not every length belongs to each article. I wonder if the OP had actually behaved a better way. This from July 2025 sets context to the problem.

I don't really have energy to put myself into unending discussions, and thus request administrators to evaluate these tags. Happy to take constructive feedback to improve this article. _signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 17:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

While administrators don't have any power over content issues like tags, the behavior is certainly concerning (I will note that the revdelled abusive comments came from a temporary account), and it's good that you brought it to attention nevertheless. For context, the editing dispute goes back to 2024 and did already lead to a full protection back then.

I have notified @Mohit Dokania for you via a talk page notice. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:34, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Nepal floods mess

Can someone please sort out the mess that is at the 2026 Nepal-China floods article and its talk page? I've provisionally move-protected it to stop the most urgent move vandalism, but I'm not sure the titles of the article and talk page are at the pre-RM status quo. At a minimum, there's a missing talk page at the current article title that ought to be restored from a related title. I lack the bandwidth to dive deeper into this. Left guide (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Left guide -- I believe I've just restored everything. Please let me know if you see anything that's been missed. Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Formal complaint – Systematic nationalist bias, demeaning language, and unreliable sourcing throughout the article “قفطان مغربي”

This is the English Wikipedia. Please try ar:ويكيبيديا:إخطار الإداريين/أخرى for assistance from Arabic Wikipedia administrators. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To the administrators of Arabic Wikipedia,

The article “قفطان مغربي”

(https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D9%81%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A)

fails basic standards of neutrality and reliable sourcing. It functions less as an encyclopedia entry and more as a vehicle for Moroccan nationalist claims about cultural ownership. The problems are structural, not limited to one sentence.

1. Lead section – Absolute and contested claims presented as fact

The opening presents the garment as exclusively Moroccan (“يخص المغاربة”), one of the oldest traditional clothes in the world belonging to Moroccans, originating in the 12th century under the Almohads, and a symbol of Moroccan identity. It states the UNESCO inscription of 10 December 2025 as settled fact without noting the public dispute and competing claims. This violates WP:NPOV by treating a contested cultural history as undisputed national property.

2. Historical narrative – Selective, Morocco-centric framing

The entire history section is written as a continuous Moroccan national story:

Origins tied exclusively to the Almohad period and Fez as an industrial center.

Development under Marinids, Wattasids, Saadians, and Alaouites presented as purely Moroccan innovation.

Heavy reliance on Moroccan historians and selective quotations (e.g., Leo Africanus, Ibrahim Harakat, Ahmed ibn Khalid al-Nasiri, Moulay Abdelrahman ibn Zidan).

Almost no acknowledgment of broader Islamic, Ottoman, or Maghrebi contexts, parallel developments in other regions, or scholarly debates about shared heritage.

This is classic undue weight and one-sided sourcing.

3. The section on Algerian refugees – Demeaning and instrumental

The section “القفطان المغربي كهدية للجزائريين اللاجئين إلى المغرب ابان الاحتلال الفرنسي” is particularly unacceptable. It states that most Algerian refugees were “فقراء ودون حرفة” (poor and without a craft/profession) and frames the distribution of caftans as Moroccan hospitality and a tool of integration. This language reduces a group of people fleeing colonial violence to objects of charity in order to reinforce a claim of cultural ownership. It is both historically reductive and demeaning. The section then cites a Moroccan author (Idris Bouhlila) to assert that the caftan already existed in Tetouan since the Saadian period, using the refugees’ arrival as further proof of Moroccan precedence.

This is not neutral historical reporting. It is rhetorical use of refugees to support a nationalist argument.

4. Types, uniqueness claims, and later sections

All variants are labeled and described as inherently “Moroccan caftan,” with repeated assertions of what distinguishes the Moroccan version from others. Mentions of spread to neighboring countries are subordinated and framed as secondary. The article consistently prioritizes Moroccan city-based subtypes and craft traditions while minimizing or ignoring comparable traditions elsewhere in the Maghreb.

5. Sources and overall bias The sourcing is heavily weighted toward Moroccan authors and national historiography. Competing perspectives, Ottoman-period evidence from Algeria, and academic views that treat the caftan as a shared Maghrebi garment with multiple regional developments receive little to no serious weight. The result is an article that reads as cultural advocacy rather than neutral encyclopedia content.

Required actions

I request the following:

Immediate removal or complete rewriting of the demeaning characterization of Algerian refugees.

A full review of all sources used in the article for neutrality, reliability, and undue weight.

Rewriting of absolute origin and exclusivity claims so they reflect the contested nature of the history instead of presenting one national narrative as fact.

Addition of balanced context regarding broader Maghrebi, Ottoman, and scholarly perspectives.

Enforcement of WP:NPOV so the article ceases to function as a platform for nationalist cultural claims.

Wikipedia is widely regarded as a neutral source of information. Allowing an article to systematically promote one country’s exclusive ownership narrative, while using demeaning language about refugees from a neighboring country, damages that reputation. This requires administrative intervention and substantive revision, not minor cosmetic edits.

The current version of the article is unacceptable and must be corrected. Yacine AlgérienH (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. You will need to tell your grievance there using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Please reinstate pronouns and lock page for Royce White

Absent any source, multiple well sourced edits based on White’s own statements have been reverted.

Please reinstate she/her pronouns and lock ~2026-46772-62 (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Could we please get a semi-protection on the article and a ban for this user? They've been reverted multiple times by different users, have been told multiple times on the talk page that they do not have consensus and are just being disruptive at this point.

Revert 1:

Revert 2:

Revert 3:

There has also been, at this point, half a dozen editors that have agreed that identifying Royce as trans or changing his genders is inappropriate on the talk page. This is just disruptive trolling at this point. GhostOfMuir (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)