Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{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}} ~~~~ 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	46	10	56
TfD	0	1	8	4	13
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	5	1	6
RfD	0	0	15	33	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 19 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 74 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 9 requests for RD1 redaction
• 48 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 35 requested closures
• 51 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 36 Copyright problems

Latin American politics TBAN appeal

Kind regards. I'm starting this thread in order to appeal my current TBAN on Latin American politics decided in this ANI discussion. An ArbCom case was opened shortly after the closure to address the remainer of the dispute. My hope is that over a year after the closure and editing about other topics helps to earn the community's trust back.

There are three main reasons why I would like to appeal the topic ban: it is too broad and has unintended consequences, the measures taken by the Arbitration Committee have been effective in addressing the issue, and new information about the dispute was disclosed after the ANI discussion was closed (specifically WMrapids' sockpuppetry). I feel that a Catch-22 happened because of this: the ANI closing admin commented that the ArbCom could decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban,[1] but at the same time the ArbCom commented that extraordinary circumstances were needed to override a community decision.[2]

Regardless of the circumstances, the main issue that opened the ANI discussion was my dispute and removal of information. I could have definitely have handled the dispute better, and in turn I can learn how to improve. I pledge to provide detailed explanations in the talk page if I argue that content is not backed by the sources, as well as continue using edit summaries and maintenance tags with this purpose.

The current TBAN not only covers politics, but loosely related topics as well, including history, society and crime, and likewise not only biographies about politicians are affected, but also journalists, activists, historians, political scientists, and so on. The topic ban also affects maintenance work that I would normally do, including but not limited to categories and navigational infoboxes, or small fixes like spelling or links.

If the ban is repealed, my main goal would be translating articles from Spanish to English, including for Women in Red events, as well as continuing with maintenance, such as populating categories, improving nav boxes and fixing typos.

I understand if the topic ban is decided to be kept. The only thing that I ask is for an opportunity to discuss the situation and to make an appeal. Courtesy ping to @Simonm223:, who asked to be notified. Best wishes and many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to provide a bit more context, the topic ban was imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1152#NoonIcarus and "Failed verification" in April 2024 and, ironically, User:WMrapids, the editor who instigated this review of NoonIcarus, was blocked a month later at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies so they do not require notification of this topic ban appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I regularly came across NoonIcarus on South American election articles and they were one of the most persistent POV-pushers I saw on any set of election articles. The topic ban was well overdue and really should have been implemented years earlier. I am not convinced that this behaviour would not return, and I don't see their absence from the topic sphere as a great loss. Number 57 22:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. If you encounter sources in the future that meet our normal reliability standards but that you have concerns about from an ideological perspective how would you handle this situation? Simonm223 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment @Simonm223: Thank you for your question. Sources that meet reliability standards, as established in WP:RS/P or newspapers of record, should not be removed. Besides reliability, the remaining important aspect is due weight, and reliable sources reflect a mainstream point of view, so that usually isn't a problem.

An ideological perspective can be addressed with attribution and neutral wording, where MOS:WTW is a good guideline. If there's a point of view that is not reflected, I would seek to provide content backed by an equally reliable source, but only provided it is also a mainstream point of view. Last but not least, discussing these differences with the editors always helps. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If there's a point of view that is not reflected, I would seek to provide content backed by an equally reliable source, but only provided it is also a mainstream point of view.

So you would not include the minority views as required by due weight?

Besides reliability, the remaining important aspect is due weight, and reliable sources reflect a mainstream point of view, so that usually isn't a problem.

I disagree that reliable sources agree on mainstream views. If they do not share the majority opinion, you would exclude and delete any minority opinion? I find the response above concerning. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (not an admin.)

I have never said or implied that minority views should be excluded. WP:DUE, which I cited, clearly states that If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Neither do reliable sources have to "agree on mainstream views"; that's what the neutrality principle relies on: the inclusion of all the mainstream POV, even when they can be opposite to each other, because the end purpose is contrast.

Views that should be excluded are WP:FRINGE points of view because, like the policy states: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Weak support - That TBAN should have been partially lifted. Stopping Noon from editing unrelated areas would be cumbersome. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence. If it helps, I should add that there's still an interaction ban between WMrapids and I placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies, meaning that I currently can't edit in articles that they edited or created subject to the dispute even if the TBAN is lifted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a 1RR restriction I find NoonIcarus' response satisfactory but the proof is in the pudding. Lifting the topic ban with a revert restriction would allow them to do their planned work with some security against a return to old patterns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging this to reset the archive clock in hopes of further discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Since the Topic Ban (of April 4, 2024) and iBan with WMrapids, NoonIcarus has had similar problems on other projects leading to a block on Commons and further iBan with WMRapids on December 16, 2024. It is worth reading the comments of the closing admin. that begin:

After reviewing the situation, I have decided to indefinitely block NoonIcarus and impose a two-way interaction ban between WMrapids and NoonIcarus. Despite prior sanctions (blocks, bans) on other projects, NoonIcarus has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including targeting WMrapids in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as cross-wiki hounding. This aligns with concerns raised during the ArbCom case and subsequent sanctions on other projects. Similar patterns of antagonistic behavior from NoonIcarus across Wikimedia projects have been pointed out, too. Their interactions here suggest an inability or unwillingness to adapt to collaborative norms.

Even after this, the behavior continued, leading to a voluntary iBan between the two instituted Jan 15, 2025.

There were also a few cases where he skirted his topic ban, resulting in warnings from other users. June 7, 2024,June 21, 2024 Despite these warnings, on July 22, 2024, he made 4 edits regarding Venezuelan refugees. He also welcomed three users whose only edits were Venezuela political:

(1) August 6, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2605:B100:121:A764:3966:79F9:A262:F0D (talk), whose only contribution is about Venezuelan politics--specifically an edit to the talk page of Nicolás Maduro.

(2) August 6, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2605:B100:13D:5CF9:3C62:246E:4611:77AF (talk), whose only two contributions are about Venezuelan politics--specifically edits to Nicolás Maduro’s talk page disputing the election results.

(3) August 7, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2600:8804:1397:8100:A5AB:2650:3673:36C1, whose only two contributions are about Venezuelan politics: 2024 Venezuelan protests, 2024 Venezuelan presidential election.

Even this edit from today appears to violate the topic ban.

I think NoonIcarus needs more time without drama before he should be allowed to come back and edit on Latin American politics, and because of the continued drama against WMRapids, the iBan should stay intact.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (Not an admin.)

See also two more recent diffs on es.Wiki --David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have had virtually no other disputes as big as this one with any other editor than for over a year, either here or any other projects, and the only exception has been WMrapids, who incidentally was indefinitely blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia after these interactions ([2]). What I can do in the meantime is learn from my mistake and improve my interactions in the future with other editors: after these interactions afterwards, I requested a voluntary interaction ban in Wikidata weeks before it was implemented: [3] If this is still a concern, this appeal is unrelated to the interaction ban, which has to be appealed to the ArbCom, and only deals with the topic ban.

I have gone out of my way and beyond to respect the current topic ban in every one of my edits. This means avoiding changes remotely related to the politics or as small as fixing typos, adding diacritical accents, or categorizing. I have self reverted the changes the few times that I've realized could be a violation thereof shortly after ([4]), regardless of how small. I have asked to the closing admin when I have been in doubt about the scope: the last time, I asked if expanding an article about a 19th century boat could be considered a violation of the ban:[5], and they agreed that it could:[6]; you can't be too careful. After creating Category:Members of the Venezuelan Academy of Medicine, I didn't populate it because I realized that all of its entries in the English Wikipedia were either Ministries of Health or related to politics at some point, and as such I wasn't able to save it from deletion. Twice have I have been asked in my talk page for help in related topics (1, 2), and twice have I declined.

I have stricken my comment in the Ryan Vasquez's deletion discussion ([7]) once I realized about this relation that you mention, hoping to comply with the topic ban as best as possible, but this should be a perfect example of how broad and how reaching it is: Ryan Vasquez is a musician with no relations with politics whatsoever other than being "the first Venezuelan on the Municipal Council for Cultural Policies in Humaitá, Amazonas". While the ban is in place, this is exactly the kind of edits that I regularly avoid and will continue to seek avoiding. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Tornheim's comments. Additionally, I find NoonIcarus trying to diminish what is a community sanction on their behaviour on the basis of another editor being blocked for sockpuppetry to be troubling. Also, NoonIcarus has made approximately 3727 edits in the 15 months since they were TBAN'd, when prior to the ban they were making over 1,000 edits a month. I'd want to see a larger sample, to give me confidence that the disruption wouldn't resume if the TBAN was lifted. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record: I'm not citing WMrapids sockpuppetry as a reason for the appeal due to its sake alone, but rather its consequences. They were an editor with whom I had previously had editorial differences before the use of the account, the community did not know about this fact or the previous background, and the ANI discussion afterwards was largely lopsided. This was discussed more thoroughly at User talk:WMrapids#Appeal request. In no way I mean to downplay my own shortcomings with all of this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Why mention them at all? Yes they started the discussion which lead to your TBAN, but it was community consensus which imposed it. Their sockpuppetry has zero bearing on what the community decided. TarnishedPath^talk 13:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor with previous warnings and sanctions is not the same as a seemingly new editor unknown to the community, without knowing the context. It influences the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

In that discussion it was community consensus that you be sanctioned for your conduct. Unless you are suggesting that the ANI discussion was affected by their socking, then the conduct of the other editor has no bearing on the sanction placed on you by community consensus as consequence of your conduct. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Given that most of the opposition to this appeal is either based on diffs that are almost a year old (surely you can do better than bringing up ancient grudges), based on interactions with WNrapids (the interaction ban preventing such will remain in force) or both, I must support this appeal because I find neither argument convincing. And I consider TarnishedPath's suggestion that 3000 edits isn't enough to evaluate absurd; of course if you topic ban someone from one of their areas of interest they will edit less. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: I do see the validity of your concern with the age of most of the diffs. The main issues I was focusing on were the repetition of the same behavior despite sanctions in multiple projects and the continued skirting of the topic ban (even a few days ago)--despite repeated warnings on this project. I have been looking at his es.Wiki edits--where he is far more active. I plan to share (either here or as an addendum to my original post) more recent diffs exhibiting similar behavior to that which led to the topic ban.

I agree with Number 57's comment. And although I thought Simonm223's question was a good one, unlike Simonm223, I have concerns about the response. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As I review NoonIcarus's recent behavior on es.Wiki after the dispute was resolved with WMrapids in Jan 15, 2025, I came across these two very recent diffs that show just the kind of problematic edits that got him topic banned here:

• July 21, 2025 #1 claims that the U.S. State Department is a reliable source needing no attribution, and removes two other attributions from L.A. Times reporter writing about Venezuelan politics in an opinion section, and removes the attribution to an opinion by a Washington Post reporter.
• July 21, 2025 #2 In this edit, NoonIcarus not only removes the attribution to an opinion by a Washington Post reporter, he has misrepresented what was written in the second source: NoonIcarus makes it sound like the charges the Attorney General filed against Lopez for attacking the airport agents were in retaliation for Lopez's filing a complaint against the agents first. There is nothing in either article cited to suggest the Lopez filed a complaint first.

Compare his approach to these opinion pieces to his past comments about the reliability of an opinion/analysis.

I have some others that I might show, but I felt these two are good examples.

I also observe that NoonIcarus is editing at a rate of >1,500 edits per month in July 2025 (about 3x the rate of en.wiki for July 2025), and I believe a substantial portion on es.Wiki are Venezuelan politics. In 2023 on es.Wiki he was only making 500 edits/month and 1,000 edits/month on en.Wiki. So if he comes back, I believe we can expect to see a lot of these kinds of biased edits compromising our Venezuelan political articles moving from es.Wiki to en.Wiki.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC) [corrected 08:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)]

Is this a complaint about content or about behavior? This message gives the impression that your main concern is only that I edit about Venezuela, and not about disruption per se. If you look at the edits, the content is already covered by other non-opinion sources (Globovisión) or still leaves attribution (saying simply "Chávez's critics say (...)" instead of "According to the Los Angeles Times, Chávez's critics say (...)" and keeping LA's attribution for the opinion "the murder of his bodyguard was intended to send a message"). The Washington Post opinion piece doesn't mention anything about the airport incident, and the information about the complaint is clearly stated in the second source, unlike what Tornheim claims and was not mentioned in the article before:

Original version: López acudió a la Fiscalía a denunciar la agresión que dijo sufrir en el aeropuerto por funcionarios de la Disip, precisó que llevaba toda la documentación para sustentar su denuncia y admitió que 'efectivamente le había tomado fotos al funcionario que lo retuvo'.
Translation López went to the Public Prosecutor's Office to report the assault he said he suffered at the airport by DISIP officials. He stated that he had all the documentation to support his complaint and admitted that he had "indeed taken photos of the official who detained him."

While we're talking about it, like Tornheim mentions, two edits are a very poor representation of my activity in es.wiki. I have started 507 articles there since 2 April 2024 (and counting). There are a lot of them that are translations for the LGBT Wikiproject monthly events, one of which talks about human rights abuses during the bipartisanship period in Venezuela, the Law of Vagrants and Crooks. It cannot be translated into English due to the topic ban. The articles also include pages about the Venezuelan War of Independence: the Cariaco Congress, Francisco de Miranda's expedition, the Kingston attack, the San Mateo Capitulation and the Trial of Manuel Piar. Again, all related to politics one way or another.

Last but not least, I should also point out to the translations of the J.G.G. v. Trump and W.M.M. v. Trump articles and that I started National TPS Alliance v. Noem et al. even before the en.wiki, all related to the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador, where I have edited in Spanish but is also inside the scope of the TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

NoonIcarus's response here is a good example of why allowing the topic ban to be lifted will be an issue. When confronted by problems of his edits, rather than admit to the problems, correct them, and not repeat them, he doubles-down and misrepresents what he has done and misrepresents the valid complaint by the editor. Obfuscation to avoid accountability:

(1) He accuses me of saying Lopez never filed any complaint. But I did not say that. I was well aware that the second source mentioned the complaint by Lopez. The problem that I clearly stated is that NoonIcarus changed the order of events of the second article. That article focuses first and mostly on the Attorney General's investigation of Lopez for allegedly attacking an airport guard (title + 4 paragraphs) and then mentions more briefly that Lopez claimed that the guards attacked him first (1 paragraph).

That article makes it sound like Lopez responded to the allegations with his own allegations. A "he said; she said." Nowhere does the second article say that Lopez first filed the complaint against the guards and then the Attorney General "responded" by charging Lopez--implying retaliation. NoonIcarus changed the wiki-text to say something that was not in the cited sources, and that's a problem.

(2) Adds confusion here by saying “The Washington Post opinion piece doesn't mention anything about the airport incident”, when it is used as the first reference for that incident. It says: “Last week, when he returned to Caracas from Washington, López was detained and assaulted by a squad from the state intelligence service.”

(3) As for the attributions for opinions, there is no question he removed them. Just look closely at the diff. If you don't speak Spanish, run the diffs through Google translate. NoonIcarus must by now know that opinions should be attributed per WP:NEWSOPED. He deleted the attributions that were there, but makes it sound like he did not. Also disruptive.

This combination of denying the valid complaints, distracting and confusing readers, and boring them with TL;DR, he is disruptive and wastes editors' time.--David Tornheim (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest David that part of my preference for support (with a 1RR restriction) is because indefinite isn't supposed to mean forever. I will admit that I share some of your concerns, if I didn't I wouldn't have suggested the 1RR restriction as a condition, but I do think NoonIcarus has sat the topic out long enough to give them a trial return. Should they proceed to go back to non-neutral editing practices the 1RR restriction should ameliorate any immediate effect and it would be easy to revisit the topic ban and say "maybe we were premature." I have not considered es.wp because Spanish is my fourth language, I can read it reasonably but not with considerable nuance and I rarely speak it, and don't participate in the es.wp project and, as such, I don't feel my knowledge of es.wp is sufficient to determine if their edits there are appropriate there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that (a) their POV pushing went on for years before the topic ban and (b) a previous sanction prior to the topic ban did not address it. I do not see any potential positives from letting them back into the politics topic sphere and lots of potential issues as it will likely be hard to remove them again when the POV inevitably returns. Number 57 20:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh I know. I was strongly supportive of the topic ban at the time it was applied. But this is a case where I'm willing to extend some (limited) WP:ROPE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a 1RR restriction: Diffs/conduct from over a year ago seem like a poor argument for keeping a TBAN in place, especially if its cost is losing lots of possible work on Venezuelan political history. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support with a 1RR restriction per Allan Nonymous. I'm all for second chances, with a long leash. BD2412 T 00:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note, this discussion appears to have stalled at what I would gauge as an absence of consensus to lift the existing TBAN. Absent further participation, I would suggest this be closed as failed and the applicant be advised to try again in six months. BD2412 T 18:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Uğur_Şahin#RfC_about_Turkish_ethnicity_in_first_sentence

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

---

Uğur Şahin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Bogazicili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [8]

Reasoning: The current first sentence in the lead is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Sources describe Uğur Şahin as Turkish or Turkish German or in a variety of ways (see the sources in the RfC and in Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Long-term_edit_war_in_the_article). Ignoring these sources, and just saying Uğur Şahin is a German oncologist ... is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. Personal interpretations of MOS:CONTEXTBIO cannot be used to circumvent or supersede WP:NPOV.

I actually do not necessarily contest the no consensus closure. But the last paragraph in RfC closure should be struck down or modified. There was never an RfC about using "German" in the first sentence. The relevant policy here is WP:ONUS, not WP:BRD. In short, we should be able to remove German in the first sentence until there is an RfC about it.

I discussed above with Fieari back in March. However, the editor has not edited since then. That's why the RfC challenge is delayed. Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Fieari)

Non-participants (Uğur Şahin)

Endorse I fail to see the merit/purpose of this challenge given the user does not challenge the close but rather some wording that just suggests what editors should do for content that was not part of the RFC. Removing the wording wouldn't change anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Uğur Şahin)

Discussion (Uğur Şahin)

• I'm confused why this is here. First, there's little point in challenging a four-month-old discussion; just start a new one if issues haven't been resolved. Second, your apparent grievance is with the fact that "German" remains in the first sentence, but the paragraph you complain about specifically says that editors can do whatever they want about that, so AFAICT nothing is stopping you from changing that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't want to make a new RfC unnecessarily.

  I am asking opinions for the last paragraph in RfC closure, about WP:BRD, specifically this part:

  One compromise option was briefly brought up-- "German" could be removed from the lead as well, leaving the ethnicity question until later when it can be discussed in more nuance. This RfC does not establish consensus either for or against this option, meaning usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply.

  I think this is incorrect. WP:ONUS should apply here, and we should be able to remove "German" in the first sentence, until consensus is established for adding "German" (and only "German"). I'm interpreting "usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply" as "German" should not be removed.

  I also think my "apparent grievance" is very valid. If you look at BioNTech's website, Uğur Şahin's nationality is listed as "Turkish" [9] (web archive pdf link for Uğur Şahin's resume). This in addition to multiple reliable sources about Uğur Şahin's Turkish nationality.

  Therefore, saying Uğur Şahin is a German oncologist, immunologist, entrepreneur, and billionaire businessman. in wikivoice is a giant violation of NPOV.

  Based on your response, can you confirm that WP:ONUS should apply here and "German" in the first sentence can be removed? Bogazicili (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I hate to assume a definitive stance on WP:ONUS because it contradicts WP:NOCON, also a policy. In any case, it doesn't look like anyone ever attempted to remove "German" from the first sentence. Why don't we start there? If nobody reverts it, none of this discussion will be necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've started there since I think if there's a dispute, just leaving nationality out is always at least worth considering. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  As I suspected, "German" was quickly added back in [10].

  If you look at article history, there seems to be something like an edit war going on, involving multiple editors and IPs, where "German" is kept in and "Turkish" is kept out. This has been literally going on for years.

  I think contradiction of WP:ONUS with WP:NOCON needs to be discussed in WP:VP. Current wording of WP:NOCON also seems susceptible to WP:GAME, in cases where potentially an "engineered stable version" is maintained. Bogazicili (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another consideration here is Tserton's RfC title and statement violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RfC title was RfC about Turkish ethnicity in first sentence. The RfC statement was Should the first sentence of this article be changed to include Uğur Şahin's Turkish ethnicity/background, rather than simply calling him "German"?

As previously discussed in the talk page, Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Citizenship_in_the_lead, the issue was not only about ethnic background, but also about Uğur Şahin's current nationality/citizenship Bogazicili (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bogazicili, I see your point about the RfC wording, but I think it's a minor detail that would have made little to no difference to the outcome. What to call multinational famous people is a perennial debate on Wikipedia that most people already have opinions on, and those opinions don't depend on whether it's the subject's citizenship or ethnicity that's being discussed. Tserton (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

RfC closure review request at :Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa#RfC about using 'Interim President' or just 'President'

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

---

Ahmed al-Sharaa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Hauskasic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toadspike&oldid=1303069613

Reasoning: There was general agreement on adding "interim" to his political post. Most neutral sources support this, though some do not. While the RfC may have been submitted unclearly, the arguments presented are still valid. The opposing arguments were primarily supported by official sources from the current Syrian government. Consensus is not a simple vote or unanimity—it is the general agreement reached after considering all viewpoints, especially those grounded in Wikipedia’s core policies and guidelines. Hauskasic (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Toadspike)

No evidence was presented that most sources call Ahmed al-Sharaa the "interim President of Syria", instead of just "President of Syria". Arguments in favor of interim were largely based on personal preference and editor's interpretations of the political situation in Syria, which is original research. Some editors asserted that "multiple" or "many" sources support use of "interim", but that was not in dispute: The RfC statement was clear that there are many sources on both sides. On the other hand, editors opposing the use of interim presented evidence that the government and al-Sharaa himself do not use the term "interim"; this went largely unrefuted. Since the slim majority in favor of "interim" did not presented any evidence in favor of their argument, especially not, as the appellant asserts, "viewpoints grounded in Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines", I could not close the RfC with consensus for a change to the article. It is curious that the appellant indirectly cites Polling is not a substitute for discussion; the only basis upon which I could have closed this discussion their way is by counting votes.

I also have several procedural qualms with the RfC: I noted in my close that it is possible some editors did not know what they were !voting for; It is certain that at least one editor misunderstood the argument of another editor, likely due to the inconsistent terms editors used to express themselves. Redrose64 also noted that the RfC listing was broken from 1 July onwards, which is two days after the RfC was opened. All but one comment came before the listing broke; I am unsure if these two facts are connected. Finally, in hindsight, the RfC statement ("Most sources refer to him as 'Interim', while others use 'President'") violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL by making an assertion (that most sources prefer one version) without evidence. I initially counted Gommeh on the side of those supporting the use of "interim", but looking at this again, I should not have done so, as Gommeh's comment was conditioned upon the RfC statement being accurate. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

• Endorse. While I hadn't gotten around to carefully combing the discussion, I had been glancing at it with an eye to closing it, and my first impression was "no consensus" too. I will note that, as far as I can tell, no relevant policy arguments were made at any point in the discussion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

Discussion (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

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

Willbb234 unblock request

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I am copying over an unblock request from Willbb234 for the community's consideration. Please see their last request.

I return to AN to ask that the community places its trust in me and allows me to edit again. I have learnt in my time away through a reflection on how I edit here and particularly on how I communicate with others. Please allow me to summarise my thoughts.

It has been 18 months since I was blocked, and while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block (although I have now read through and reminded myself), I can recall the distress it caused others. Personal attacks are completely inappropriate and disrupt the process of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. They can also hurt or degrade others and personal attacks, especially of the sexual kind and even if intended as a joke, can make others very uncomfortable and deter them from continuing to edit Wikipedia. For these reasons, I intend to completely change how I interact with others, ensuring not to be at all personal when disagreement arises during discussions on content or policy.

I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack (such as abusive language or attacks on someone's nature or affiliations), why they are disruptive (as mentioned above), and the consequences of my actions (this indefinite block has demonstrated thus). I hope that I can be trusted to return to collaborative editing and would greatly appreciate this opportunity. I also understand that another personal attack would result in an indefinite ban that would certainly not be overturned. In other words, I ask you for a final chance. Willbb234 21:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not going to vote yet, but I do have thoughts. I am generally supportive of second chances, especially when the block is for what I might call egregious yet banal incivility. This is the kind of thing I think most people can learn to not do. However, I am concerned by the fact that he needed to post three unblock requests just now to realize he needed to address it; that's in addition to his previous attempts at an unban. It makes me wonder if he truly does understand, or is just trying to say what it takes to get unbanned. I'd like to hear others' thoughts before I commit to a side. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still weighing my position. @Willbb234: I would like to hear an answer to Kingsif's question before I decide. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm a big believer in ROPE but I'm concerned at an unblock request where the requester can't recall why they were blocked. If it was such a forgettable incident, then it would be easy for circumstances to repeat themselves. I think this "amnesia" is a way of not taking responsibility for whatever actions were taken or words said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I did in 2024, and more generally I'm against indeffing established users wor one-off incidents so don't think an indef was justified in the first place (which is a fringe minority position, and I know nearly no other admin will agree with me here). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. They got a history of edit warring (such as 1 2) in contentious topic areas. Also, Liz's point of forgetting when or why they were blocked doesn't help is spot on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  That was edit warring in spite of a 1RR restriction as a previous unblock condition, so some ROPE has already been afforded. Looking at their history of raising the temperature in GENSEX and AMPOL I can't support an unblock, that is the last thing those areas need right now. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Question for Willbb234 during the initial block you stated as a defense that the rev-delled personal attack which multiple admins characterized as sexual harassment was "just joking." Could you please address that line of argument and how you might act differently in the future? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies for not getting to your question, I wanted to take a moment to think about my response. I branded my comment as a joke, but later realised that this was incorrect and inappropriate and so not a valid line of argument. This was also rightly pointed out by other users. In the future and if I am unblocked, I understand that I am on a last chance situation, and so I would be very careful about how communicate with others, and ensure that comments are appropriate. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock for the sole reason they managed to forget that they sexually harassed someone to the point it was pretty much an instant block and had to be revdeled. Forgetting that makes me have concerns about WP:CIR considering that's a major thing.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I can totally believe someone forgetting one thing they did several years ago, possibly in a moment of anger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

when you have made more then one appeal. that's where things get murky for me. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Willbb234 asked me to copy over the following comment:

For the record I do remember why I was blocked despite what other users are suggesting. The reason I say I don't recall the exact circumstances is in response to the second unblock request decline where Arcticocean says "I would expect to see, at minimum, explanation of the reasons you previously made personal attacks." I simply find it difficult to do this when I can't accurately recall all of the details of the situation. I apologise for the confusion. I hope you won't blame me - I have a life that I have continued to live in the meantime and these details left my mind over time. Willbb234 23:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Support a final chance unblock. This seems like an honest request. I agree with @Pppery that it's not odd for someone to forget the exact circumstances of an event that occurred years ago, particularly when that event has been revdel'd. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree. If I did an action that caused me to be indefinitely blocked, I think it would be seered into my memory and I'd be thinking about it for a long time afterwards (What did I do? What should I have said? What could have been done differently? etc. etc.) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not everyone centers their life on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: - speaking from experience, being indefinitely blocked was so unpleasant that it is still painful to revisit the memories or circumstances. I was quickly unblocked, and for me after that it’s the opposite of what you described. starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support lets give them some rope--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support granting Will an unblock, with the understanding that this is a final chance. Their apology seems sincere and they have solved the issues from their previous appeals with this one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for the momentVery weak support I don't find Willbb234's response to be satisfactory. We cannot see whatever it was that Willbb234 said that led to their initial block because it was apparently bad enough to get revision-deleted but we can see they tried to defend it as "just a joke." This is a defense that I find especially inappropriate to the point of being contrary to the intent of the statement as a defense as it's grounded in a bad-faith renunciation of one's own words without actually walking anything back. As Willbb234's only response after I raised this question was to plead they don't remember specifics I can't say with confidence that they wouldn't respond the same next time. I'm also concerned about the edit warring that REAL_MOUSE_IRL brought up in their oppose !vote. If the editor responds in a satisfactory way to the "just joking" part of their initial defense I might possibly consider WP:ROPE but, in that case, I'd propose topic bans from AMPOLI, GENSEX and BLP should be applied as part of a trial return. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  ETA: I saw the "enlightening followup" that @REAL MOUSE IRL identified below and this strengthens my opposition. If they cannot remember saying that to another editor and if they have nothing to say about it being "just joking" then I think we don't have confidence we won't see another heated tirade. Wikipedia is not Reddit or Twitter. People should not be saying such things to other editors, full stop, and to avoid any contrition under the veil of forgetting strikes me as insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  So I have changed my !vote to very weak support on the basis of the reply to my "just joking" question. I will admit that this line of defense really bothers me so seeing a renunciation of it was very critical to my decision. I find myself quite divided between the points raised by REAL MOUSE IRL and by Ivanvector - both of whom have made very good points in this discussion. I think, on the balance, I am applying a similar standard here to what I have in other appeal discussions currently active on this page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. With that being said, just as in the case above where I supported with a 1RR restriction as a form of assurance against a return to old patterns, I think assurance against a return to this sort of inflammatory behavior should also be supplied. Having thought about this for some time I think the best form for that would be to allow a return to editing but with a topic ban on BLPs. The last dispute happened because they lost their cool in a BLP discussion and so having them work on areas which might not be so heated to start would be a good way for the editor to show that they won't blow their stack and say... regrettable and deeply inappropriate things... again. I will say that, while their own comportment has no bearing on this discussion, learning that "fruitloop" was a direct reference to another editor's username rather than an epithet was significant on my reasoning here. But REAL MOUSE IRL is also correct that Wikipedia should not tolerate sexualized comments, especially when used as a personal attack in the course of an edit dispute. I would suggest that a return to such behaviour should be met with an immediate return to an indefinite block should they be unblocked as a result of this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - if you don't remember what you actually said that got you blocked, you need to go look it up before you start writing a unblock request. I wouldn't support any unblock request that didn't address what was actually said, why it was a problem (including the response to being called out for it), and how we know it won't happen again. This request is worse than last year's request IMO. You say you've learned from reflection, but that's obviously not true if you don't remember what you said that got you blocked and you didn't bother to go find out before asking to be unblocked. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Except they can't find out because the edits in question were revdelled. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This enlightening followup was brought up in the last AN thread. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They could have asked somebody to remind them what they said, before they made an unblock request. That would have helped with the alleged reflection. Or do what I did and spend five minutes clicking and reading to at least figure out the gist (the follow-up comment linked above is a big hint). Levivich (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

In my original statement I say that I had read through the incident and reminded myself. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• To add some context to the remark that REAL_MOUSE_IRL dug up: Willbb234 was in a dispute with an editor Fruitloop11 at the time; the "fruitloop" comment was not the part of their comments they were blocked for. At least I assume not, but the blocking admin was run off the project by a mob a few weeks ago and I'm not going to try to bother them about it. Here is the interaction that preceded the revdeleted comment - Fruitloop11 was trying to add an unsourced derogatory description to the first sentence of a BLP and Willbb234 was (correctly) reverting them. Since that incident Fruitloop11 has earned a contentious topics alert (from me) for downplaying the significance of Elon Musk's Nazi salute and comparing the Gulf of Mexico naming dispute to Elliot Page's gender transition in a way that several people found upsetting, and more recently they've been removing descriptions of the Palestinian genocide as "anti-semitism". This seems to be a case where the wrong editor was blocked because of having made the first escalation, although trying to defend it as "just a joke" really dug the hole for them (I left them some reading material about that).

I support unblocking, as I did with the previous request. I agree with the sentiment that we don't gain anything from driving productive editors off the project forever in response to one schoolyard-bullying-level snide remark, sexual in nature though it was. The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption, and I believe this block has served that purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't think sexualized insults should ever be used on Wikipedia, regardless of how bad the insulted user's edits are. Nobody is opposing to keep them off the project forever for one remark, there is a pattern of behaviour that IMO hasn't been properly addressed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support I don't know what the comment was but Ivanvector suggests it is not of the 'inexcusable forever' type, and I do think they have probably learned the perils of personalization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  In my opinion it was quite mild, on the spectrum of sexual harassment we see here. I probably would have redacted it but not revdeleted, but I also don't think it was a misuse of revdel. They were originally blocked 2 weeks for the comment, which was likely longer than a first-time block for that offense owing to their block log. It was when they defended the comment as a joke and repeated it in a retort to a different administrator that they were indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, at the moment I'm just confused by I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack. What has that got to do with anything when the reason they were blocked was way, way past the basic definition of NPA and they know that? I'm just a bit nonplussed. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't interpret [...] while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block [...] as "I don't know why I was blocked," but rather that it was so long ago that they don't even remember the context of (circumstances surrounding) why they were angry. This unblock request appears candid and sincere, and I do not think an ongoing block is necessary to prevent them from doing this again. --tony 18:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Seems to be an isolated incident (I see some claims of a "pattern of behavior" but I don't see the evidence for it, if significant additional evidence is presented I'd likely change my opinion), the editor understands the problem and has apologized. If anything like this reoccurs they can be blocked again. Rusalkii (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Question for Willbb234 A question I had during last year's community unblock request has not had a response, so I'll ask the same thing. Willbb234's various blocks have been for different 'final straw' moments, but (and as REAL_MOUSE_IRL points out), those moments follow a pattern of behaviour that is very anti-community. When Willbb234 is asked to be accountable to the community, is when the moments that get them blocked or given 1RR restriction that they break etc. occur. So, Willbb234, how do you plan to better engage with discussion and collaborative editing - or to at least be less hostile in response if you still won't - in order to snuff out the root cause, in effect? Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support The rev-del’d edit is inexcusable but I think an opportunity to redeem himself is reasonably low-risk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Having looked at the only revdel'd edit I can see in their history...I have to agree with Ivanvector that I'm surprised this was even revdel'd. A personal attack, absolutely, but I'm honestly struggling to see it as "sexual harassment" as opposed to "crude insult". It's entirely unacceptable either way, but I'm inclined to extend some WP:ROPE here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per ROPE. I'm a fairly big believer in 2nd chances whenever reasonably possible. That said, there is a history here. So if I were Willbb234, and this request is approved, I'd make a point of treading v e r y carefully going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, per Ad Orientem and others above. BD2412 T 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Rename of Arjun G. Menon to ArtistProgrammer

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

---

ArtistProgrammer (talk · contribs · count) was recently sitebanned by the community under the username Arjun G. Menon. Before they were banned (but while the thread was heading in that direction), they requested a rename, which was declined by FlightTime (talk · contribs · count) per the pending ANI thread. A few days later, they filed a request on the global rename queue (link is renamer/steward only). They did not mention they had previously had a request declined, but they later explained they understood FlightTime's denial "pending the ANI thread" meant to re-request once the thread was closed, regardless of whether it ended in sanctions or not. That makes sense both as an interpretation of FlightTime's comment and how the rules might work: renaming a user in the middle of an ANI thread would be very confusing indeed.

On one hand, global rename policy (and common sense) forbids seeking [a] rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. On the other hand, there is a great deal of difference between a full, legal name and a pseudonym when you have a ban on a project, and there is a human on the other side of the username. I felt that a rename away from a real name in these circumstances was appropriate, so I performed it. I checked for previous requests in the rename queue (m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue), but did not check the on-wiki Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. I should have; that was a mistake on my part.

Meters (talk · contribs · count) raised an objection on my talk page, so I am bringing this for community consensus. I personally think ArtistProgrammer's own suggestion to keep the rename in place but place a banner on the (WP:NOINDEXed) userpage makes a neat balance between privacy and transparency. The fact that they made this suggestion and were open to this very public AN post indicates they are not seeking to conceal bad conduct, and I think the balance of privacy weighs in favor of honoring this good-faith request. Therefore, I support keeping ArtistProgrammer renamed, while adding a banner to their userpage disclosing the past rename (let's call this keep renamed+banner for subsequent commenters). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's fine to keep renamed with the banner, so long as ArtistProgrammer doesn't engage in any post-ban abusive conduct like socking or off-wiki harassment. I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if the old username weren't a real-life full-name, but given that it is, this feels like an equitable solution. We've allowed renames in the past for blocked or banned users under similar circumstances, IIRC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Originally, I left a simple message that I agreed with Tamzin. But that was before I read HouseBlaster's User talk page and the objections voices there. Given what I read there, it sounds like HB was on the verge of reversing the name change so I don't want to step in the way of your doing that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't want to reverse the rename. I think that they made a reasonable request, and as long as they don't start socking or doing anything else abusive, we should leave the rename in place. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 11:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• My post to HouseBlaster's page was more of a request for an explanation for how a rename in this situation was allowed, rather than a formal objection to the rename. I can understand the privacy issue for someone who was using their real name, but AGF only goes so far. The user has had significant personally identifying information (at various times: name; birthplace; birthdate; education; residence; citizenship; photo; social media page; personal web page; a refunded article he wrote about a company he worked for; etc) continuously on their user pages since very shortly after their account was created almost 17 years ago, and only as they were at ANI about to be blocked for coordinated harassment did privacy suddenly become an issue. As I wrote on HouseBlaster's page If this is allowed, so be it, but I'm surprised. We might as well add the aside "But don't worry too much, you can always request a rename if you get CBANned" to the various warnings about why using your real name and providing personal information isn't a good idea. Meters (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that's exactly unreasonable. I like having my full name on my userpage because it ties my identity to some stuff I'm pretty proud of: good and featured content, some widely-cited essays, some technical contributions. If my userpage started with "This user has been banned indefinitely", I'd probably be much less inclined to have that degree of association. In my case that wouldn't require a rename to obscure, but it's the same idea. Now we do say that sitebanned users are "completely ejected from the project", i.e. not members of our community anymore, but I do believe a limited degree of courtesy can be extended to someone who has not caused any post-ban disruption, if they have a good reason to want a rename. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think we're good with the rename away from a IRL name, and the clear connection to the past account, as long as there's no further disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, I still stand by my two denials. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, not saying you're wrong here, but given the current state of affairs.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would have made the rename, but now that we're here, I don't like the idea of reimposing his real name on him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner – I commented that there was an open ANI discussion at the first rename request [11], my concern at the time was that a rename during the discussion could cause confusion. Now that a cban has been implemented I no longer have that concern and do not believe that a rename will obfuscate their conduct in any meaningful way. I'm unsure what the purpose of a banner would be, any unban requests will have to be proposed to and reviewed by the community, and I do not think that a rename will conceal conduct in that case. The idea of requiring a user keep their real name on their userpage is one that I'm uncomfortable with, even in the case of a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• The rename must be reversed or else we set a precedent in favor of bad-faith antics which can't be allowed to stand. And there was never going to be any "privacy" anyway as former usernames are inherently public. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, Thank you Pppery - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Revert rename - Per @Pppery: - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner. Even though I voted for the siteban, unlike pppery, I don't see any bad faith antics here surrounding the rename. HB's arguments about real names resonates with me, and to pppery's point, I have no problem setting a precedent that even sitebanned users can get a rename away from their real name. I don't even think the banner is necessary for the reasons 15224 lays out above. As others point out, there is no obfuscation here since we know the renamed user is sitebanned, and they'll have to go to AN to get that lifted anyway. The rename isn't going to obfuscate or impede the siteban in any away. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  They requested rename twice in one venue, and were declined there. Then they WP:FORUMSHOPed to a different venue and were approved by a naive reviewer. That's by definition bad-faith antics. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, that's not the definition, that's your interpretation, which is not supported by the facts. FlightTime specifically told him to resubmit after the ANI was over. When someone tells you to resubmit later and you resubmit later, that's not forum shopping, and it's not bad faith. As pointed out in the OP. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 95.5.189.119 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed+banner. As mentioned, the user followed FlightTime's direction to the letter. I, personally, would not have approved this, had I been in HouseBlaster's position, but I absolutely understand their reasoning, and what's done is done. Note that this may point out a flaw in the "one account/username across all projects" standard: is it fair to a user who is in good standing on all other Wikimedia projects to deny a global rename because they are blocked or banned on one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have no problem with reverting this rename or not, now it seems we need to be careful about what president we set with this discussion. I stand by my denials for that basic reason, I'll not action a request to a user if on a block or an open ANI thread, if that means my flag being removed, so be it.. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Your denials were entirely appropriate, no complaints there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Had I seen your denials, I would've messaged you first and declined the request if you raised an objection. But I made this bed, and now we have to lie in it. My apologies, FlightTime. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  We don't have to lie in it. We're merely choosing to do so and endorsing WP:FAIT when all it would take to wake up from your bed would be the mere push of a button. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed. Renaming to avoid scrutiny is bad. The original request was a bad request in that regard. However, once the AN/I discussion was over, avoiding scrutiny was not a factor: the user was banned. Therefore, we know that the rename will not hide continuing disruption by the same user, as this user is unable to disrupt Wikipedia due to the ban. Adding in the real name issue, I believe the rename was properly timed. Now, if the user had not been banned, but rather had been warned, I would be concerned about a rename, as ongoing bad behavior may not be linked in some people's minds to the prior account name, which could allow the user to fly under the radar for a while. In short: the fact that the user was banned and the fact that it was a rename from a real name both contributed to making this an acceptable rename. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• I have added a note to ArtistProgrammer's userpage about the rename. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner per WP:REALNAME and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. HouseBlaster's post above about ArtistProgrammer's suggestion is disingenuous: ArtistProgrammer asked that a banner with their real name be put up if necessary, and it's not necessary at all. We shouldn't be unnecessarily throwing up barriers to editors wishing to protect their own anonymity, and there is no benefit whatsoever to the community of forcing this user (banned or not) to publish their real name on a page they cannot edit. We already have a banner noting that they are banned, we don't need a second banner with their real name to convey the same information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  True. Per emerging consensus here, I've removed the banner I added. If there is consensus to re-add the banner, I am not going to stand in the way, but I now support no banner. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed, no banner exactly per Ivanvector. This user has been banned, meaning that we are seeking to separate him from Wikipedia, and has left the project. There is no benefit to either the project or the former user to reversing a rename away from his real name, thereby perpetuating the very association between him (under this real name) and Wikipedia that the ban seeks to sever. We have ample records relating to the account in the event of any future issues with this user, which we presently have no reason to anticipate, or in case he seeks to appeal the ban and return someday in the future. Finally, I am entirely untroubled that treating this departing user decently could set a precedent for treating other departing users decently as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Clean start (Morning277)

Thanks to Giraffer for directing me here. Thirteen years ago, I was community banned for using multiple accounts and for paid editing. The ban was for the account MooshiePorkFace but my main account was Morning277, which was also banned. I did use multiple accounts and those accounts were rightfully blocked. The ban came later, under the belief that I was the ring leader of Orange Moody which was part of the Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal. I was never actually part of Wiki-PR, but at that time Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.

I continue to advise clients, strictly off-Wiki, on how to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Since the implementation of guidelines under Paid Editing, I have instructed clients on how to make proper disclosure of their connections, using the articles for creation process, and how to request edits on article talk pages. Some clients, despite this advice, would still rather hire someone to request edits or submit drafts on their behalf. Since I have turned down these requests, I have seen clients go off and hire freelancers from Upwork to upload their project without disclosure, causing problems. I have nothing to do with those freelancers, and have had nothing to do with Wiki-PR and entities like that for a decade.

According to my block, I was supposed to use the “Ban Appeals Subcommittee” of Arbcom to have my ban lifted, but that page is inactive. As such, per Girrafer’s instruction, I am appealing here. I am happy to answer any questions about my time as Morning277 or the related accounts and provide more information about my identity if it helps facilitate this request. I will abide by any restrictions placed on editing if the ban is lifted. As I no longer have access to the Morning277 account or the email I created for it, if the ban is lifted, I would request a new account under “Clean Start.” M277FreshStart (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that I have intentionally left M277FreshStart unblocked solely for the purposes of appealing. Indeffing them to then copy over appeal comments would be a waste of time. Giraffer (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've changed the section heading to make it meaningful and unique in watchlists, etc. I'm not offering an opinion on the merits at this time, but for those not familiar, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 exists although it is explicitly marked as conflating WikiPR and LegalMorning despite them being two separate entities. It's not immediately clear to me what (if any) connection M277 has or had with the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• As a start, M277FreshStart, would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked? Why do you want to be unblocked? What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@M277FreshStart You explained why unblocking you is in your advantage. We don't care about that obviously, because that is irrelevant to the reason for the block which is protection of the encyclopedia. Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia's advantage? You already have been falsifying sources, misrepresenting sources, sockpuppeting and undisclosed paid editing. It sounds like someone would have to doublecheck your every edit. Can you make a list of your accounts? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Their request gives an answer to your first question (and Liz's questions): Some clients, despite this advice, would still rather hire someone to request edits or submit drafts on their behalf. Since I have turned down these requests, I have seen clients go off and hire freelancers from Upwork to upload their project without disclosure, causing problems. Provided that any unbanning is conditional upon disclosing all accounts or using only one account, disclosed edit requests and submissions are better for Wikipedia than the alternative of undisclosed paid editing by other providers.

And note that there have been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 submissions since 2014, long past the standard offer. When someone seeks to do things the right way after a long break, they should generally be given an opportunity to do so.

I am inclined to support this with appropriate unban conditions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's great you're supportive, SilverLocus, but I'd like them to answer my questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@SilverLocust No it doesn't. When we have a new paid editor they might follow the rules or not. With M277FreshStart we already know they don't. So they have not provided a reason why unblocking them is in Wikipedia's advantage, and the request for a WP:CLEANSTART, when they are planning on returning to the exact same behaviour that got them banned last time (which is explicitly not allowed with a CLEANSTART), sounds like an attempt to evade scrutiny (Else they could just use the same account). disclosed edit requests and submissions are better for Wikipedia than the alternative of undisclosed paid editing by other providers They have not provided any evidence for their claim. We know they have broken many rules in the past. Maybe if those clients hire someone else they will hire someone who does follow the rules.

And note that there have been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 submissions since 2014 That is completely meaningless, unless you have a list of their clients and check every edit made to those (and related) articles and checkuser every day to compare them to a list of IP addresses and devices they have access to.

When someone seeks to do things the right way after a long break Not after "a long break". After they got caught breaking all the rules. For money. Not the kind of person we want back. Polygnotus (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

These are all fair questions. In all honesty, if I did not intend to follow the rules, then there would be no reason to ask for the band to be lifted. Somebody who didn’t want to follow the rules would just start editing despite the ban. I will the time to formulate more thorough tomorrow. M277FreshStart (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Support per M277's response to Polygnotus. I agree with SilverLocust. We should encourage UPEs to stop socking or editing disruptively and instead follow the rules. If M277 truly understands the rules around paid editing as well as WP:V, WP:RS, etc., I'll expect to see well formatted and referenced edit requests. If we see history repeating itself, we can reblock. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Voorts and SilverLocust have volunteered to keep an eye on it which is kind of them. Not sure if they've read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277. I find the story "I broke all rules, got caught and then I suddenly had a completely new approach to Wikipedia and decided to care about the rules, even if it cost me money and business" a bit difficult to follow. Polygnotus (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think taking over a decade to come to realize you've made a mistake is sudden[]. I have not volunteered to keep an eye on anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts They appear to claim that they suddenly stopped all rulebreaking and rejected all clients who wanted to give them money for paid editing after getting banned. So yes that is rather sudden, especially since they had quite a few clients and active projects. Polygnotus (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how I read their statement. Perhaps they can clarify. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Struck !vote pending answer to my question below. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) If Morning277 wants to follow the rules now, he is required to list every client on Wikipedia that he has had since the change in the terms of use (June 2014). He should also declare every account he has used, and the accounts of all of his employees used in his business since then. If he is not prepared to do that, he will not be following the rules. End of story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support With proper disclosures as described elsewhere in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• As far as I know, Morning277 still runs their paid editing business and has been actively promoting it as recently as April. They still describe themselves as having been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade - not as having last edited a decade ago. And their website still offers page creation services along with editing, monitoring and translation services, while openly stating that they never disclose their clients. As long as they continue to offer those services, and apparantly continue to edit in spite of the ban, I do not see this being in the project's interests. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Has this request been authenticated? How do we know we are talking to the same person who operated the Morning277 and other accounts? Given the facts in the bullet immediately above, I find it difficult to believe the same person would even ask this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

    If the last verified socks of Morning277 were in 2014 (as noted above) then there is going to be no technical data for a CU to compare the current account to. The most they would be able to do is check whether they have been socking in the last 90 days. We either have to trust them or not trust them, but it would be very odd for someone unrelated to pretend to be someone who was community banned over a decade ago for something that is held in even lower regard now than it was then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

    • Oh, they might be messing with us for many possible reasons, there's no need for us to guess. If they want to verify that the are who they say they are, all the need to do is put a set text on the main page of their business webpage, let me suggest "Hi, Thry". But they can come here and tell us what Wiki-specific message that they've left on their main page. Let me suggest, while they are at it, they explain the page on that site removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/ dated August 2024. What does it mean when you say

"Helpful Tip – This article will help you navigate your current Wikipedia article. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, check out my Wikipedia biography template. You can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf."

• Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Nonrandom break

These are all definitely fair questions to ask. I regret that my conduct, as long ago as it was, was unprofessional. That led to the ban, which I now see was inevitable and deserved, but I also want to clear my name from the stain of association with Wiki-PR. After my ban in 2012, I did continue editing with other accounts until 2013, but these were always caught out. This made me realize that undisclosed and sockpuppet editing was ultimately detrimental to clients, who might just be seeking to have incorrect claims about them corrected, but end up getting tarnished by association with unscrupulous behavior. I have not used an account since my last block which I believe was MooshiePokerFace. I could likely identify the accounts that are mine (and those that are not) that are listed in the Category "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277" and "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277," although it has been over a decade so I do not 100% accurately remember.

When I moved to only giving off-site advice, I also turned a lot of my energies to other non-wiki endeavors such as podcasting and SEO, and advising clients in their dealings with companies like Google and social media providers. I still intend to be involved with exclusively above-board and properly disclosed paid editing, within the rules, as I now advise clients to work within the rules. It would be beneficial to Wikipedia to allow me to disclose and request edits that my clients often have a difficult time doing on their own, despite my advising them how to do so. This would help alleviate complicated COI requests, and prevent my clients from turning to shady companies that will make those edits without proper disclosure, and without regard for other policies such as accurate use of proper sources. I also read Wikipedia articles, as people do, just to look up things I'm interested in, and right now, when I see a typo or an error or just plain vandalism, I have to walk away.

My website does say the large number of edits that I have made and articles that I have made, but that includes the tens of thousands of edits I made before the ban, all the way from when I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, which included a lot of small edits on a lot of sock accounts to get autocomfirmed each time. I also count drafts written for clients which the clients then did with as they wished. Some made their own edits, and some hired freelancers or other companies to do the edits. I try to discourage them from using other companies because I know that sooner or later those companies will get caught and the clients will get tied up in that. The article that Smallbones quotes (https://www.legalmorning.com/removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/) is actually on point with this. That article has an entire section on conflict of interest editing and helps guide people “to” the process, just not “through” the process. This is what I mean by “do the work on your behalf.” I explain what needs to go into the edit requests in certain circumstances, and then instruct clients on how to make those requests directly on their own talk page with full disclosure. That is why the article referred to on Legalmorning directly links to this Wikipedia policy on how to request edits with a COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request). I am trying to instruct clients on how to do things the right way. I am requesting this unban so I can do things the right way on their behalf.

As far as double checking ALL of my edits, I think you will find them all in compliance and that I am willing to abide by any restrictions as far as disclosure and review. I am aware that if I were submitting rubbish and wasting the community's time, I would always subject to being blocked again, probably very quickly and definitely. I am not looking to waste your time or my own by doing that. M277FreshStart (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I also count drafts written for clients which the clients then did with as they wished. Some made their own edits, and some hired freelancers or other companies to do the edits. When is the last time you wrote a draft for your clients? Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their "affiliation" with you as a contributor of the text per WP:PAID? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) You still haven't authenticated your claimed identity. You need to do this before expecting busy editors to take the time this needs. I propose that if you don't do this within 24 hours, or we just close this as unsuccessful. I'm glad you don't mind posting you business site here, but I'd prefer you didn't - it might start looking like an advert.

You definitely need to stop giving us long texts that don't give us any information. If you can list your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it! Since June 2014, this is currently required information that you haven't declared. Presumably, that should include some some socks which were not caught. You don't think that 100% of your socks were caught, do you? Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies. You did mislead the community on this previously, didn't you. Giving us all this detail will help us stop further undisclosed paid editing. Just do it, or don't expect anybody here to do you any favors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

They claim they will never disclose their clients, but that means they cannot abide by our rules.

It is also interesting that they have told different stories about their link to Wiki-PR, here they say they were doing freelance work for them, on ibtimes.com they claimed that clients came from Wiki-PR to them.

What they offer clients falls under our WP:SCAM warning, $1,500 per page per year for "monitoring" of an article.

told IBTimes earlier this month that he made his living editing the site, earning more than any previous job he has held.

They are lying when they write: After my ban in 2012, I did continue editing with other accounts until 2013 because that would require us to believe that they wrote the book Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool when they hadn't edited Wikipedia for years.

A reviewer of the book says far too much time spent on personal rants against policies, Wikipedia administrators and - in some depth - Jimbo Wales. Indeed, most of the second chapter seems to be about attacking Wales, rather than offering any useful advice.

If you use the site: operator on google with their website domain and archive.org you'll see that they have been offering the service of editing Wikipedia even after they were already blocked for years. They still have not explained why it is in Wikipedia's benefit that they are unblocked. Sure, other people also might not follow our rules. But keeping them blocked protects the encyclopedia from them.

They are actively breaking the ToU as we speak: You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. and In addition, if you make a public posting off the Projects advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation of any kind, you must disclose all Wikipedia accounts you have used or will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked: I have indefblocked M277FreshStart; with due respect to Giraffer's good intentions, it is absolutely not permissible for any iteration of LegalMorning to be posting edits anywhere in Wikipedia, in violation of a standing Arbcom ban. We have dealt with circumstances like this before, and we have established protocols. M277FreshStart, assuming that you are reading this and that you have your email activated, I will send you an email via wikimail, and you can communicate to me what, if anything, you want to say in response to the questions asked here. I am generally favorable to giving long-dormant blocked accounts a second chance, if only to give them enough rope to hang themselves should they return to their previous misconduct, but restoration of rights cannot begin with a violation of an existing ban. BD2412 T 20:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have sent the referenced email. I would frankly not be surprised if there is no response, but I have cautioned M277FreshStart against including anything in future responses that appears to promote their website or paid services. BD2412 T 20:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 are they ArbCom banned? I understand they were instructed to appeal to BASC, but the block was noted as a CBAN, hence my bringing it here.

FWIW if they were appealing from their indeffed account, I would not unblock them. I kept them unblocked for the sake of practicality; if you think blocking and copying comments is preferable then that is fine by me. Giraffer (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong. We just need to be careful about the precedents that we set. I think it would also have been a different matter if their initial ban was purely for something like edit warring or paid editing, but it did also include abuse of multiple accounts. BD2412 T 21:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Thanks for letting me know. Giraffer (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the ArbCom ban you're referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't take enough time to dig into Arbcom archives, but I found something about a CBAN in the AN archives. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Is there not an ArbCom ban in place here? The editor said that he was supposed to appeal to ArbCom to get the ban lifted, I understood that to mean that the ban was ArbCom-imposed. Either way, an editor banned in part for abusing multiple accounts should not be editing from a new account to appeal the ban, except perhaps by posting on their own talk page. BD2412 T 00:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think he was referring to WP:BASC, as Giraffer noted. I don't see the harm in allowing him to prosecute his appeal on AN rather than via email, particularly since he was already told by one admin that he had permission to do so for the purposes of this appeal and he hasn't violated that condition. Perhaps Giraffer should have partially unblocked and only allowed edits to project-space since we can't yet unblock for access to a single page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would have imposed the block either way, given the community ban. I would suggest that it sets a terrible precedent, which opens the door to any banned editor (including those banned for sockpuppetry) to create and make edits from a new account, despite being barred from this. Ideally, this editor should have been blocked immediately and directed to make their appeal strictly by email. BD2412 T 00:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence, part of the problem seems to me that procedure has changed over the years, but this editor wasn't aware of it. (Hence their failed attempt at WT:AC/N.) Anyways, hopefully they at the least respond to the email to get this discussion somewhat sorted out. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) When they were banned, they were told that they needed to appeal to the Ban appeals sub-committee. That was disbanded in 2015. Initially all bans that would have been heard by the BASC were heard by the full committee, but at some point after that (I forget when) ArbCom stopped hearing most of them and now only hears appeals of Checkuser blocks, Oversight blocks and blocks unsuitable for public discussion. The community and/or UTRS now hears all other ban appeals, however this is not clearly stated anywhere on the WP:BASC page, so understandably and entirely appealed to ArbCom - explicitly saying why there were appealing there and to let them know if they got the venue wrong. There were told that AN was where they should be appealing, so they moved their appeal to AN. Telling them now that they are not allowed to appeal at AN is really poor form. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not blocked access to their talk page. They can appeal the block there if they would like. I won't interfere if another editor unblocks them. I also note that Smallbones gave them 24 hours to confirm their identity two days ago, and they have not responded to that or otherwise edited since, nor have they responded to my email (although I concede that I only sent it four hours ago). I would give them another 24 hours to respond, and then close the matter.

I would also agree, by the way, that the instructions should be fixed to make it very clear how such bans are to be appealed in the future, and specifically to foreclose the sort of circumstance that we had here. BD2412 T 00:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

GZWDer has added some instructions to BASC to redirect users to APPEAL and UNBAN, so that should work for older bans. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) Let us not take the community out of deciding whether a community ban should be undone. Deciding on WP:AN is the best way forward. I'll just note that M277 said they'd answer questions here. Several editors, including myself, asked and haven't received straight answers. M277 hasn't authenticated his identity. If they are appealing to WP:Clean start, they don't meet the criteria stated there. If it is supposed to be about the WP:Standard offer, I believe that essay is for use in standard blocks and bans, nothing about M277's ban is standard. It is one of the 2 or 3 most egregious cases in Wikipedia history, with a huge outcry from the press. They have been creditably accused in the press of extortion. They had hundreds of socks. They are advertising now on their website a book titled something like "Using Wikipedia in Marketing" despite the prohibition of on-Wiki marketing in WP:PROMO.

In the first paragraph of the first section above M277 admits that he did work for Wiki-PR. That should be enough to effectively make this a permanent ban, unless they tell us everything we want to know. Wiki-PR was banned (with unbanning conditions) on Oct. 22, 2013 on this page (WP:AN) as completely as any organization has ever been banned.

"Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards."

The unbanning condition requires full disclosure of what they've done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool. They can answer questions on their talk. Getting unbanned starts with being honest, and I believe they haven't been so far. Compare: I am not Wiki-PR nor do I have a relation with them[12] with Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.[13] Polygnotus (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The editor has responded to my email as follows:

I am so sorry. It is very confusing and I am not trying to waste

anyone's time or cause issues. I swear. There are a lot of questions I read last night and I want to prepare a thorough response for each. It will take me a few days to do so as I am traveling from the east coast to the midwest and then to the west coast. In the meantime, I can verify my identity by placing something on my website. You can also see my email domain is from my website. I will not post anything in Wikipedia

again unless my rights are restored.

I can confirm that the domain name for the email address from which the email was sent appears to be the domain name for the company website. BD2412 T 14:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

...@BD2412: Has Morning277 (etc.) previously disclosed their real name on Wikipedia? If not that needs to be redacted as it's technically WP:OUTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Point taken. Although it's all over the Internet, I don't know that it has specifically been on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 19:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They have posted the website name twice in the discussion above. I don't know if anybody has posted their name on Wikipedia, but if it is just the website name, well it's here and it is also associated with the old user names used here in several very reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The name's directly linked to Morning277 here, so I've unrevdel'd the edits - thanks for finding that BD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's time to close this. Morning277 has asked that his community ban be removed. He was properly banned for sockpuppeting and paid editing. He has confirmed that he worked for Wiki-PR which requires another ban. He writes I am happy to answer any questions about my time as Morning277 or the related accounts and provide more information about my identity if it helps facilitate this request. I will abide by any restrictions placed on editing if the ban is lifted.

So there are about 6 questions repeated below. I suggest closing this as unsuccessful and I'll then post these questions on their talkpage. If they then answer those questions in full and in good faith, they can then reopen this. Otherwise, wait six months and try again (with a list of answers attached!)

• @Liz: asked Would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked? Why do you want to be unblocked? What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion?

• @Polygnotus: asked Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia's advantage? ...Can you make a list of your accounts?
• Polygnotus also quotes the WP:Paid contributions policy In addition, if you make a public posting off the Projects advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation of any kind, you must disclose all Wikipedia accounts you have used or will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service. asserting that you are currently breaking this rule. Are you?

• I asked him to explain the passage on his business page

"Helpful Tip – This article will help you navigate your current Wikipedia article. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, check out my Wikipedia biography template. You can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf."

I found his answer confusing and evasive, saying effectively that he didn’t do the work on the customer’s behalf. It looks like he is trying to fool somebody, either the customer or us (or both)

I later asked (somewhat repetitively) list your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it! … (You) should include some some socks which were not caught. You don't think that 100% of your socks were caught, do you? Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies.

• @Voorts: asked When is the last time you wrote a draft for your clients? Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their "affiliation" with you as a contributor of the text per WP:PAID?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones: In the last (and only) communication I received in response to my email, the editor asserted that they were travelling and that it would take a few days to respond. This is still sitting far enough down the noticeboard to allow perhaps a week from that communication. We have no deadline, and I would prefer not to allow any impression that we cut the discussion off prematurely. BD2412 T 18:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose unban, per Polygnotus. The project does not benefit from unbanning an individual who boasted about using Wikipedia as a "promotional tool" in an article titled "I Get Paid To Edit Wikipedia For Leading Companies", and also self-published a book titled Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool in 2016 (three years after when he is now claiming to have stopped using sockpuppets to evade the ban), on the basis of allowing him to continue engaging in paid editing, regardless of whether it would be disclosed. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

Morning277 should absolutely not be granted the opportunity to perform a clean start. The idea of removing a sanction to allow an individual who is community banned for undisclosed paid editing to perform more paid editing with reduced scrutiny on a separate account not publicly linked to the currently banned account is completely ridiculous. If Morning277 does not want "the stain of association with Wiki-PR", he should not have worked for Wiki-PR in the first place. — Newslinger talk 16:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The following excerpt from the page "The Reason I Never Disclose My Work As A Paid Wikipedia Editor" on Morning277's website (Legal Morning), dated "August 10, 2013" and "Last Modified: April 10, 2016", speaks for itself:

The Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use on paid editing

Since this article was written in 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation in their infinite wisdom (please excuse the sarcasm) implemented new terms and conditions that requires paid editors to disclose their work on Wikipedia. Based on my experience with what happens when people disclose their work (according to the article above), I will continue to protect my clients (both current and future clients) by NOT disclosing any of my paid work.

[...]

I no longer edit the site directly and as such am not bound by their terms of use.

I have a team of editors (paid and volunteer) who I work with. I can assure all my clients (past and future) that their identity will never be disclosed, while at the same time fully honoring the terms of use implemented by the Foundation. Members of my team who perform edits are also not bound by the terms of use for paid disclosure based on the editing methods they employ and as such do not disclose any affiliation with my clients.

Want to know more about how I can help you with your Wikipedia presence? Send me an email and let’s chat.

"The Reason I Never Disclose My Work As A Paid Wikipedia Editor" from Legal Morning (August 10, 2013; last modified April 10, 2016)

The above is linked from the Legal Morning page "Wikipedia Articles" with the text "For your protection – WILL NEVER DISCLOSE MY CLIENTS – we never disclose our clients in order to protect their anonymity", which is in turn linked from the Legal Morning home page and from the top menu on every one of Legal Morning's pages. Legal Morning still advertises a response time of "24-48 hours" to inquiries on its "Wikipedia Articles" page.

Based on Morning277's statements, it appears that Morning277 believes he can circumvent the paid-contribution disclosure requirement by outsourcing his undisclosed paid editing to other individuals, i.e. meatpuppetry. Morning277's incorrect interpretation of the WMF Terms of Use puts the veracity of his request in doubt, and shows that Morning277 should remain banned from editing Wikipedia for life. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• I was fully anticipating a flood of "now way, never" responses given the extent of the deception, the enormous amount of volunteer time, and innumerable checkuser hours that went in to untangling and monitoring the socking involved here. I don't know why were tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out a way to allow this former editor to continue to use Wikipedia for their personal gain. It's a hard no from me, but that's probably because I remember what a nightmare this case was.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm willing to hear him out when he returns from his trip. It's been over a decade now. If he comes back and commits to complying with the rules, updates his website to make that clear, I don't see an issue with extending some rope. I'd even be okay with an edit request only restriction and mainspace block so that every single edit he makes is scrutinized. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts It's been over a decade now You have no evidence for that claim. We know they have been editing for years after getting banned, we are just not sure how many years. I would not at all be surprised if they are still doing the same stuff. every single edit he makes is scrutinized Why should Wikipedia volunteers waste their time scrutinizing the edits of a paid editor who specifically asked a CLEANSTART so he can continue spamming trash without too much scrutiny? Someone who has wasted many hours of volunteer time? They clearly have no respect for our time and do not care about our requests and rules so why should we care about their ability to make money? Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I have just received another reply from the editor by email. It is a rather lengthy recitation of questions and answers, and I am wondering if we should move this discussion to a dedicated subpage. The reply follows. BD2412 T 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I would first like to ask, what would a pathway to return be? If there is no such pathway, I will withdraw the request. There are a lot of articles from 10 years ago that were brought up in the discussion that need updating, such as fully disclosing all edits from clients. That is one of the things I am willing to do so editors can see I am not trying to hoodwink anyone.

Q – Would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked?

A - I would be involved only in permissible paid editing, with full disclosure of all paid edits. I would like to be involved in volunteer editing too, but understand the community may distrust edits I make that are not disclosed so will keep everything I do under the assumption that it is paid. I am willing to write volunteer pages on needed subjects if asked. I could create the drafts and submit to them for feedback.

Q - What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion?

A – The goal of the discussion is to remove the block.

Q - Why do you want to be unblocked?

A - I want to be unblocked in order to assist clients with making the edit requests on their behalf as opposed to them doing it on it their own. I currently advise them how to make such requests and submit drafts through AfC with full disclosure, but do not do it directly due to the block. I advise my clients to make the required disclosures, but as explained further below, I cannot control whether they do, or whether they hire freelancers that do.

Q – Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia’s advantage?

A – I have had clients that despite instructing them how to make full disclosure, have gone off and paid additional fees to people on Upwork to post the content who fail to make such disclosure. Unfortunately, I cannot control what a client does on their own, I can only control what I have the ability to do. Right now, I do not have the ability to make such requests on their behalf and make the disclosure that the requests are paid.

Q - Can you make a list of accounts?

A – I do not have any accounts currently except M277FreshStart, which I will not edit from until the ban is lifted, and have not had any others since the ban. There are over 400 accounts in the category for morning 277 socks. Some are mine, some are not. I used to make a lot of throwaway accounts to get autoconfirmed and then make a handful of edits and abandon the account shortly after. If you look back 15-16 years, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some I do not remember. If you are requesting that I list all of them, I can go through the 400 and list the ones I know for sure were ones I used, but cannot guarantee I remember a few here and there.

Q – Has the request been authenticated? (similar questions related to my identity).

A – I have emailed from my website domain. I can also place something on the website to verify but was instructed not to put any links here to my site. I am also able to send a verification email to anyone wishing to receive one. Also, my name has been listed publicly related to the morning277 account so do not feel outing would apply.

Q – When was the last time you wrote a draft for a client?

A – I have written several drafts in the last several weeks. I have also reviewed drafts written by clients themselves, and provided recommendations to improve tone, referencing, and neutral point of view.

Q – Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their affiliation with you as a contributor of the text per PAID?

A – I always advise them they must disclose. I do not advise them they must disclose me as someone who advises them since they are the ones making the edits directly. I do not hire anyone to make edits on behalf of myself or clients. Clients are advised on how to do the onsite work.

Q – Explain the passage – “Helpful tip – This article will help you…you can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf.”

A – Work on their behalf does not mean I do the work on-Wikipedia. It means the work of researching and writing the information. They would still be responsible for their work on Wikipedia.

Q – List your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it!

A – Please see answer to question “can you make a list of accounts” for the answer to sockpuppets and usernames. If you look at edits made by those accounts, you can tell which edits were minor fixes to get autoconfirmed, and which ones were for clients. I can go through and list clients I had during that time but it may also not be 100% accurate for the same reason. I will list those I am 100% sure about a list of those I am 100% sure were not mine if you would like. It will be a long list given that there are so many accounts, both mine and other freelancers, involved.

Q – You don’t think 100% of your socks were caught, do you?

A – I do not. But, I know that any I had during that time were not used after the ban. See my response for “can you make a list of accounts” as I would like to but I am unsure of some myself.

Q – Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies.

A – This is as short as I can make it to provide a detailed account of the situation. I never worked directly for Wiki-PR. I would consider it “working with.” They hired many freelancers to assist with their projects and I was contacted by them to do some projects on a subcontractor basis. I did those projects at the same time I was assisting my own clients. My work was nefarious as I posted edits that did not comply with guidelines and created articles that were not notable. This is because that is what the client wanted. Some of these edits failed as they were not compliant. Some of my clients would hire other firms like Wiki-PR to do the same or similar edits which is why so many accounts got lumped together. I know that other freelancers hired by Wiki-PR were hired to do edits that I failed to “sneak” in and those freelancers were lumped into the sockpuppet investigations which is why there were so many accounts. This is noted in the article about Wiki-PR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_Wikipedia_editing_scandal).

I stopped working with Wiki-PR when the work came to light on Wikipedia and publicly. I also did NOT work with their successor firm Status Labs. I am glad I didn’t since this later happened, which I found reprehensible (https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/jordan-french-the-landlord-who-demolished-the-east-austin-pinata-shop-has-been-forced-to-resign-from-the-company-he-started/).

Mike W.

I'm not satisfied with the answer to my question. PAID very clearly requires disclosing "affiliations" with regard to paid edits, specifically: "other connections that might be relevant, including, but not limited to, people or businesses who provide text, images, or other media for the paid edit" (emphasis added). You should have been telling your clients to disclose that you wrote text on their behalf. That said, very weak support for an unban with an indefinite community ban from mainspace enforced by a block. I'd rather have paid editors following the rules than operating sub rosa. If Mike is actually willing to comply with the paid editing guidelines going forward, I don't see the harm in allowing for edit requests and draft submissions. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Emailing users#Reposting emails publicly Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The email was sent with the intention of it being posted here since this editor is completely blocked from editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The framing of this unban request is wholly inappropriate. Morning277 is continuing to write articles and edits for clients, resulting in some of these edits being submitted on Wikipedia without disclosure. While Morning277 is attempting to position his ban as the problem that needs to be removed, the actual problem is that Morning277 has been spending the years after his ban offering paid editing services to clients with the understanding that it results in undisclosed paid editing, without taking any responsibility for the undisclosed paid editing. If Morning277 is concerned about undisclosed paid editing, he is free to report it to the response team by following the instructions at WP:COIVRT. There is no shortage of policy-compliant paid editing companies who do not have a history of sockpuppetry, and Morning277's potential clients are free to use any of them. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can go through and list clients I had during that time but it may also not be 100% accurate for the same reason. So the promise they made their clients that they would never disclose their identity was also a lie? They are lying to us, lying to their clients, and lying to themselves if they think they can be a netpositive Wikipedian after causing so much damage. Polygnotus (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Good Block - Oppose Unban - Looks like a clear-cut case to me: toxic. Jusdafax (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newslinger's evidence. It seems to me that Morning277 is trying to present one face to us and another to his clients. I detest that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Compassionate727: I would actually like some clarification from the editor on that. If he is talking about disclosing who his clients were from before the ban, it is possible that those clients were not promised anything. It seems obvious that if we check all of his sockpuppets, we will be able to tell who the clients were anyway. BD2412 T 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also, all of that evidence are from blog posts he wrote a decade ago. Mike, will you commit to making clear to your clients / the public (via your website) that you will be complying with WMF policies? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts How would that help in any way? They are still not going to be unbanned. They are already lying that they comply with policy, despite the fact that that is obviously untrue. Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts all of that evidence are from blog posts he wrote a decade ago Did you fact check that claim? Or are you just saying things? Because if you spent a couple of seconds on Google you see that they wrote stuff like: If you are having issues navigating any topic within Wikipedia, please reach out for assistance. We can help guide you through the process and tell you what to look for when attempting your edits. We can also do the work for you so you can focus on your business and not worry about editors with personal axes to grind against your industry. In 2024. So that is not a decade ago, like you claim, but last year. And above they have admitted that they are still currently helping people post spam on Wikipedia.

  For Legalmorning, Wikipedia page creation cost can range from anywhere from $250 to $10,000 depending on the amount of work involved. However, typical Wikipedia page creation cost is in the $1,000 to $2,500 range. Again, this was written in 2024.

  If you find yourself stuck on anything, you can always reach out for assistance. I offer telephone consultations as well as quotes to do the project on your behalf. Again, from 2024. You are allowed to disagree, or even have an objectively bad opinion. But please don't say things that aren't true. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the blog posts where he criticized the WMF's paid editing rules, which seems to be most of what Newslinger quoted from. I recognize that he is still engaged in his business and has been violating the rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts I do not understand what you are talking about. Polygnotus (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's his business website. He expects his clients to read it. He should expect us to read it. I see no reason to believe he doesn't mean everything he's written there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with voorts that it is some merit to having an editor making requests through our processes (and thereby revealing who is paying to get their Wikipedia content edited) than to have them sending content to their clients to be added without such notice. The editor currently only has access to their user talk page and to email, and has not abused either yet. If there is no "pathway" of the sort the editor has asked about, we should just maintain this status quo and allow them to make their disclosed paid edit requests on their own talk page, and see if that leads to any shenanigans. BD2412 T 21:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 How would Wikipedia benefit from allowing them to do anything? It will not. Polygnotus (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  How do we benefit from his clients uploading shit without disclosure? We don't. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts Which is why they should be banned as well. But it is no reason to allow this dude back in. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  see if that leads to any shenanigans We already know that they are currently actively meatpuppeting, so we already know "shenanigans" are afoot. Polygnotus (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  No one is required to actually look at or pay heed to their talk page, so if they are allowed to post there, about the only thing they can do is reveal the identity of entities trying to pay to edit Wikipedia, which is to our benefit to know. BD2412 T 21:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hard disagree. See Public relations#Negative. And they claim to never disclose their clients. Polygnotus (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how they could request an edit at all without inherently making such a disclosure, if not formally. Perhaps they have talked themselves into a catch-22. BD2412 T 21:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 I can request a negative edit about X, claiming I work for Y, but secretly working for Z. Catch-22 evaded. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  True, but to play devil's advocate, if their claimed purpose is to make edits on behalf of clients, I would expect proposed edits to be positive, and a positive edit about X while claiming to work for X would not benefit a Y or Z. Even a legitimately paid editor requesting a clearly negative edit would raise its own set of suspicions. BD2412 T 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Sure it could. Let's say your company, or political party, works with or uses the products/services of, another company. Maybe you are a reseller, or in a coalition or whatever. You could request a positive edit, pretending to work for them, which in turn benefits you. Maybe you are the only distributor of that product or service in English speaking countries.

  If I work in a specific niche and have the largest company in that niche, then any edit that is positive about that niche benefits me. And I can easily pretend to work for the competition. Potential customers are more likely to end up hiring me, because I am the largest company in that niche and appear at the top of Google. Polygnotus (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  We can come up with any number of hypotheticals, but I would suggest that our actual experience has been of a lot of paid editors trying to very add positive information to articles on specific companies, with that information being very specific to that company. BD2412 T 22:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I actually have experience with UPEs who were far more subtle than the scenario you describe, who were trying to hide who they work for. I can give you some very concrete examples if you'd like. Polygnotus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I know. In this case, however, we're talking about an ostensibly openly paid editor rather than a UPE. I would be interested in what you have seen by the way, but that is probably fodder for a separate discussion. BD2412 T 22:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 No, in this case we are talking about an entire network of UPEs: I have a team of editors (paid and volunteer) who I work with. I can assure all my clients (past and future) that their identity will never be disclosed, while at the same time fully honoring the terms of use implemented by the Foundation. Members of my team who perform edits are also not bound by the terms of use for paid disclosure based on the editing methods they employ and as such do not disclose any affiliation with my clients. And I would bet that this guy has socked long after his ban, because giving people instructions sucks compared to just doing things yourself, as anyone who has dealt with employees will confirm. Polygnotus (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• The first link on Legal Morning's "In the News" page is a summary of a podcast video titled "E08 From Fired to Freedom: Building a Six-Figure Consulting Business | Mike Wood", dated "Apr 24, 2025", in which Morning277 says at 20:50, "I never disclose my clients that I work with for Wikipedia". (To see the video transcript on a desktop computer, click on "more..." to expand the description, then click "Show transcript".) Indeed, despite the length of Morning277's email response that was posted here, he does not disclose his past clients and does not offer to disclose any client or sockpuppet account that was not already discovered.
  If a sockpuppeteer who is still creating sockpuppets requested an unblock promising to stop if we unblocked them, any reviewing administrator would decline that request instantly, as we do not unblock users who say that they will stop violating policies only if we unblock them. An undisclosed paid editor who is continuing to perform undisclosed paid editing by proxy and promising to stop only if we remove three community bans (Morning277 community ban, MooshiePorkFace community ban, and Wiki-PR community ban) and a global lock for cross-wiki promotional editing should not be treated any differently. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço

Over at WMF Village pump a member of the trust and safety team has alerted the community about an office action on Caesar DePaço. This feels like an issue people who watch this page and not that one may wish to know and talk about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

How is any editor supposed to do anything with this article now, without legal risk, since we can't know what the illegal in Portugal content is?

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#How is this article to be maintained going forward?

How exactly does this work for editors? Should the page be sent to WP:AfD to protect future editors? Permanent full lockdown and all edits have to go through the talk page and WMF scrutiny? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

BLAR it, then fully-protect the redirect would be my guess. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It was BLAR'd and reverted. Now at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Now this is an outcome I'm sure that the article subject didn't expect when they filed their lawsuit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out in that discussion, we have other pages that seem to mention the issues that the court ordered removed from pages other than DePacos, like on Alina Habba. We need to figure out how to handle those too. Masem (t) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WMFOffice left a paragraph about that lawsuit in the DePaço article, what is there to handle? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be best to let WMF Legal figure out if and how other articles are affected by the court order before we start removing content. Donald Albury 13:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I fear that whatever we do here will end up setting a bad precedent. If we replace the page with a template, as some have proposed, that incentivizes anyone who feels that they are negatively portrayed in Wikipedia to seek such a court action. BD2412 T 20:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the court action was successful. That's the precedent. I think the goal of the template would be to generate sufficient publicity about the court action to make it an undesirable choice (and perhaps to get the action reversed). Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that (i) adding a template and (ii) replacing the article with the template are two different proposals. I personally support (i) and strongly oppose (ii). Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the counterpoint to that is that if we keep an article that has been manipulated at the direction of the subject, we are no longer abiding by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And I know some have said something along the lines of "well we can have an article just not with those statements", but then are we not projecting an artificially improved article that benefits the subject?

FWIW, I'd rather have cut all ties with Portugal than accept the verdict, but apparently that wasn't an option. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I still think the deletion of the article would be an interesting result to happen in a situation where a person decides to sue Wikipedia because they don't like content in an article where they are featured. No problem, no article on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The subject doesn't seem to want an article though... Its a nice roundabout way to getting your article deleted even when you're genuinely notable and a lot of it is for less than savory stuff. As long as there is any mention of Chega in that article DePaço is not going to be happy and there remains a lot more than a mention even after the office action (for context I've handled much of the enwiki interactions with his lawyer and lawyers socks). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Portuguese article has a lot of content on Chega though. It's an interesting comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

PTAC proposals for feedback

The Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) is a one-year pilot of a group of Wikimedia Foundation staff and community members that advise the Wikimedia Foundation on its technical direction and provide input on the long-term product and technical priorities for the Wikimedia movement.

Following recent community reactions surrounding two initiatives, the trial of AI-generated article summaries, which subsequently led to the RFC surrounding AI features by the WMF and the concerns surrounding Tone Check, members of the Product and Technology Advisory Council came together to form two working groups to brainstorm ways to improve how the Foundation conducts and communicates experiments and product development and how it engages with the community surrounding updates regarding its product development.

As a result of the brainstorming, we came up with a set of proposals of experiments the Wikimedia Foundation can conduct to increase transparency, trust, and lead to more constructive engagement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia communities. We would like to community provide feedback on the proposals at the talk page. This feedback phase will last until August 22, following which (provided there are no objections) we will forward the proposals to the Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology Department who will subsequently look into ways of implementing and incorporating these recommended experiments. Sohom (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta thanks for your work (and also thanks to several others who I am familiar with and respect). I'm wondering if the PTAC could model some Better prepared feedback sections in this request because I'm not sure what kind of feedback you want or would find helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 The question we are asking are:

- "Do folks agree with this direction/proposal put forth?"

- "Do you think there is something else we should have considered/added?"

- "Based on our work, do you think we should have gone a different direction or focused on something in particular?"

I'll add explicit call-outs to the questions at the top of the feedback section :) The end goal of the consultation/feedback phase is to ensure that the council's opinions are not in a vacuum and that we are not suggesting something that is at odds with what the community wants/expects (or is adversarial to the community). Sohom (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025

At their request, the Checkuser permissions of SQL (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks SQL for their service as a member of the Checkuser team.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025

Not sure how to create a wiki account because this IP address no matter where I go seems to be blocked due to other users

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

---

There seems to be some heavy glitches . First time loger 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:CreateAccount. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I just don't get it. Never ever tried logged in until this week- tried signing up in two different cities now and its quite distributing 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It says This does not affect your ability to read this page and perform other actions on other pages.

Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range ‪2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/33‬ has been partially blocked by ‪The Bushranger‬ for the following reason(s):

Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: continued disruption after initial pblock.

This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd.

Note that this block does not affect your ability to do other things on the site. A full detail of the partial block can be found on the block list and at your contributions page.

This partial block may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, on your talk page, or by UTRS.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Information on partial blocks · Help:I have been blocked 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Try now; your IP address has changed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd.

Same stuff 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Your IP is not blocked or rangeblocked, and you do not have a block message on your IP's current talkpage (or have a talkpage at all). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh...in dumb dumb terms 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything at all keeping you from editing or creating an account, and the message of This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd makes no sense because there is no block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Could the block have survived through the MW session? According to a code comment at DatabaseBlock.php, A DatabaseBlock (unlike a SystemBlock) is stored in the database, may give rise to autoblocks and may be tracked with cookies. The function BlockManager::getBlockFromCookieValue applies a block if the cookie "BlockId" is set. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and explanation 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you tried clearing your cookies? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Will do. 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Did not work. 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Close all browser tabs and open them again, maybe that will help if "BlockId" is a session cookie. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Tried even Firefox, a new browser app etc. It's been now two attempts in two different cities as well. I truly couldn't be more innocent of a block 😪 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Can you temporarily remove the account creation blocked setting from the block on 2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/33? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, let's see if that helps @2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD, try now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Worked. You are superstars 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

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

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles

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

---

Hello Wikipedia admins, can you move this page to "Wikipedia:Deleted articles with 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒚 titles" and leave a redirect behind, please? I think it'd be humourous, and it's a humourous page. (notice the fancy font on the word "freaky"). I am asking here, because when I tried to move it, it told me to tell this noticeboard. AAHW (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@AAHW: no. In more ways than one, no. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds daft. No. —Kusma (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm obviously not an admin, but I can pretty much guarantee that this request will be denied. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OP now blocked per WP:NOTHERE. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely a strange section, but they've also been attempting to make content edits: [14] [15] [16]. They'll need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia if they're going to stick, but NOTHERE is a stretch. Pinging the blocking admin Mfield in case they have an extended rationale. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I may have placed a little to much weight on the recent edits vs the older stuff, although i wonder looking at it again now and with the dates maybe this is not the same person making these edits to the prior ones, i am going to change the block to short one with some policy suggestions, and we'll see what happens after that. Mfield (Oi!) 17:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Draft:Domm (film)

• Draft:Domm (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm sure that this needs sysop attention but I'm not sure how complicated it is.

The history is that a user who's new and likely in perfectly good faith started an article called Domm (Bangladeshi film) on 24th July, bypassing draft space and working directly in mainspace. None of the references would load, and I (wrongly) suspected it was one of those AI-generated articles where the references are fake, so I prodded it. It got deprodded so I draftified it.

It then got re-created in mainspace by the same user, and I just wonder whether that was a copy/paste re-creation that would necessitate a WP:HISTMERGE for compliance with the Terms of Use?

The re-creation got AfD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domm (Bangladeshi film), where I raised the HISTMERGE thing, but that AfD was closed as "draftify" by a user who says he missed the HISTMERGE problem. The draft is now at Draft:Domm (film).

Please will a sysop with the inclination to worry about HISTMERGE review this, and if appropriate, please will a sysop with the right amount of patience and kindness for interacting with new users who work directly in mainspace have a chat with the article starter about copy/paste?—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, I haven't notified anyone because there's no accusation of wrongdoing here.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  If there's only one author to the draft then a history merge is not legally necessary because nobody's attribution is lost. That seems to be the case here. And there are also WP:Parallel histories that would make histmerging awkward (but technically doable). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  If that's so, then all's fine. I thought that one of the versions from before the copy/paste merge had more than one author, but if I'm wrong then I'm pleased to be able to avoid the paperwork.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at the history of Draft:Domm (Bangladeshi film), there are edits by other editors in there. However, aside from one bot edit, there aren't any overlapping edits that aren't speedy-deletion tags and redirections (and thus I believe could be 'left deleted' after a histmerge). So I'll history-merge them at Draft: Domm (film).  In progress - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

   Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  As I suspected. Thank you!—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Still need that person with the patience and kindness please?—S Marshall T/C 04:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, what needs doing here? Are they still making weird copy-paste moves and I'm just not seeing them? -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not as far as I know. But cut-and-paste moves are something a good faith user can easily do when new because they aren't obviously wrong, and they can create a lot of needless work for sysops, so I think this needs raising with the user in a way that educates without being mean or accusing. Ten years ago I'd have done it myself and screwed it up, because self-knowledge came late in life for me. Nowadays I know I'm not a patient man, and neither am I good with new users, so this isn't a task that I'm well suited to. It's best if I volunteer in other ways.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you could template them. {{uw-c&pmove}} is the one you'd be looking for. —Cryptic 22:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly my thinking is that it's typically not worth explaining something like this on the first instance, for WP:BITE reasons. They can see that other editors have jumped in to fix their edits. If they have seen that, they'll likely feel condescended to or bitten if someone gets on their case about it. I'd rather give them a chance to learn from example before showing up to say "dude you screwed up". I can say it kindly but that only takes so much bite out of it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Ronaldinho

Friskowwww This user continuasly reverts what I write according to sources. Even writing in personal ha no result.Γεώργιος Τερζής 1 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Γεώργιος Τερζής 1, I'm not sure I understand your question but remember, you need to notify Friskowwww that you started this discussion. Please do so now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Not fully sure what they wrote myself, but I have made a request at RPPI after looking at the edit history for Ronaldinho. At least ten edits made at Ronaldinho have been reverted in the last 24 hours and it appears that one of the three users involved in this edit war has breached WP:3RR. I believe this likely should be moved to ANI for warnings at a minimum. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I had already informed both users that involved their edits but none answered anything.Γεώργιος Τερζής 1 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Γεώργιος Τερζής 1, you need to notify all involved users that this discussion exists. There's a template at the top of the page that will help. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Technically, they only need to inform Friskowwww now as the other user was blocked as a SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: At this point, two of the three users who I referenced in my earlier comment have been blocked. That leaves Friskowwww, who was never notified of this discussion. Since the original poster has been blocked, should this just be closed without further action here? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Review my revdel

I recently deleted some offensive material from WP:VPW, which several editors have questioned the necessity of. So bringing it here for review. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As an admittedly very new admin, and therefore not an expert on the exact intricacies of revision deletions, I don't see a reason here for such a large-scale use of the tool? The comment itself was, imo, inappropriate, but not quite of the level requiring such a revdel? I'll defer to admins with more experience, but I do want to give my 2 cents. CoconutOctopus talk 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't a needed use of revdel. The comment was inappropriate and the redaction was correct, but the revdel was unnecessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations referred to in WP:RD2. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If only a couple of revisions would be rev-del'd, I could kind of see doing that, but the number of revisions needing rev-del'd to take it out of the history was disruptive and should be reserved for really bad stuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Was [17] the only comment that needed redaction? If so, I would be inclined to undo the revision deletion here. As far as the line between "ordinary incivility" and "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive content" goes, it is a matter of judgment sometimes, so I don't fault RoySmith for erring on the side of revdel. For me, the line is crossed when the content either (1) includes any extremely offensive slurs (e.g. those targeted at particular groups or classes of people), and/or (2) is harassment targeted towards a specific, identifiable individual, and/or (3) is unsourced WP:BLP content that implies a specific living individual committed a serious crime or otherwise did something highly unethical. Here, none of these factors are true, so I would consider this the kind of "ordinary" incivility that is explicitly excluded by WP:RD2. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This is such a nothingburger I at first assumed I was looking at the wrong part of the diff. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Revdeleting attacks aimed at people who can still read them afterwards doesn't accomplish a whole lot. —Cryptic 20:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate Roy's action to remove the offensive comment from public view, I agree that this is run-of-the-mill online misbehavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It is sad that people find this sort of thing in any way acceptable, but is clear that consensus is to restore these edits. I can't see my way to being the agent of restoring this to public visibility, so somebody should go ahead and do it. RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone finds it acceptable. It's a common slur that doesn't rise to the level of deleting 150+130+ revisions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That is my point earlier. The number of revisions weighs into the decision when the edit in question isn't absolutely dreadful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith, this might be "too little, too late" but I agree with your action. It is completely inappropriate content. I don't know whether or not I, as an admin, would revision delete it though which is why I didn't weigh in earlier. If that seems contradictory, well, that's me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is arguing that it was an appropriate or acceptable thing to say. Rather, people are arguing that it is run-of-the-mill offensiveness that does not require over 130 diffs to be literally expunged from the page history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've undone the revdel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

A current RFC with potentially unlimited scope

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

---

I would like some admin(s) to have a look whether this RFC [18] is compliant with policy. The intent is to standardize climate change coverage within every article about any specific weather event (which would include a potentially unlimited number of articles, since weather keeps happening). But can one ordinary RFC actually do that? Shouldn't that require drafting and approval a new MEDRS-style guideline with massive community-wide input? I thought normal RFCs were for specific aspects of a small number of articles and understood not to have potentially infinite scope and duration. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Deleting valid information rather than editing it

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

---

Ok, so this is a very tricky one. I inputted my work into a Wikipedia page Theanine, which was lacking in some pertinent information. I still do not understand why an editor Zefr that employs these excuses "Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance," should outright delete my work. I am very new to Wikipedia so if this is the wrong page to address this issue, please feel free to redirect me to the correct place. Note --> This page has been suffering from content removal for a while, and I would appreciate a valid explanation. Also, feel free to verify my information, and correctly cite it for me!

Extra Information can be useful [the sources are in a previous version of the article itself]

Since this information no longer exists in the current Theanine page, people no longer can find this information on an encyclopedia page of Theanine. This information can be beneficial for people who need to understand how it works... why it does what it does. Theanine is a chemical that impacts the human physiology, and there is no area within the current forum that tells people how or why. Yes, this is not basic information, but if people want to understand what theanine does, maybe it has pertinence?

I delivered this feedback to the user/editor who disagreed with this information [below]: This is simply being addressed to point out how I replied per its removal

"As I have shown, you may look for the info yourself and study those connections. As such, this information is non-bias and I would of appreciated if you were to make it neutral tense without deletion. Since the information is correct, you may verify it yourself before submitting an deletion based on "verifiable source errors." Deleting information rather than correcting or assisting in its correct publicity per your own rules and regulations is morally and intellectually wrong in my opinion"

"Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance?" Because science is about discovery, and confirming clinical significance takes time and replication. Additionally, having an opinionated statement like this may indicate a conflict of interest regarding this page. This is my opinion, and I would like to be proven wrong. But removing "verifiable information" does not help this page or its readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel 020125 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

collapsing large block of disputed article content Left guide (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

In vivo Rodent studies have shown that theanine crosses the blood-brain barrier modulates neurotransmitter levels in the brain. L-theanine increases dopamine (DA) release in the striatum which impacts mood regulation via dopaminergic pathways. Several effects on serotonin (5-HT) vary by brain region and dosage. Some studies found that ingesting L-theanine increases levels of 5-HT in the hippocampus and decreased levels in the cortex. Additionally, L-theanine may reduce stress without sedation which is mostly likely caused by its modulation of GABAergic activity. Neurophysiology In a 2012 mouse study, Di and colleagues demonstrated that L-theanine inhibited the rewarding effects of nicotine. L-theanine lowered nicotine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) to similar levels as the nicotinic receptor inhibitor DHβE which suppressed nicotine-elicited increase in tyrosine hydroxylase (protein enzyme) expression and dopamine production in the midbrain. Also, L-theanine reduced the upregulation of α7, α4, and β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subunits within the mesocorticolimbic system, specifically the ventral tegmental area (VTA), prefrontal cortex, and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Additionally, L-theanine inhibited nicotine-induced c-Fos expression in the mesocorticolimbic system. In November 2014, research suggested that theanine may attenuate nicotine dependence along with nicotinic symptomatic behaviors. Electroencephalographic (EEG) studies have shown that ingestion of theanine increases activity in the alpha frequency band (8–14 Hz). Since alpha waves (Berger's waves) are sensitive to overall attentional states, higher activity may result in enhanced cognition and greater attentional control. In 2009, an intersensory attention experiment found that ingesting 250 mg of L-theanine may amplify intersensory perception as parieto-occipital alpha power (8–13 Hz) increases during cue processing. However, a subsequent study conducted in 2021 found that 250 mg of L-theanine did not significantly enhance the differential effects of attention. L-theanine instead produced a pronounced reduction in overall tonic alpha activity (tonic inhibtion). Previous EEG studies have demonstrated that lower alpha power (alpha desynchronization) reduces the overall neuronal activity in the default mode network (DMN). As such, an ingestion of L-theanine causes tonic inhibition which may cause the DMN to switch from a resting state to a task-positive state, thereby increasing arousal. Theanine crosses the blood brain barrier (BBB), via sodium-coupled amino acid transporters, reaching the brain approximately 30-60 minutes after oral ingestion. In humans, theanine has a bioavailability of 47–54% (capsules or tea) and can reach up to 72-74% if it is erythrocyte-bounded (plasma protein binding). This binding can be represented by the reversible equilibrium: Protein + Theanine ⇌ Protein–Theanine Complex Therefore, theanine reversibly binds with plasma proteins which affects its distribution and half-life. Daniel 020125 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Daniel 020125, why did you think this content dispute needed the attention of administrators of the community? Content discussion belong on the article talk page, not WP:AN. If, in the future, you have questions about Wikipedia, you should bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok that is good to know. I will use the Teahouse in the future. Since this is already here, I would like to readdress the problem into the entire pages management itself. The theanine page might benefit from more information, so I just did not understand why he outright deleted more than one section that others have tried to put in. Power abuse is what I think this problem represents. If he were to edit it by adding the sources [he can do this], I would commend and appreciate his effort to help the page itself. Daniel 020125 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, Daniel 020125, if you have a question about an editor's action, you don't come to a noticeboard, you go to their User talk page and, you know, ask them and discuss the situation. I recommend you try that first. Noticeboards are where an editor comes when every other effort at Dispute Resolution has been unsuccessful. But you don't start here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Non-notable journal?

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

---

Studies in the history of biology (journal) - edited, ref and links added to databases and independent sources. Is it OK now? Ivtorov (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter for WP:AN. As the article has been tagged with a WP:PROD tag, if you believe that it has been improved then you are free to remove it. CoconutOctopus talk 10:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible disruptive editing by SpaceHelmetX1

I've been in ongoing disputes with @SpaceHelmetX1 on two articles: Silverchair and Anne's Song. The former seems to be under control, as I took our issue to the talk page, and when that did little to change anything, I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment.

On Anne's Song, there was a genre dispute that was taken to the talk page. Most recently, they added a genre which fails WP:EXPLICITGENRE, so I reverted it, only for them to say: "take this to the talk page before you get blocked." First of all, I reverted once, that's not breaking the three revert rule. Secondly, I already told them on the talk page the genre was not explicit before making my edit.

I also saw two contradicting edits by them that may fall under WP:TE. On Enjoy Incubus, they made this edit adding an unsourced genre, while on Hate to Feel, they made this edit removing a genre for being unsourced. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

An account with a single purpose: genre warring. It seems they've created their account to make only genre changes to album's articles. They don't take kindly to being contradicted. When you point out they're wrong, they quickly deny your reversal, ignoring what WP:BRD says. IMO, per my experience here, only their block is functional in this case. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations. I've made substational additions to Concrete Blonde (album), Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song), Dream Into It, Don't Need a Gun, INXS (album) and Plush (song).and created the articles Under the Blade (song) and No Way Out (Stone Temple Pilots song). I've only reverted your edits for disagreeing with your reasoning for me being wrong, and explained so in the edits. I've also been more than open to discussing disputes on talk pages CleoCat16 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Let other editors see your edit history to see if I've made any false accusations. You've already been alerted by @FlightTime. Your articles may be deleted at any time. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither of us have an unbiased view on this situation. I brought this to the administrators attention for a reason, and would prefer to wait for what they have to say. CleoCat16 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm so excited to see what they have to say about you. You've already been warned by @FlightTime. I'd love to hear his opinion about your edit history. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't seen this in regards to those warnings. Regardless, I won't say anymore, and recommend you do the same. The administrators will decide. CleoCat16 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And, as I can see, they answered you. At Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, you've been warned by them (@FlightTime). They left a warning on your user's talk page. You said I've made "false accusations," so I need to protect myself. One thing you should understand is that, here, when you accuse someone of making "false accusations," you may hear the "real" ones. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

They're not an administrator, and again, that's already been settled at the help desk I linked. CleoCat16 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have a high level of ignorance about Wiki rules. First, administrators are important, but Wiki isn't run solely by them. Second, they (@FlightTime) are a great editor, with an extensive experience, and with an account much older than yours. I would listen to them. You've been warned. Your edits were correctly reverted at Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article. The issue there hasn't been resolved yet, and, as I've noticed, @FlightTime was correct in that one. If you break the three-revert rule, you may be blocked. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

1. I don't claim to be perfect. With that said, I'm aware of Wiki rules and would never knowingly go against them.
2. Wikipedia would not be possible without admins, and they have full control in this situation
3. I'm guessing you still haven't read the help desk I linked. See what the other two users had to say
4. I never broke the three revert, but you did according to your block logs, but I won't hold it against you, as I see you've not repeated the mistake since.

CleoCat16 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. To be brief on this, the Admin's noticeboard doesn't prohibit non-admins from commenting. So, CleoCat16, it is okay that non-admins discuss and participate here. SpaceHelmetX1, regarding your comment below (that has an outdent right after it), this doesn't appear to be belittling, but a misunderstanding. Hopefully this clears things up. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

• CleoCat16 and SpaceHelmetX1, you keep saying you want to hear what admins say but then you keep attacking each other. Your point of view won't hold sway because you are belittling the other editor. You need to argue on the strength of your position, not attack the other editor. That only makes it more likely that you'll receive a block for incivility. You've both had your say and this is the wrong place to even bring this dispute. If CleoCat16 brought this disagreement to DRN, SpaceHelmetX1, you shoud have agreed to have this dispute heard. If you didn't participate in the discussions on the article talk pages, that doesn't speak well of you. I encourage you to return to the article talk pages or DRN to talk this out and not edit war or levy personal attacks on each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thenks and apologies if I came off strongly. I already make a request for comment on Silverchair, but may do one on Anne's Song too. CleoCat16 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  I. I didn't attack anyone.

  II. The other editor has decided to bring the dispute to here, and as you pointed out, here is not the better place for such.

  III. I never avoided the discussions on the articles talk pages. When I was questioned, I responded to everything. I'm not trying to turn this place in a battlefield. When my user's name is mentioned, I have the right to reply.

  IV. I didn't falsely accuse anyone of anything. What I said is real. The other user has been warned several times on their user talk page, the most recent warning being made by our fellow @FlightTime.

  V. I didn't belittle other users, I didn't diminish them. Unlike the other editor who belittled our fellow editor @FlightTime cause he isn't an administrator (those were their own words, and if you demand it, I can prove it), a behavior I'm not sure if is appropriate here. Again, I have not belittled any editor, quite the opposite, I have only shown respect to other fellows. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If either one of you want to get anywhere, stop bickering and start providing WP:DIFs of misconduct. Cleocat, you've provided minimal difs, and SpaceHelmet, you've linked to nothing. Is there anything serious going on here or is it just 2 editors genre warring? I can't tell. Give us something to work with if you want the situation to be reviewed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a case of genre warring. Our fellow doesn't handle well when they're reverted. At Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, he was reverted by @FlightTime. They were notified on their user talk page by the same editor. @FlightTime and I have been having issues with such editor. Here, on this page, in this topic, there was a moment when they belittled our fellow @FlightTime because he wasn't an administrator. By my experience here, I know that this isn't the best behavior in the world. Not to mention that they brought the dispute to the wrong place, as another fellow editor has stated. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, please read on what a WP:DIF is. Provide actual links to actual edits and describe what's wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll provide the links. Here, in the Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, in this edit, they added a genre to the infobox, removing a previous one, which is sourced (a common behavior from them), with the following edit summary: "Improved lead and added soft rock. Even with a source, the song is too much of a soft ballad to justify hard rock as a genre." Here we can notice a removal of a sourced genre without first starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Adding a new genre using material (some random website called rewindstl.com) whose quality/reliability hasn't been confirmed, disregarding what WP:BURDEN says. They later added the same material again, undoing a @FlightTime's edit. Regarding what they said about @FlightTime, the link is not needed, since it is already here in this topic (unless they edited and removed their additions). Here, @FlightTime reverted their edit for the first time. They stated in the edit summary: "Doesn't seem like a very reliable source, seems like just someone's personal opinion. Take it to the talk page if you insist." As we can see, for the first time, another editor warned them about the quality of the material they intended to add, and the editor asked them to take it to the article's talk page if they insisted, something they've ignored. Later, here they undid the FlightTime's edit with a new argument not used in the first edit when they intented to add the genre in the first moment where they remove the hard rock tag from the infobox. Here they might even have been right, but they were reverted later by @FlightTime. Here, they restored the soft rock tag using a website called "I Love Classic Rock" as a source without confirming the quality/reliability of such material as they've been warned about. I really don't know if "I Love Classic Rock" could be considered a reliable source. And lastly, here they were reverted again by @FlightTime, who claimed to have left a message on their user talk page. All we can see here is genre warring, change of genres, addition of unreliable material without proving its reliability when it was required... SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want another sample, here it is. On Silverchair's article, they have been warned about genre changes. Here, it was stated that any genre change, removal of a long-term genre that has been accepted by other users, needs to be discussed first on the article's talk page. Knowing this, they later removed the same genre from the article's infobox again, stating that it was added in 2023 by an IP and that its therefore not a "long-term genre", even though it has been accepted by other editors, who never removed it and the main part is: it is sourced in the body of the article. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies for not being specific enough. The first two paragraphs of my comment were both for context. I've put in a comment on Silverchair, and will likely do the same on Anne's Song in the near future. As pointed out by @Liz, they're not necessary for admin intervention at the moment, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

The third paragraph is what concerns me most. The article for Enjoy Incubus looked like this when I first came across it. SpaceHelmetX1 then made this edit, removing one genre for being sourced by WhatCulture, a good change per Wikipedia:WHATCULTURE, but then they made this edit, adding an unsourced genre with the reasoning its the same as the band's debut album, Fungus Amongus, which has funk metal and alternative metal as genres for as long as I can tell. This is a failure of WP:GWAR. They've correctly removed poor sources since then, but in doing so, added a second unsourced genre, by keeping alternative metal, despite getting rid of its source. Not only that, it's in contradiction to their edit on Hate to Feel. This article looked like this when I first came it across it, another user adding a genre with the argument WP:BLUE. SpaceHelmetX1 correctly reverted this here, but this was before their edit on Enjoy Incubus, showing they were aware of genre rules when adding unsourced genres. On a different article, Brown (P.O.D. album), before I was fully aware of Wiki's genre rules, I added a genre with no source. SpaceHelmetX1 then correctly reverted it for being unsourced in this edit, but kept two genres that are also unsourced. To me, this seems like WP:TE, as they were clearly aware of the rule when making these two edits

I will admit, I started as primarily a smaller, genre editor, but I've grown past that and now prefer to make more substantial changes. I do still make genre edits when I'm shorter on time, but it's not my primary focus anymore. The example of Every Rose Has Its Thorn that SpaceHelmetX1 s using was already resolved on the help desk, with the two other users involved siding with me. SpaceHelmetX1 fails to point out I tried to discuss the changes on the other user's talk page. Regardless, the situation is resolved and does not require admin attention from what I can tell, so why it's being brought up here is a mystery. Also I have nothing but respect for the other user, and saying they're not an admin was not an insult, but a factual statement. I'm a little sad the take away they made on the help desk I linked is to stop editing music articles, cause keeping an eye on them is important work I respected them for. As for why I've not readded my changes on the article, I've been involved in larger projects, like expanding Phantomime (Ghost EP) and Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song) and would prefer to wait a few weeks to ensure there's no disagreements left. CleoCat16 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, the situation is resolved and does not require admin attention from what I can tell, so why it's being brought up here is a mystery. Given that an issue between the two of you was brought to this noticeboard, it can be relevant that it got brought up as any party to a dispute can have their conduct looked into. (As explained at WP:BOOMERANG.)

Regarding the situation as I see it, FlightTime wanted you to discuss this specifically at Talk:Every Rose Has Its Thorn. Instead, you brought it up at FlightTime's talk page after FlightTime had posted a warning notice to your talk page which asked you to use the article talk page. (It isn't prohibited to do it that way, but it kinda leads to a WP:MULTI situation.) You then cited an essay in an odd way (as you did get an explanation on your talk page), before going to the Help Desk regarding the situation rather than the talk page. I do get that FlightTime's claim of the help desk has no idea how musical articles work is confusing, but we do have article talk pages to discuss edits to an article. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

An important point here is that CleoCat16 seems to be treating the Help Desk advice as some sort of binding decision. It's not. It was just the advice of two other experienced editors. Only one of the editors even said anything suggesting CleoCat16 was in the right, the other just suggested they need to use dispute resolution. FlightTime themselves is an experienced editor. If I was responding I'd have suggested WP:BRD was more important. Perhaps FlightTime could have explained better but it seems clear that they had decent reasons for requiring CleoCat16 to go to the talk page. Unfortunately CleoCat16 seems to have failed to do that. In the Help Desk case Talk:Joey (Concrete Blonde song), all they did is to open an edit request which was unnecessary (CleoCat16 could edit the page themselves) and unhelpful (edit requests aren't intended as a way to start discussion). In Talk:Every Rose Has Its Thorn, instead of opening a talk page discussion, CleoCat16 just unhelpfully reverted saying they would. But it's BRD not BRRD and the time to open a talk page discussion was before reverting the revert. Could FlightTime have opened the talk page discussions instead? Sure, they could have and maybe should have. But CleoCat16 is the one here defending their actions. And of course as always it's particularly unhelpful for CleoCat16 to refuse to open a talk page discussion because they expect FlightTime to do it instead. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I've notified FlightTime of this thread as although they were mentioned several times before me, no one seems to have notified them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had made an assumption that ended up not being true. (I thought that they were already notified, but apparently that was something else from the user who opened this. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD is also only an esssay. There's no rule saying you have to discuss on the talk page. I didn't expect anyone else to open a talk page discussion, I used other means of dispute resolution, and in both cases, did just that. I find talk pages get little contributions for debates such as this. Even if suggesting an edit was unnecessary, there's no rule against that. I used it to see if a more experienced editor could implement my changes to more success. Also, the help desk's decision in both cases was accepted by the other editor. I waited some time after both of my edits before restoring them. It's not a "binding decision" but a conclusion in these two instances. CleoCat16 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Answering a ping; Sorry, I no longer watchlist musical articles. If there is a specific diff that needs my response, please ping me. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

BRD may be just an essay, but it is one that many of us feel is good advice, and your refusing to follow that advice does not help your position. A good rule of thumb is that if your edit gets reverted, and no one else will support your position after working your way through the dispute resolution methods (including discussion on the talk page), then walk away. Donald Albury 17:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I followed WP:BRD, it never says you have to take issues of this sort to the talk page. I reverted once after my edits were undone, and after that, I used dispute resolution to get a conclusion. CleoCat16 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD says If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page. The second step at WP:Dispute resolution, under Resolving content disputes, is Discuss with the other party, which specifically says Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't say you have to discuss on talk pages. I also never reverted my edits being undone since I reimplemented them with different sources and wording. FlightTime, who from his comment doesn't seem to want to be pinged or associated with music articles anymore, reverted my edits the first time on Every Rose Has Its Thorn for being unreliabily sourced. I did not argue this, and instead, reimplemented my changes with a better source. They didn't say anything about discussing until reverting my second edit, after which I did discuss. I'm happy to end this discussion now since no one's said anything on the points I've made. I'll just try to stay away from pages the other user frequently edits on. CleoCat16 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "prerequisite" means? (But also: the strategy "I'm going to argue with five different people all telling me the same thing, that will demonstrate I'm the reasonable one in the underlying dispute" does not seem promising to me.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No need to be demeaning. All I've done is calmly defend myself. So far no one's said how I've broken any Wikipedia guidelines. I've already said, I'm fine with nothing being done as all you've done is WP:DEFLECT. I get WP:BOOMERANG exists, but no one's even looked into my initial claims. The situations you're using against me don't even involve the other user. CleoCat16 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It does seem that this went on a tangent, but it looks like it is related to my explanation of what SpaceHelmetX1 brough up being something that is permitted and it flowed from there. Since we are on a tangent anyways, I am curious about something. In your initial comment you said: I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment. "[R]equesting a comment" seems to be very close to WP:RFC, Requests for comments. Were you trying to start an RfC here or am I off-base here? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it wasn't clear from my initial comment. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that clears up quite a few things for me, especially why you wanted to wait for admins. Sadly, AN is not really a place for RfCs (or at least one of this nature.) Per WP:RFCNOT, The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If the dispute cannot be resolved there, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort. You may want to read about other options in the Resolving user conduct disputes policy. (For an RfC, the best possible venue probably would have been one of the music articles or maybe the WikiProject, but I think we might be a bit past that one.)

The best explanation I got for what discussion you started is by pointing back to DISCUSSCONSENSUS: When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). It seems that by accident, you might have asked for a more extreme process than what you were intending to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, outside of the final paragraph of my initial comment, I don't think anything here needs an administrator, and even that's debatable. I've made a request for comment on one of the articles I've had issues with, Silverchair, and that's already been belpful when it comes to forming a conclusion. Thanks! CleoCat16 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you are trying to invoke WP:WITHDRAWN or a similar policy. (WITHDRAWN is for deletion discussions, but it seems you want to do something similar here.) Personally, I don't believe it will be that simple as it is possible that a party might want to continue this here or elsewhere. However, if you want to try, you should {{strikethrough}} your original comment that started this discussion.

I went looking and we don't seem to have a policy or guideline that fully explains things, but the closest would be a combination of WP:STRIKE, WP:REDACT, and WP:WITHDRAWN. STRIKE explains how to apply strikethroughs, where they can be applied, and why someone would do so. REDACT goes into more detail about STRIKE. And while WITHDRAWN is intended for deletion discussions, it doesn't seem like there is a rule that restricts the original comments from attempting to withdraw a discussion here. (In fact, the archives suggest that a user did this back in January and the discussion they started was closed as withdrawn.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll likely add a strikethrough, but it seems this page is getting more attention again, so I may hold off to tomorrow. CleoCat16 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Well if you want policies only, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion (...) But it does seem possible that you were not been aware of this, so hopefully this helps out for the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I was not. I prefer user talk pages, but I'll make sure to use article talk pages in the future for this. As I said, contribution on talk pages can be slow, so I'll probably ping users (such as recent editors on the page) going forward. I assume there's nothing against that. If not, feel free to inform me. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Using user talk pages to resolve content disputes is rarely a good idea. Plenty of us ignore user talk page discussions about content disputes. If you bring up something on one of the administrative noticeboards and there is no article talk page discussion, from our point of view you've refused to discuss the dispute which is generally a very bad thing.

Also especially for something like this there is absolutely no urgency. It's perfectly fine if it takes a week or two to resolve and it's perfectly reasonable if editors take a few days to respond. If this doesn't work for you then Wikipedia unfortunately isn't the place for you since we're a volunteer collaborative project and editors aren't expected to respond urgently to stuff that has zero urgency. It's generally fine to ping editors once when you reply to them or when you initiate a discussion but stop if they ask you not to.

BTW, insisting editors need to prove your violated some guideline when you came to AN to complain but in the process demonstrated you're behaving poorly e.g. refusing to follow BRD, is rarely good sign for editors who want to be able to contribute successfully here.

As for your opening complaint, while it would have been good for SpaceHelmetX1 to participate in the DRN ultimately it's a voluntary process. They've clearly discussed their reasons for disputing your edits so I don't see any indication their behaviour has been poor enough to justify any sort of administration action or even a warning so there was no reason to open this thread. The ANs are not for content disputes. And since your behaviour has also been poor, you shouldn't be surprised this thread was so poorly received.

If you can't resolve the dispute between the two of you and since the DRN has unfortunately failed, you need to use some other method of dispute resolution. If you want to open an RfC then go for it, it should have nothing to do with AN unless behaviour in the RfC by one or more parties ends up so bad to justify it. Alternatively it's likely there's some relevant Wikiproject where you can seek more feedback. I'd also note that AFAICT in Talk:Anne's Song there's only two of you so WP:3O is probably still an option.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to open an RfC then go for it, it should have nothing to do with AN unless behaviour in the RfC by one or more parties ends up so bad to justify it. Based on a comment they made within the last two hours, they were trying to start an RfC here and didn't realize that RfCs are not done here for content like this. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I started a RfC before this. Outside of the points in my initial comment and only the final paragraph, this discussion did not go in the direction I expected, and as you can probably see, I've striked through it, as you showed me. CleoCat16 (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço afd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço is nearing a week. Anyone feel like climbing this particular Everest when the time is right? 158 editors and almost 200 000 bytes atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Good luck to the admin who manages to wade through that. Knitsey (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

On the plus-side, it's less than half the size of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, this one isn’t that hard. I’d do it, but someone would throw a fit about this being too important for a NAC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that this looks like a civil AfD, so the closer won't get their head bit off by the "losers". The bad news is that 1) It's huuuge, 2) there are at least five different proposals that are addressed, some well, and some only fragmentarily, as some are introduced later in the discussion: a) Delete because the article is censored (with several underlying different reasons behind individuals' !votes to delete): this is the opening proposal, b) Delete because the subject is not notable, c) Add a banner with some text about the issue (and there are several different banners introduced at different phases in the conversation, with earlier commentators not having seen nor commented on the later banners), d) blank the article (with a banner), and e) Extended Confirmed protect the article so new editors are protected from falling into legal trouble.

I'm involved, having !voted, so I can't close it. Aw shucks! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm comfortable closing, but it looks like we're still a few hours off from a full 7 days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to reading your closing statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And we've had one reverted NAC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind looking at it as well when the time comes, though Rosguill has first dibs. :) 331dot (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you 2 can team up? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with whoever is available taking up the close after the second relist period. As Compassionate727 notes, despite the case's novelty and traffic, the outcome looks fairly straightforward at the moment, other than the likely need for page protection to be applied. On the other hand, a few editors have specifically asked for a relist and further discussion, so I don't think there's any harm in allowing that to continue for another week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

SECOND RELIST PERIOD!!!??? Please tell me I heard that wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I misspoke. I meant after the relist that is currently underway, which in my mind became "second" because it came after the initial mandated week. Trout for lunch I suppose. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Because an administrative action is potentially in the mix (EC protection), I believe an administrative closure is best, though I do appreciate your offer and this has nothing to do with your skill at closing, only the possibility that the closer needs to do an administrator-type action. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

There used to be a time when roaming administrators could feel comfortable jumping into any XFD that they felt they were uninvolved in, and closing it with a simple two-word rationale "No consensus" if it had dragged on for long enough. We have plenty of legacy admins from those days when that sort of outcome was more commonly accepted. But these days, it seems like the essay-length closure has become somewhat of a requirement, especially on matters like this where the community is so deeply entrenched in this matter that a more comprehensive rationale is necessary. That said, I don't know how we codify that into admin policy or guidelines. Is there anything stopping an admin from just closing this discussion without a justification of how they evaluated consensus? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Fear of disapproval and questioning of competence? Spirit of WP:ADMINEXPECT? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The close will get challenged regardless of how long it is, but if it's obviously inadequate, said admin will also, separately, have to defend their conduct. That's no fun. Also, this is the sort of close that might get media attention, so there's something to be said for putting a little thought into it, even if the outcome is no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I may be an optimist now, but IMO a well-written close could very well survive a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, perhaps even avoid it entirely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The outcome here is relatively obvious. Someone will inevitably complain, given how passionate many are, but I don’t expect a serious challenge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I write lengthy closing statements for my own benefit, to ensure that I’ve truly considered all the relevant arguments and reached the right conclusion. If I consider the outcome obvious, I often won’t write one, even if I expect it to be controversial. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• CaptainEek has relisted the discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. Apparently comments from 160+ editors wasn't enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed that relisting was ridiculous; there was clearly enough input to close there. And we generally are way to keen to relist discussions that didn't need relisting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Relists aren’t mandatory holds. Anyone can close this at any time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see my relist has been controversial. That was not my intent. The AfD had taken on the nature of a policy discussion, and the comments were still rolling in. The discussion seems like it will set a precedent and probably be seen by the press and the Portuguese courts, so cutting it off prematurely seemed unwise. But it could be closed before the end of this relist period if folks feel that I messed up here.

  I would be happy to be part of a panel close with @331dot and @Rosguill. Alternatively, I have a draft close written that I could implement sometimes today, with a bit more work. Or I can sit this one out if folks prefer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see this as an AfD, no more. The policy questions should not be answered in the close. You can see all the angst about proper notification, how the question was framed, etc. And some of the policy questions were introduced late to the discussion, so it's a mess. To me, the AfD should be closed delete/not delete. The banner is simply an editorial decision and can be handled on the article talk page. Protection may be just a BLP CTOP or ordinary admin decision. Blanking is a policy decision and should be handled like we do when we change other policies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is an extraordinary situation and requires an equally extraordinary closure. Any close that doesn't directly address the myriad proposals that were discussed in good-faith would be unwise, to put it mildly. XFD discussions don't typically deal with issues relating to court judgements or office actions, but absent other forums such as an RFC, this discussion has basically morphed into that for all involved. In addition to being included at CENT, it's also been linked from multiple locations (such as the village pump) where one might go looking for a way to voice their desires on what to do one way or the other. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  CaptainEek I would be willing to be part of a panel. If you'd like, you could email me your draft as a starting point. I do have some preliminary thoughts about the matter, though I'm still going over it. I have a feeling the closure process might take a bit. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know about necessarily needing an extraordinary closure, but I agree on WP:NOTBURO grounds that the outcome can include consensus for actions that aren't traditionally taken up at AFD (although FWIW it's not rare to see AFD participants weigh in on protecting an article, generally in a WP:SALT context). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe I oversold it, but "extraordinary" to me meaning a thoughtful and deliberative reading of the discussion, and not simply a Delete/Not Delete with all the other points discussed getting shuffled off to other forums simply to be re-litigated again (which it's already likely to happen anyways, but the less of that the better). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I won't object to the possibility of the closer(s) making a ruling on yes/no/no consensus if there should be a banner/protection etc. If that happens it happens, and if people challenge it or part of it, that happens too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. Or no consensus, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think we should put a notification at the top of the AFD page mentioning that the closure is in the process of being considered. Otherwise another admin or editor might just come by and close the discussion while you all are in the process of putting some thought and care into how the discussion should resolve itself. But frankly, our organizational system for templates I find mystifying some maybe some smarter editor know the appropriate template that should be used to reveal that the AFD shouldn't be closed prematurely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz, @Rosguill, @CaptainEek, @331dot if it is your intent to close soon, I'd use {{closing}} and maybe protect the page until you're done. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I did end up emailing 331dot to start discussing a close. I won't stop anyone from freezing the AfD or putting an appropriate template, but I'm out on business for the afternoon so I don't have time to sit down at my desk and do it myself :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how "shortly" we will be. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is an |estimate= parameter that is free-form text where you can type what you want (such as within an hour). I'd suggest {{subst:closing|closer=[[User:CaptainEek|]] and [[User:331dot|]]|plural=true|estimate=the next 24 hours}} at the top and full protecting the page. Obviously if Rosguill is assisting, add them as well to the list. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  That's helpful. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you (plural) for taking this on! And if someone can update User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest AfDs so we can see how it measures up to the other gigantic afd:s, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Bhiu1

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

---

User:Bhiu1 just created their account yesterday, and is immediately doing disruptive editing or wp:vandalism. They created a page: Draft:Leadership under Barack Obama and just copy edited, the entire page about Barack Obama's presidency into his page, I called him out for it and he is now denying it. I decided to come here to the administrators notice so we can resolve this issue with a neutral party, thank you. I just tried to report this dispute resolution and it didnt work, so we are here now, for anyone wondering. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but don't see any WP:VANDALISM myself. Bhiu1 seems to be editing in good faith, without a full understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also, since they're only drafts, it's possible they'll eventually put the text into their own words, and copied from other articles as a source of reference. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Heres the thing, I tried to resolve it peacefully but he kept denying it, even though the truth was in the pudding, he did copy edit 99% of the barack obama presidency page. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I see they've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. I think new users should be treated with patience, which you did. If they were copying content as a source of reference, then changed it to their own words, it's better they do so on a Google Doc or something until it can be called their own work. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Evidence section

1. Special:Contributions/Bhiu1 -Has alot of pages related to presidencies and leadership
2. [19] - revision showing the copy edit with 291,000 bytes added.

No I didnt Bhiu1 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I made this page and added the same information about his presidency, the election and the information about him. It's for the candidate of the party for the upcoming election Bhiu1 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Barack Obama cannot run for a third term, he is barred constitutionally so, and also, you have more than like 50 pages on presidencies and leadership atp. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

i know he cant run for a third term that's why I added the date he won the candidate election and the moment the new candidate was elected to take the party to the election Bhiu1 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You literally did. ref for anyone in the dark: [20] EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

and I'm not denying that but I did not copy the page Bhiu1 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

you are bro EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

no I'm not Bhiu1 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

yes you are, if you want even more proof, look at the sections of Barack Obama's presidency. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for courtesy vanishing

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

---

Hello, I would like to request a courtesy vanishing for my account. Thank you

~~~~ Montefjanton (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Where do I go to report a user???

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

---

The user I want to report is blatantly defending false information on a Wikipedia article and threatening me with a ban (final warning message) over my pursuit to get the false information off of the article 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are the person who made this edit and the related edits, it would appear that the warnings to you were appropriate. The provided citation indicates suicide by hanging is appropriate. If you think the provided citation (WP:CITE) does not meet our criteria for reliable sources (WP:RS), you should bring that up on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

We mean that the provided citation is appropriate. We do not mean that suicide by hanging is appropriate. We the Wikipedia community would tend to advise against suicide by hanging, or indeed by any other means.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sulli's death was never factually confirmed to be suicide by hanging. Anyone can do a search and see that her cause of death via hanging is not listed by multiple reputable sources 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

bringing it up on the article's talk page is a vain attempt as "topics" on that page can ignored for years with no actual progress to be done about them 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I would add that if the source is accurately summarized, but you feel it is in error, that is something you need to take up with the source itself. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

my problem is on the Wikipedia article about "Sulli" namely her cause of death. She is a pretty famous person in South Korea and if her death was confirmed as by hanging then it would be guaranteed that her cause of death would be listed as such across multiple sources but instead that is not the case at all. Instead the info listing her cause of death is relying on ONE unconfirmed cause of death, while multiple confirmed sources list her death as simply being "suicide" with no actual mention of in what way did she kill herself. 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN is not the place for content disputes. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

More help comes here than any Wikipedia article talk page sees 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a discussion that you should have on the talk page- how much weight the source should be given in terms of naming a cause of death. I'm not sure that your logic follows- some news outlets don't always publish exact details like that out of respect- but that's a matter for the talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

talk pages are basically useless in regards to old articles 2601:441:8400:9760:F593:3484:2FAC:6FA6 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That still doesn't give you license to remove sourced content simply because you dispute the source's provenance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The number of actual reputable sources confirming that Sulli's death wasn't by hanging (by not saying that it was by hanging) far outnumber the one unconfirmed article saying she hung herself 2601:441:8400:9760:3A0A:A21F:4550:774F (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

2601:441:8400:9760::, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is an inappropriate use of WP:AN. --Yamla (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin) I recommend you look at WP:DR and consider pursuing a more appropriate form of dispute resolution for a content concern if you feel the Talk page won't help...though several options there will still encourage you to start with the Talk page, and you likely should do so. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Then try some WP:APPNOTEing to the talkpage discussion you start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Subject

Request to create an account – IP range block issue

• • Message:** Hello, I am trying to create a Wikipedia account, but I received a message saying that my IP range has been blocked due to abuse. I believe this block is not related to me personally, as I have never edited Wikipedia before. I am a genuine user and would like to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Kindly review my request and allow me to create an account from my current IP address or provide me with an alternative way to proceed.

Thank you for your understanding. 2402:8100:2744:C53E:6735:C225:37A1:B51 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Request an account. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It was just meant to be a block from a single page, but account creation was disabled, which may have been an error. @Ohnoitsjamie: as the blocking admin.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the "block account creation" was not intentional; I've removed that flag. Apologies for that, you should be able to create an account now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal letters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [21]

Reasoning: In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modify MOS:POSTNOM so that post-nominal letters would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.

The new RfC was closed by S Marshall as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.

Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline's status quo wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.

S Marshall pointed to WP:BARTENDER as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, which HouseBlaster has separately questioned, as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.

COI note: I have an explicit viewpoint on this topic, as I proposed the 2023 RfC and participated in the new one. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Closer (S Marshall)

• Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.

Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).

At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.

We need to decide whether the community really thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (POSTNOM)

• Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[22], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say bold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on something to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing MOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when WP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the status quo ante bellum is maintained. It does not mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a new consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of WP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.
  Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants (POSTNOM)

• I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's comment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on due weight, original research, and clutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• If something lacks community support and there is no consensus, then it should not be in the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that some people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• @ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close contradicts itself by saying there's no consensus and then imposing Option 1. DrKay (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)