Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard below:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - Wikipedia

Notices 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)

Hi, I recently received the following email from Supersonic232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Do something crazy and shoot me your PW - If this is soliciting an administrator’s password by email, make the block parameters (account creation disabled, email disabled). Enable autoblock for IP addresses/ranges.

I'm afk so don't have time to act on it. (I'm writing this on my phone, apologies if it's terrible)

It's a very strange way of requesting a block imo and of course they don't need a block if they just want to stop editing, but they're right, they have technically broken a rule that normally warrants a block.

I'll notify them of this discussion of course, but then it's over to you guys, I'm on holiday! WaggersTALK 07:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them to come and explain themselves but I'm thinking they have another, primary account that is currently blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect it's Jiwood23. DMacks (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, Liz, and Waggers: Either one of you three block that user @Supersonic232 indef. from editing. 166.196.54.86 (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For soliciting an admin's password by email (and LTA possibly) 166.196.54.86 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! Since blocks are preventative not punitive, and the editor has not edited since, I'm going to take no further action for now. WaggersTALK 10:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help, did someone misplan another edit-a-thon? All brand new accounts.

• Kingsbrown (talk · contribs)
• Victorpeter001 (talk · contribs)
• TedeCyber (talk · contribs)
• Mary Ekere (talk · contribs)
• Hossana1 (talk · contribs)
• Phina001 (talk · contribs)
• Kuuzy (talk · contribs)
• Honeydear (talk · contribs)

Remsense 🌈 论 18:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple overlapping pages and images, there's definitely some coordinated underlying situation here. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what the fuck? This has a distinctly malicious feeling to it. Can we start thinking about doing something quick with all these accounts? I can't keep up. Remsense 🌈 论 18:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that—I was right the first time. Sigh. Remsense 🌈 论 18:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After analyzing their contributions, I came to the conclusion that we should block all of them. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking won't solve the problem. What I see are a few overzealous/excited contributors involved in an ongoing campaign. A warning should suffice for now. If the behavior persists, then more serious actions can be considered. Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the coast is mostly clear. I do appreciate that, unlike some events, the realization something was running hot was acted upon in a perfectly reasonable period. Thanks, everyone for that. Remsense 🌈 论 18:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuuzy mentioned wpwp, so probably this is m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025? —Kusma (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, yes, that's it. Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had to be the bearer of bad news again, y'all. Remsense 🌈 论 18:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, without the magic hashtag, they don't get credit for it. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three new contributors each found the same nondescript old image File:Ycyk-Ata stolovay.jpg to put in Foodservice, and I still can't figure out how what kind of search of Commons as suggested at m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025 would uniformly return that. NebY (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the bad news is that this contest runs until the end of August. The good news is that this is the organizing team and the main organizer is User:Reading Beans who can probably answer any questions you have about this event. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, especially to the participants: this is a really neat idea, but in my opinion like everything else on wiki there should be an intentional balance between convenience and intent. I would ponder how we can make real strides in certain topical areas, for example, if participants have overlap in their interests and would have more expertise for what articles would benefit from going in. Again, I really feel bad about this, and hope everyone can enjoy contributing going forward. Remsense 🌈 论 19:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Without the #WPWP hashtag, they don't get the credit for the edit; however, after previous year's dumpster fires, using the hashtag is limited to extended-confirmed editors via Special:AbuseFilter/1258 (which the organising team don't seem to have realised since they tell people they can just create an account!). All contributions using the hashtag can be tracked using Filter 1073. If new accounts are blasting images into articles without using the hashtag, I would suggest doing what we did last year and warning them; and if they ignore that just pblocking them from article space. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If WPWP is back it must be time for me to go on holiday. And does this really need 18 people to organize it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello all, the campaign has a restriction on the English Wikipedia where only extended confirmed users can participate due to disruptive editing from new users as we have seen here. A filter was created to enforce this but it seems to be that they’ve evade the restriction by not using the hashtag which means they are not to be considered as participants. I do not neglect my “duty” as the campaign coordinator as I monitor every edits with a 30 minutes window (see the hashtag tool for English Wikipedia). I would go ahead and send them a formal disqualification notice. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reading Beans, m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025 simply says if you don't have an account yet, create a new account for Wikipedia. Please can you change that, there and anywhere else it may appear, to make it clear that new users cannot participate on en-wiki? Otherwise we can expect to see more editors following the instructions and either being disappointed when they work through all the steps only to find their posts are rejected by the filter, or sometimes working around the restriction by omitting the hashtag - and then perhaps being reverted. That's a bad experience for potential new editors. NebY (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  True. I’ll definitely get to that before morning. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the glitches that have occurred, Reading Beans, I just want to thank you for your efforts in encouraging new editors to participate in editing Wikipedia in so many different projects that are a part of WMF. Discussions like this arise out of frustrations that typically arise when new editors who are unfamiliar with the rules here dive into editing but if some of them learn our system and stay on as editors after the campaign is over, we will have benefitted from it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words Liz. It’s a mere attempt to bring more Africans into the free encyclopaedia. You are the best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, @Reading Beans. Could you also fix the text in the box in m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025#Campaign rules? It begins Participants must be a registered user on any Wikimedia project. Sign in or Create a new account on Wikipedia.... m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025/FAQ and Contest Rules#Campaign rules is the same. Of course, the restriction makes rather a mess of the Best Newcomer category, currently described as Editor account created in July 2024, which is workable but not obviously "new" – no idea what you want to do with that in future. NebY (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, new accounts can still enter the competition on other wikis, I believe it is only en.wiki that has the ECP restriction (though I could be wrong). Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but Reading Beans' amendment seems more comprehensive. NebY (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, fair enough then. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then @Reading Beans should definitely change the text under "Campaign Rules" that says Participants must be a registered user on any Wikimedia project. Sign in or Create a new account on Wikipedia. You can create an account on any language Wikipedia, for use in your own WP and on all Wikimedia projects. to something like Participants must be a registered user on any Wikimedia project for at least one year before participating. Sign in on Wikipedia. You can use an account from any language Wikipedia in your own WP and on all Wikimedia projects. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you for catching that. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time we fully opt out of this contest; it's been causing chaos for years and I don't believe yet another minor tweak to the docs will ultimately solve anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's been four years since I created User:Chipmunkdavis/WPWP to ease the twinkle work. I have not kept up with the new campaign rules, so if anyone finds it useufl please edit that notice to note that new users cannot participate on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins; I was blocked by an administrator on WP:PIA topics. Of course, I wasn't aware of this policy at first, and on subsequent occasions, since I work on WP:NPP, I made edits regardless of the topic of those articles. I assure you that these edits, and my contributions to Wikipedia in general, are made in good faith. I work professionally on human rights and military articles. This lack of access has imposed a lot of friction on me.

I had useful edits and articles and good interaction with users on Wikipedia. I also contributed to the preservation of PIA articles. (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7)

With respect and acceptance of the blocking administrator's opinion, I request another administrator to remove this block so that I can be useful. HumanRight 19:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Human Right Wiki#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction seems to be details Secretlondon (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon Thank you for reply. That's true, and I admit my mistake. But I meant more like the biography of a journalist, not PIA. I hope it can be forgiven. HumanRight 21:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki, the usual way to appeal this kind of ban is to ask the blocking admin first. It doesn't look to me like you've contacted Rosguill since your initial questions about the tban? -- asilvering (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Thank you for reply. Yes, here and here we discussed this topic and Rosguill asked me to request another admin. If you'd like, I can contact Rosguill again or invite him to join this discussion? HumanRight 21:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand - both of those are from before you were extended-confirmed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I just asked Rosguill to join this discussion. HumanRight 21:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This user, despite saying they "work on WP:NPP", has never had the new page reviewer userright. Toadspike [Talk] 07:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similarly confusing interaction at User talk:asilvering#Request for APAT. -- asilvering (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering @Toadspike Based on the WP:HEP where it says: "... anyone who has edited is known as a Wikipedian or editor. Small edits add up, and every editor can be proud to have made Wikipedia better for all." and based on Wikipedia:You can and cannot change Wikipedia and WP:BB where it says: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it.." I was just trying to make good faith edits. If I've broken the Wikipedia policies, please let me know. HumanRight 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the unban request and urge HR to adhere more strictly to the terms of the TBAN moving forward, since they link to some ban violations and have continued to make more since starting this discussion. No more PIA-related protection requests, please. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Thank you for joining this discussion. I did it based on the WP:PP where it says: "Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection.". In one month, I filed 11 protection requests, 10 of which were approved and one is pending. If this doesn't deserve appreciation, I don't think deserve to blame. It also states in the WP:PIA policies: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. If I've broken the Wikipedia policies, please let me know. Regards. HumanRight 19:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose at this time, although FWIW I am fine with HRW having come here without directly appealing to me first, as I laid out an appeal to AN after reaching 500/30 as a valid route to appeal. I agree with FFF that pointing to their preservation of PIA articles is not what we want to see in a PIA ban appeal. I'm also concerned by the repeated appeals to their off-wiki expertise despite having already received explanations that en.wiki does not consider off-wiki credentials, and the various references and engagement around NPP and autopatrol, which at best demonstrate rushing/confusion and at worst smacks of WP:Hat collecting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Thank you for joining this discussion. I think there was a misunderstanding because I didn't request APAT for myself. Currently I don't need this access because my articles creating through AfC. What I requested is to unblock PIA. Just like other EXTENDED users, I want to make good faith edits. HumanRight 19:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki, you've been making edits in violation of your topic ban. No one is going to lift that topic ban until you show that you're capable of following it in the first place. If patrolling new pages is making it difficult to adhere to that ban, you should stop patrolling new pages. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I understand the sensitivity of this issue. But this restriction not only hurts me. It's also goes against WP:GF's. I haven't made any destructive contributions. I just made some edits to articles as a newbie and accidentally made them. My contributions are clear. Please look at the articles I have created. Many of these are related to PIA's topics. This restriction is constantly stressing me out. Regards. HumanRight 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were topic-banned. You edited in violation of that topic ban, as recently as yesterday. You are not going to have the topic ban lifted given this. You could easily be blocked for this, but in the interest of good faith, let's do this instead: do not edit any articles or topics in the PIA topic area, or you will be blocked. After six months of violation-free editing you can appeal the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger Thank you. I am agree :) HumanRight 21:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, @Rosguill, @Firefangledfeathers, @Secretlondon I've actually lost the enthusiasm I had for Wikipedia at first. I feel like I've been treated like WP:NOOB. My request is just WP:XC as a normal user, which can be approved or rejected. I don't want to take up any more of your time. Thank you for contributing in this discussion. HumanRight 20:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is only a month old, you are a noob. I can't believe you are already doing things like NPP with an account that is only a few weeks old. Did you edit here previously with a different account(s)? You are very fortunate that you are not being blocked right now for violating your topic ban. I wouldn't push the envelope here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thank you for joining this discussion. I'm familiar with programming. Working on Wikipedia is similar to web design, and I regret realizing this too late. I enjoy the contributing and interaction here. A virtual environment but with a human hierarchy. Something like a cyber army:) I usually think before doing something, except in this case!!! Mostly, I use Google search to reach Wikipedia instructions and policies. Honestly, it is somewhat complicated, but it is not something I cannot handle :) HumanRight 22:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the answer to the question Liz asked, "Did you edit here previously with a different account(s)?". Your response did not address it directly. If the answer is yes, you can just say so and name the account. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland No, I have never contributed to Wikipedia before. HumanRight 18:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Wikipedia is similar to web design it's as "similar" to web design as it is to shopping on Amazon. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland It depends on users. What they have learned outside of Wikipedia. HumanRight 18:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki It's unrelated, but since we are already here - are you using Google translate to create new articles? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses I don't think this is necessary. HumanRight 23:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki I'm sorry, I don't understand your reply. What isn't necessary? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses I do not use Google Tanslate. Regards. HumanRight 03:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki Can you explain why the article you created about Qasem Rezaei is virtually a word-for-word copy of fa:قاسم رضایی (نظامی) run through Google translate? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, translation is something that's encouraged, and I don't think there's a rule against machine translation. It does need to be credited if so, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger There's no rule against lying about using Google translate either, but it's not the kind of conduct that we expect from users. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the PIA topic area where a significant percentage of content is generated by accounts employing deception as a tool via ban and block evasion, it is the kind of conduct we should expect in about 3% of cases on a per actor basis, and somewhere between about 6 to 9% on a per revision basis. The true deception rate is probably higher because our detection methods are rather weak. If the statement 'I do not use Google Tanslate' in response to the question 'are you using Google translate to create new articles?' is a false statement, they should not be allowed to edit in the PIA topic area in my view. Not having access to the topic area does not appear to be significantly impacting their ability to contribute content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland Thank you for joining this discussion. The decision is yours. You can ban me from PIA for 6 months like User:The Bushranger said or completely. I can focus on other topics like art, sports or even history. But that won't help Wikipedia grow because my expertise is human rights and military articles. Regards. HumanRight 18:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are already topic-banned from WP:PIA topics, indefinitely. After six months if there are no issues is when you can appeal that topic ban with a good chance of the appeal being successful. But a topic ban, indefinite in duration, is already in place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses based on the WP:NPA where it says: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." based on the WP:CIVIL where it says: "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." & "Belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts" and also WP:AGF where it says: "When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind." I refraining from further discussion with you. If you have a complaint about this, you can discuss it with an admin. Regards. HumanRight 18:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Human Right Wiki, Counterfeit Purses' questions thus far here have been measured and reasonable. Please address the question as to whether translation software was used at Qasem Rezaei. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill No. As I said, I am a native Persian speaker. I have no reason to use Google Translate. Of course, if I sometimes run into a word shortage, I refer to the dictionary. HumanRight 18:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm satisfied with the responses to machine translation concerns as they seem to be reasonable explanations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I really didn't expect this to become an issue, but since it has, let's look at the evidence. The lede from HRW's article:

Qasem Rezaei (Persian: قاسم رضایی) is a Brigadier general of the Police Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who has been serving as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of Faraja since May 2020. He was a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Iran–Iraq War. Rezaei served as Deputy Chief of Police Operations from 2009 to 2014, and served as Commander of the Border Guard Command from 2014 to 2020.

The Google translation of the Farsi article:

Qasem Rezaei is a Brigadier General of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Security Forces , serving as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Security Forces since May 2020. He was a member of the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq War . Rezaei served as Deputy Chief of Police Operations from 2009 to 2014, and served as Commander of the Border Guard of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 2014 to 2020.

A human translator is unlikely to have made the same word choices as Google. For reference, here's Bing's version:

Qasem Rezaei is a Brigadier General of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and has been serving as the Deputy Commander of the Law Enforcement of the Islamic Republic of Iran since Ordibehesht 1399 (April-May 2020). During the Iran-Iraq war, he was a member of the Revolutionary Guards. Rezaei served as the Deputy Chief of Operations of the Law Enforcement Forces from 2009 to 2014 and from 2014 to 2020, he was in charge of the Border Guards of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

If anyone cares to look, I'm sure that this same curious similarity will be found in other article creations by HRW. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Purses, It’s not immediately apparent to me which phrases you consider to be implausibly similar, particularly taking into account that a lot of the text in question includes titles and other proper nouns that have standard translations. The time stamps of the edits in question, which are often a giveaway of algorithm use, look like they’re consistent with the pace of human editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I don't know what edits you are looking at but I am looking at this one edit which created an entire article complete with an infobox, images, and complicated formatting. Here is a quotation in HRW's translation:

You have to make them drop the machete, that is, they have no hands. If you arrest these people at the scene of the conflict and I see them standing here unharmed, you have to answer why they are unharmed. If they had a machete in their hand at the scene of the conflict, I have to see that their hand is broken. Their hand must be broken and their torso must be down. If they pull a gun, you have to break their leg.

Here it is translated from Farsi by Google:

You have to make them drop the machete, that is, they have no hands. If you arrest these people at the scene of the conflict and I see them standing here unharmed, you have to answer why they are unharmed. If they had a machete in their hand at the scene of the conflict, I have to see that their hand is broken. Their hand must be broken and their torso must be down. If they pull a gun, you have to break their leg.

Again, no human translator would have chosen exactly the same words as Google. For reference, the passage translated by Bing:

You have to make them drop the machete, that is, they do not have a hand. If you arrest these people at the scene of the conflict and I see that they are safe and sound here, you must answer why they are healthy. If he had a machete in his hand at the scene of the fight, I should see that his hand was broken. They must have broken hands and fallen torsos. If they draw a scarf, you have to break their footpegs.

I only got involved in this because I saw an editor who had amassed a unusually large number of edits in a very short time and creating a flurry of new articles. The former should be of concern to admins here, but my only goal was to discourage the use of Google translate. Even if you are unable to see the obvious, I am sure others understand what is really happening here so I will bow out before I say something I regret. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking at the quotes you included here from the lead, which I don't think are self-evidently machine translated. I do think that this further text you have included here of the quote from Rezaei is much more suspicious, at it includes several different, unusual phrases in the English translation that directly follow the Google translation, particularly they have no hands, the scene of the conflict, I have to see that their hand is broken, their torso must be down. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I have already added the source, which is an interview. You can ask another Persian-speaking user to translate it for you. These interview are listed carefully and word for word in both Persian and English Wikipedia. All of that are based Wikipedia:Styletips/15 where it says: "The quotations must be precise and exactly as in the source (except for certain allowable typographical changes). The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to locate the text in question, and to quote it accurately themselves from Wikipedia."

I also still believe didn't break any of the rules of WP:MACHINE and WP:Translate. HumanRight 21:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of the style tip, which is clearly intended to apply to English language quotes; translations are expected to be fluent and comprehensible to English speakers (their torso must be down ain't). That aside, I'm willing to accept the explanation of why you wrote it this way on good faith if this is the only evidence. Counterfeit Purses, you suggested that this pattern occurred across multiple articles. Do you have any examples that aren't from blockquotes? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Unlike Persian, I have no claim to complete mastery of English. I contributioning here based on the WP:NNS where it says: "People whose first language is other than English are both welcome and encouraged to edit the English Wikipedia."

I expect other users to modify my articles based on WP:BB where it says: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it." HumanRight 22:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I've already told you where to look, but you shouldn't waste your time since you seem more inclined to believe HRW's obvious prevaricating. Hopefully someone more clueful will deal with this. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors. LordDiscord (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my comment and will leave the discussion as I had intended before Rosquil pinged me. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger, WP:MACHINE is not a rule, but it is the result of a pretty long-standing consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger I assure you that no Google Translate was used. HumanRight 18:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So which translation were you referring to when you wrote "Google Translate should be congratulated for this relatively good translation. But it still has many flaws"? M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton User Counterfeit Purses claimed Qasem Rezaei is word-for-word identical in the Persian and English versions. I checked this. Google Translate is about as good as it gets, but not better than mine. I didn't break any of the rules of WP:MACHINE and WP:Translate. HumanRight 19:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:, Aha, thanks for linking me to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses Google Translate should be congratulated for this relatively good translation. But it still has many flaws. Neither Google Translate nor you know my native language (Persian) better than I do. None of the WP:MACHINE and WP:Translation rules have been violated in my articles. It should be noted that these articles have been moved from AfD to the main space by experienced users.

You may not know it, but by asking these questions you are violating the WP:OUTING. Your pursuit of protection against vandalism in this case will not earn you another "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar", could also jeopardize the safety of me and my family. Issues that could even lead to the Capital punishment penalty for writing my articles on Wikipedia. For example, User:Hosseinronaghi is currently in prison for publishing articles against Islamic Republic and in favor of Israel.(1) He and his family have been arrested numerous times by the Iranian Ministry of Information.(2)

Please read Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and avoid asking unnecessary questions. Regards. HumanRight 18:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki, it is not a violation of the outing policy to ask you questions about whether or not you use Google Translate. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering But the answer to that and the fact that I speak Persian then don't need Google Translate, is related to WP:OUTING. Regards. HumanRight 18:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. If you are translating articles from Persian, it is expected that you can read Persian. Also, if all you work on is articles about Iranians, we're simply going to assume that you are Iranian, and it is not outing to make that assumption. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Yes, I am an Iranian. But when I refrained from publishing my personal information on User page, it means I don't want to expose it to the public. I was a political prisoner in Iran for many years then don't want this to happen to me or my family again. HumanRight 19:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're going out of your way to share details about your life that nobody asked about, while being evasive and giving contradictory statements about the translation. If anything, this tells me that you shouldn't get involved in anything that is remotely connected to a contentious topic. M.Bitton (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton I am here to request the unblocking of PIA topics. But this discussion has been sidetracked and other topics have been raised. I deeply feel WP:HA coming upon me. HumanRight 19:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What contradictory statements, specifically? Something like this should include diffs. LordDiscord (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:OUTING here. Nobody has requested any sensitive personal information from you. At all. Accusing other editors of outing when they are very much not is not a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki Is that an admission that you used Google translate and that you lied about using it when asked? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. They were referring to the Google translate result you brought up, and saying if it was close to their manual translation, then it should be congratulated for doing a good job. LordDiscord (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this and am astonished at the WP:ASPERSIONS being leveled against this user. Their edits are overwhelmingly constructive. The "broadly construed" rule is extremely confusing and nobody has posted evidence that they were purposely violating this or gaming or lying or anything else I have seen mentioned. @Human Right Wiki, thank you for your contributions, and my deepest apologies for the treatment you have received. I hope this doesn't deter you from contributing further. LordDiscord (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LordDiscord I deeply appreciate your support. Of course, I give the admins the right to review sensitive topics. After all, they have been working on Wikipedia for years and have more experience. What I expect is fair punishment based on the right to freedom speech and Wikipedia rules. Thank you again for your support. HumanRight 19:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came here after cleaning up some of this users articles, and seeing they were at AN. The edits I made to Hossein Sajedinia, Azizollah Rajabzadeh, and ESPECIALLY Mojahed Kourkour reveal huge competency and bias issues around this users editing. Spamming a large amount of unrelated refs about the BLP under a section and sentence that NONE of them reference is bafflingly bad. And in the case of Kourkour's article, the editor included the wrong name in the section about him being executed, and mangled the direct quote of a Canadian MP so badly that I can only assume it was the fault of machine translation or AI use. This editor needs to spend much more time studying our PAGs before they should be allowed near the PIA area, or Iranian articles at all. Parabolist (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference issue might be AI hallucination. If not, this editor may need a sitewide block. And if so, probably still a sitewide block. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put the Farsi version of Kourkour's article from 11 June into Google Translate and compared it to the first revision of the English article, that MP's quote comes out word-for-word the same except for the last sentence. The reference to the tweet was present and had the correct quote in it from the beginning, but was missing the last sentence entirely. No idea what could explain this other than automated tools plus a lack of care. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolist, I agree that the Mojahed Kourkour issues are quite strange. I will issue a mainspace pblock. -- asilvering (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. In the meantime they've made another PIA tban violation on their userpage. Nevermind. I'll indef. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, how did this limited block for topic ban violations turn into an indefinite block for this editor? What did I miss? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, they didn't have a block of any kind, just a tban. As for the reasons for the block, see Parabolist's comment two steps up and the edits referenced there, which are serious WP:V issues. See also (sorry in advance) the extensive discussion at User talk:Human Right Wiki#July 2025. -- asilvering (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Asilvering. I was just surprised because I thought they would turn into a solid contributor after this bump in the road. Well, I hope they appeal after some time passes. I'll look into the sources you are pointing me to. Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Star Mississippi, I think the closing statement should be amended to mention WP:V issues, as at this point that seems to be the more significant obstacle to an unblock (see their talk page). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Victuallers (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Victuallers had his autopatrolled right revoked in 2023 by Beeblebrox enforcing the consensus in this ANI discussion. Yesterday, Dclemens1971 submitted the following nomination to Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled: (permalink)

I have been familiar with Victuallers' work for some time but coming across his work on Malawi in the new pages feed today made me realize with surprise that he is not autopatrolled. His new page creations are of high quality and demonstrate awareness of Manual of Style, notability guidelines, etc., just as I'd expect for a long-tenured admin. Unless there's some reason not to grant this permission that I'm unfamiliar with, I think adding the AP flag to Victuallers will reduce the backlog for reviewers.
— Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Since the right was revoked by community consensus, I'm moving the discussion here as a procedural action; I'm not leaving an opinion. Should Victuallers's autopatrolled permission be restored? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Victuallers, who says that the quality of my contributions has not varied for years. This means that a) their articles are presumably of the same quality as they were when P was revoked, so need to be patrolled by others; and b) that they don't recognise the issues that led to the revocation of AP and haven't adjusted accordingly, in which case their articles need to be patrolled by others. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was unaware of the AN/I discussion at the time of requesting the flag for Victuallers and would not have suggested it had I been aware of the prior community consensus. However, I reviewed Victuallers' previous 10 creations (my usual standard when I run into a non-AP editor whose work does not appear to require additional patrolling) and found no problems that I considered warranted ongoing patrolling. But since I started the conversation and TechnoSquirrel69 has moved the discussion here, I will share my view: I do wonder if the prior discussion applied too strict a standard to Victuallers and perhaps conflated the article quality problems with the separate topic of deleting preexisting redirects when creating new articles. Autopatrolled is for prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of the new pages patrol process on Wikipedia; there's nothing in WP:APCRITERIA that requires error-free creations. These kinds of errors flagged in the AN/I discussion are nitpicky ([1], [2], [3]). One of the articles flagged Fram cleaned up 10 minutes after some typos were made in an edit by Victuallers and less than an hour after Victuallers created the article. Flagging Victuallers' mistakes in this window of time as problematic editorial behavior at a noticeboard is unreasonable, especially considering NPPers are expected to observe WP:NPPHOUR. I'm quite sure that everyone who is autopatrolled makes similar mistakes from time to time. (Victuallers' use of an unreliable source is more serious, but in the context of other nitpicks discussed above I'd be more inclined to forgive that.) Autopatrolled is about focusing our volunteer patrollers where their time is most valuable, not ensuring that articles need virtually no editing by other users. Victuallers continues to be a prolific page creator and thus re-granting AP would have an impact on NPP volunteers' time. I think another chance can be granted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that arguing the previous consensus was wrong when it was literally 100% in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest. But that several experienced users (including two admins) found sufficient concern to revoke reflects both the seriousness of the issues—including copyvios—and, shall we say, a perhaps less than firm understanding or awareness on Victuallers' part that several issues needed addressing, but had not been. Respect your analysis, though. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi, like I said above, I wouldn't have brought it up at PERM had I been aware of the earlier consensus. I respect all the editors who came to the conclusion at the time. Just figured that since I inadvertently triggered this conversation I should at least read through the original discussion and not avoid commenting on something I started. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On a separate note, I'd like to apologize to @Victuallers if my post at PERM dredged up unpleasant memories or started a discussion that you'd rather not have. (If we should speedily close this thread, please let us know.) I was truly unaware of the history and only wished to highlight what I saw as a net-positive track record of contributions to the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think it saves time then do proceed with your application although I see that Fortuna is getting confused when they say "in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest". There is no "Victuallers' case", and it shows a deep misunderstanding of what's happening here. I am not the applicant. Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the gaslighting, but 'Victuallers' case' literally means 'the case regarding Victuallers'. There is no intimidation as to the 'applicant' ('appellant'). Suggesting that those who disagree with you are 'confused' or 'misunderstand' demonstrates precisely the lack of introspection I touched on in my comment. Caoi! —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume this was intended to mean "the case for Victuallers to be granted autopatrol"; I can certainly imagine myself using it that way if I wasn't being very careful with my words. Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can see that Rusalkii, but "introspection"? Why is that relevant?. Is someone still misunderstanding the case? This is an application by NPP patrolers to make a change to save them time. It is based on their perception of my editing. They will know that my "lack of introspection" (or the PhD that I could be taking in the subject) is irrelevant to their case. Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't really want to get into arguing about someone else's words, seems unconstructive. Rusalkii (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have reviewed a random smattering of Victuallers's creations for issues identified by other editors (about 15? I wasn't counting, sorry). The only NPP-relevant issues identified by other editors are the following:

• Special:Diff/1293545114: citation to a predatory journal removed by Headbomb
• Special:Diff/1281129389: factual error, caught by Thoughtfortheday as part of a series of major edits to the article

Neither of these users were actually patrolling the article, and I don't expect the average new page patroller to catch either of these issues. Do their articles have issues? Maybe. But if they're there they empirically are not being caught by NPPs, so we should reinstate the right to decrease the burden on patrollers. (I would change my mind on evidence of continued nontrivial copyvio, but given the history if that was occurring I would support harsher sanctions than not granting autopatrolled, since in this hypothetical that had empirically not fixed the issue). Rusalkii (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per FIM. I am not convinced that the issues have been resolved. JayCubby 14:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I am following the closure review process which mentions this board.

• I would like to dispute this closure for outright ignoring consensus.
• This closure on neutrality grounds because it functions as a supervote while completely mischaracterizing one side of the discussion. The policy based rational of the other side is one based on WP:WEIGHT. Therefore the characterization We are left, therefore, with a policy-based argument to include publisher expectations versus editors' opinions that they should be excluded is not accurate because WEIGHT is Wikipedia policy, and arguments derived from WEIGHT are valid and shouldn't be dismissed outright.

Accordingly I'd like to request an admin to evaluate and re-close these two discussions. Sorry if this is the wrong location as I've never done this and I'm not familiar with this board. Thanks! Koriodan (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koriodan, per the instructions at the top of this page, please reformat this request to use Template:RfC closure review, which should be used for such a discussion. You may delete this comment if you want while doing so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified User:Compassionate727 which you hadn't done yet, Koriodan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Koriodan (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It looks like ScottishFinishRadish was able to update it. Let me know if it needs further updates. Koriodan (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something but AFAICT User:Koriodan asked User:Compassionate727 about their close at 11:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC). Without waiting for a response, they then opened this malformed thread 50 minutes later at 11:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC). Compassionate727 first responded at 21:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC). There's been some back and forth before then, and I don't think Koriodan is satisfied with the response. But I don't see how this complies with Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion" or the basic courtesy of the ANs which is except in exceptional circumstances you should generally have talked to the editor about your concerns first, at least previously if it's some sort of repeated behaviour. Even accepting it looks likely the two are at an impasse now, it doesn't seem to me that prejudging that you won't be satisfied with the closer's response helped the situation in any real way. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, AN should decline to hear this appeal both because of the procedural issues noted above, and also because the underlying content dispute (about how the gameplay of a video game should be compared to its predecessor) is so trivial that it is not worth spending more volunteer time on. Sandstein 09:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Sandstein. From the discussion itself and Koriodan's failure to adequately collaborate, it seems that this is more a dispute for the sake of argument than a dispute for the sake of content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close (decline). The first complaint is unsubstantiated. Because a close is a recording of consensus by definition, saying "this closure [is] outright ignoring consensus" is equal to saying "the close is wrong" without saying how it is wrong—it is like submitting a piece of paper titled "Complaint" and signed, with nothing in between. The second complaint is based on quoting out of context. Interested editors can read the full close statement on the talk page. Both complaints lack an actionable request: "I'd like to request an admin to evaluate and re-close these two discussions" does not state how the discussions should have been closed but were not due of a purportedly incorrect analysis of consensus, and what remedial action—what different outcome—is therefore requested. There is no explanation for what difference it makes if the closer is or is not admin; usually, this is not important. The filer needed to discuss their concerns with the closer beforehand, and base an actionable request on that, for any issues that remain following such a discussion. The filer started the review before receiving the closer's response. That is not acceptable since this and that discussion are two forums for the same thing that must be used in an escalatory manner, not in parallel, in order to avoid wasting other editors' time on process that may turn out to be unnecessary. Seeking community review of closures of such discussions is asking a lot from the community, so when it is done, it needs to he done right. —Alalch E. 14:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore as per Sandstein. I don't know whether I should list myself as Involved or Uninvolved. My role with Dragon Age: The Veilguard is that I tried to mediate a dispute about it at DRN which is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard. I think that these two disputes about this game, and a recent dispute about Forspoken, and other disputes, illustrate that video games are a contentious topic sensu lato, not because the subject matter is contentious, but because a subset of the editors of the material like to quarrel about them. I don't know whether that means that we need to list video games as a contentious topic sensu stricto in order to avoid wasting the community's time with trivial video game disputes; but we don't need to resolve this closure appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow, what a backlog. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP has been declining UAA reports [4], despite not being an admin. Their edits to Template:UAA should probably be reverted as well. [5] 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E5C6:A985:B43E:CAB3 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• UAA is almost never an urgent backlog that requires a notice at AN. Any editors engaging in disruptive editing can be reported to AIV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason I shouldn't block Starfall2015 from WP:UAA? When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should at least warn them to knock it off first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been borderline disruptive for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look through their edits. I don't think sanctions are appropriate, since as SFR said they haven't really been warned and this seems clearly good faith. However, Starfall2015, your edits recently have been almost entirely to backend parts of the project, including ones that require plenty of experience. Please step back. Avoid commenting on noticeboards unless it's a dispute you were involved in. Avoid nominating things for deletion for a while, read some deletion discussions and policy, and try to help out by commenting in AfDs once you feel like you have a grasp of it. Avoid asking for advanced permissions. I get that you're trying to help, but this isn't the way to do it. I'm happy to take questions about what is or isn't appropriate right now, if you'd like, or the teahouse is a great resource. Rusalkii (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they should still get a warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz you already did User_talk:Starfall2015/Archive_1#Suggestion

I think at minimum they should be p-blocked from project space, but their draft work is also concerning as @Rsjaffe noted. Star Mississippi 17:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've been archiving/deleting their warnings and feedback on their userpage. I did give them some more feedback this morning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that you not block me, as I'm a valued contributor. I am good-faith, and if you blocked me I wouldn't be able to help UAA or something. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starfall, please read the above thread more carefully. You should not be trying to help out at UAA right now. You are not ready, and it isn't helpful. Rusalkii (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that response above exhibits an astounding lack of clue, I've pblocked them from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Once they have taken on board the community's concerns and agreed to act on them, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Concur. @Starfall2015: it is good that you are trying to help. However, you are not helping; you are disrupting. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, DFO; I think UAA can probably do without that kind of help. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the unblock request. They are currently running for adminship, which is the feedback they took on board from IP 2A0E's comment above. Le sigh. Star Mississippi 13:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related, I've also warned LordDiscord for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into LordDiscord's recent comments over the past few days, I am unfortunately convinced that they are not trolling and are being honest. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be trolling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. The reason I was convinced of their honesty was because of the comments at User talk:Olitun and User talk:Human Right Wiki. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet! The cat's out the bag now. If they hadn't gone through with the RfA, this might have been salvageable, but now we are firmly in the realms of CIR. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And their response to their RFA being tagged for speedy deletion was to remove the tag. Not a good look. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now they've removed it again. Surely a CIR block is inevitable at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is transcluded! Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Re, "you've been here long enough to know better", to be fair, I don't think they have: although the LordDiscord account is five years old, they've only been active about a month. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that isn't very long, being here long enough to know about nominating at RFA is long enough to know "don't fucking troll people into getting their teeth kicked out of their face at RFA and probably make them quit editing". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would people be uncivil (“teeth kicked out”) at RFA? If that is really a problem, then that should be fixed. The solution shouldn’t be to discourage qualified editors from being nominated. LordDiscord (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And an IP is attempting to stop my RFA! That is very bad. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LordDiscord I don't think you were trolling, but the naivety about the environment that is RFA isn't helping you or @Starfall2015 who should withdraw. While I don't think they'd be elected, the group election would have been much more kind than an RFA which will be SNOW closed at best and gutwrenching at worst because Snowfall is not qualified to be an administrator. That is a fact, not uncivil. Star Mississippi 14:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The election is what I offered to nominate them for (because I saw that there was an ongoing election). Although I thought that was the same thing as an RFA. I see now there are two different processes. LordDiscord (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. In any case, Starfall2015 is now demonstrating sufficient lack of CLUE/competence that the outcome's inevitable at this point. Going by their RfA "answers", we're probably been trolled... Q: "What are your best contributions?", A: "The thing that got me blocked". —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA is now transcluded. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus here, I have asked them to withdraw and apologized to them. LordDiscord (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think that's really a necessary comment. There are no requirements to nominate someone for adminship, and while yes, RfA is a bleeding shitshow nowadays (for a list of reasons so long that it could be the subject of dissertations), adminship remains no big deal. Everyone's standards for adminship are different, and while Starfall is a bit...lacking in the clue department, I think LordDiscord was genuine in their offer to nominate, and calling a kind but naive offer "trolling" is somewhat condescending, and there were so many better ways you could've phrased that. More to my point, and this is solely my opinion, but I think you should strike your accusations of trolling that you have raised towards them here and on their talk page. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging an editor to stand at RFA or nominating them at RFA citing the behavior that just saw them blocked is indistinguishable from trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior leading to their block was that they needed to be an admin to clerk UAA. They then were offered a nomination for adminship, which is, at least in theory, the way to remedy that issue. I don't see where this is necessarily trolling, so much as just well-intentioned but misguided. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any reading of this thread up to the point of the offer of a nomination could be summarized as "they just need to be an admin." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly did not read the entire thread at the time, but the initial comments were all about that (“When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page”, “The OP has been declining UAA reports, despite not being an admin”). The reason why I thought they were qualified was because of my experience with them at ANI, not this one, which I mentioned in my initial comment. That’s the only place where they had directly interacted with me.

I was surprised at the response, as I thought I was doing something good at the time. And that is a problem if it is indistinguishable from trolling to several editors, which is why I will be avoiding any RFA/admin election/related topics until I have a better understanding of the community standards. I hope that alleviates any concerns. LordDiscord (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're edit warring over the speedy deletion tag on their RFA

, coupled with

and

, it's abundantly clear that a block is needed at this point.

(

)

Do not block me. I have not violated 3RR. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the request for protection, with some probably futile, but nonetheless kind, words I hope. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is beginning to look like WP:CIR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sealioning, IDHT, obsession with RfA, tying as many editors up in as many knots as possible over a range of namespaces. Kind of remnded me of this guy, who Zzuuzz CU'd as Arch'134. Still, by now I guess the sheer amount of dsruption probably warrants/justifies a general Checkuser needed request. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S2015 seems  Unlikely to A134 imo. dbeef [talk] 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A134 was for example, Dbeef. I assume there are several others who do not object to wasting the community's time like this. Mind you, I guess there's always room for a new kid on that particular block... —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case CU does not immediately find other accounts to connect to, I do a comparison.

I've got no opinions on a block; I was only looking at it from a technical point of view. dbeef [talk] 16:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Dbeef, didn't mean "block" in our sense, rather City block as in "New Kids on the"  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we were hoping this was a sock rather than a terribly confused new editor. The RfA application is extraordinary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe@Dbeef as I said on their Talk, I consider myself Involved to block unilaterally and they appear to have paused after the ill-fated ANI thread. But if they resume editing I think it's time for at least a p-block from project space if only to save themselves from walking into an INDEF. I'll open the proposal Star Mississippi 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, if any, would be ATMN, as they recently were also involved in the Oasis kerfluffle. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While UAA was the immediate issue, discussion here and at their Talk has shown that the issue is a broader one and that Starfall2015 does not have the Competence to edit in Project Space. I believe removing them from this complex area will help them gain the editing experience to be a better editor in the long run. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer and per self. I also think there's a case to be made for the IAR close of their RFA. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This behavior is starting to become very similar to another recent ANI "customer." Best in my view to give them a time out and let them build competence through the experience of normal editing.

Intothatdarkness 17:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well maybe; but I doubt it's enough. Sorry, but as I said above, this editor either lacks WP:CLUE and sufficient competence to edit here, or, frankly we're being trolled. Either way, they've become an absolute timesink. First, they're clerking at WP:UAA, which wasted several editors' time and bought them a pblock, then the appeals, then launching an RfA which if it's allowed to run will waste a lot more editors' time... all of which have done nothing except waste several editors' time and energies over a period of days. See also ths thread. The fact that at RfA their answer to the question, "What are your best contributions?" was answered with, effectively, "The thing that got me blocked", says all we need to know. As Cullen328 noted, they have been disruptive for weeks, and not only in project space: they attempted to endrun AfC by moving their draft back to article (twice!) and have left innaproprate user warnings and refactored other users' talk pages. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I take responsibility for any disruption from the RFA, I encouraged them to do that. LordDiscord (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not socking since they didn't edit concurrently and no attempt at obfuscation but Starfall15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is their prior account per the history of Draft:York Bypass (thanks @Fortuna imperatrix mundi). The deleted contribution show some nonsense from the first edit which makes me think they weren't new then. cc @Dbeef if there's anything helpful there. Star Mississippi 19:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though, as Fortuna... states above, this may not be enough. I get the impression that this is a very young editor, who perhaps is salvageable given enough time. Putting in some hard guardrails like namespace blocks may help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your impression. Though I am concerned that they will react poorly when this proposal passes. I did try to explain our blocking policy, so hopefully that helps a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Clearly there is a competence/judgement issue that time building the encyclopedia might remedy.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As if there were not enoguth reasons before. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a bit earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh but I just saw it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with regret, because I don't think they're being malicious, but I don't think project-space access for this user helps anyone, including them. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Some sanction is needed for this editor short of a site ban, and this is probably what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Starfall is clearly well intentioned, but misdirected. The issues they are having are unfortunately fairly common among certain types of newcomers, namely they are trying to be an admin despite not having the experience or knowledge to contribute to administrative parts of the project in a productive manner. This seems like it would be a good way to redirect them to more productive endeavours, where they can get experience and learn how policy and guidelines work. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said. It saddens me that this new user received such horrendous advice. It's been a long time, a very long time, since a user with three months tenure and 600 edits stood a prayer of passing a request for adminship. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The encouragement didn't help the situation but I'm not sure it made a difference in the outcome. The editor was pretty gung-ho already and was being a nuissance on the UAA noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra I was very close to starting "Proposal 2: LordDiscord is topic banned from RFA nominations", but given that they seem to have agreed to step back from these areas of the project above I don't think it would be necessary. Nominating people for adminship while having no idea of what is required for success or even an understanding how the process works (like RFA and admin elections being different) is utterly ridiculous.

I think in a lot of ways LordDiscord's disruption has the same underlying causes as Starfall's - too much enthusiasm combined with too little knowledge resulting in disastrous attempts at getting involved in administrative areas, as I said it's unfortunately common among certain types of newcomers. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiastic new editors diving into admin areas happens all of the time, for example, we just dealt with ToadetteEdit who early on sent off a lot of red flags. It frequently occurs with clerking AFD daily log pages. I'd even guess that this phenomena happens about every three months or so. We try to steer the wayward newbies towards content work so the situation doesn't end up with a topic ban, namespace ban or, in worst cases, a site-wide block. I've already posted to LordDiscord's User talk page, they have received plenty of feedback and they agreed to step back from participating on noticeboards. I don't think action is called for in their case. All that is still required in this discussion is whether or not Starfall receive a namespace block of limited or indefinite duration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

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

And now we have this: User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been active I'd have likely supported a site-wide block, but now that the community has chosen a namespace-block, if we're going to be fair we should probably give them some room to breathe. That page is silly, but is not harming anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Starfall2015 is now blocked indefinitely for being compromised. See User talk:Starfall2015 § Blocked indefinitely. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hyggemule

Hyggemule made this page:

Draft:Matthew Swarts and it got rejected, for using LLMs like Chat GPT, there is also these walls of text that is obviously ai generated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Matthew_Swarts&oldid=1299973163

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Matthew_Swarts&oldid=1299967672

And he is making personal attacks at User:Qcne and User:331dot calling the latter's critique "gross editorial incompetence". He was also using disabillity as a way to bypass our rules and policies against LLM's and AIs. I am asking for anyone's opinion on this matter, including the users involved, except Hyggemule because of his use of AI. I atleast think we should indef ban him for using ai and language models. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually completely incorrect.

Qcne used abusive language (called me, in public, a "shitbot"). They stated they did not read the draft. Hyggemule (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you were using ai which discredited your ai because of your use of it to defend it, and plus it cant even be in mainspace since rejected. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page* 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also, he was referring to the chatbot, and I would rather much trust people who were here and read the policies every single day and follow them for years. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've been working through Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which has some overlap with Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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,[11] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

User:Shidrokh radmehr is spreading the propaganda of IRGC against the citizens of the West. Some of the contents indirectly refer to some kind of terrorism threat. Some of his edits are also misleading information. In Persian Wikipedia, his accounts have been blocked, including this one (due to using multiple accounts). Check his edits in political articles related to Iran. Almost every one of them can be enough evidence. Unfortunately I'm sure he is part of something bigger. But for now we can stop this account. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edard Socceryg,

Please inform the editor that you opened this complaint about them. Also, you need to present a case so please offer some diffs/edits that show the disruptive content you are bothered by. It's up to you to share the evidence to convince other editors that there is a basis to your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1297297787, Special:Diff/1299956441, Special:Diff/1299961859.

I listed these three recent ones. But each of his edits is similar or even worse. In the first link, see how he refers to Israel and their people. He has edited the text exactly like the Hamas spokesperson and basically makes no attempt to be neutral! In the second link, he has used a source that recommends killing the enemies of the Iranian regime, including the people of Israel and protesters inside Iran! It is interesting that the text he added is also Iranian regime propaganda. See WP:PRESSTV. But the most important is the third link. Where he added a false claim of a terrorist hacker group to scare people inside Iran and prevent people from sending videos to Iran International. Indirectly, he has threatened to kill people inside Iran who have cooperated with this TV channel. Spreading Iranian government propaganda is unfortunately not his only job. He also spreads propaganda from Iranian government hacker groups. I can list more if needed. Edard Socceryg (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, hello, I am not a member of any group or party. I only edit articles out of interest in political articles and with the aim of spreading the truth. (Considering Wikipedia rules)

I have only one user account.

According to Wikipedia rules, I have used reliable English sources and have not spread any misleading or false information.

I have not threatened any group or person with death and have never recommended the death of any person.

All people, regardless of language, religion, or creed, are valuable to me.

As for the first accusation: Special:Diff/1297297787

With this move the Zionist regime showed that its real goal is science and technology, and it has come to war against Iran's scientists using the tool of terror.[9]

I have stated in the article about Iranian scientist Abdulhamid Minouchehr that Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and scientific elites.( Israel has assassinated about 30 Iranian scientists.)

Have I spread lies? I described only one of the events of the 12-Day War.

Second accusation: Special:Diff/1299956441

The channel is backed by a Saudi-British investor with ties to the Saudi government,[9][10][11][12]According to the British newspaper The Guardian, Saudi Arabia has provided a 250-million-dollar fund for Iran International in 2018.[13][11]

It has been repeatedly mentioned in reliable English sources that Saudi Arabia provides financial support to Iran International.

Do you see favoritism or threats in the above text? I have only reported the news from the Guardian and other sites about Saudi Arabia's financial support for the International.

Third charge: Special:Diff/1299961859.

The Handala group infiltrated the internal systems and data of the Iran International media outlet in July 2025. Iran International confirmed the authenticity of the leaked data in a statement.[102][103]The group said it had published information on more than 71,000 users, employees, financial records, contracts and internal messages of the network. In total, the volume of the leaked data is said to have exceeded 2 terabytes.[104][105][106][107]

I only reported one event of the day and even used the Iran International website as a source because it confirmed the hacker attack.

Do you see intimidation or threats, even indirectly, in the above text?

I did not support or favor any hacker group.

Have I acted outside the rules of Wikipedia?

I think the accusations against me are exaggerated and malicious.

Please judge me fairly and justly and make a decision. Shidrokh radmehr (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edard Socceryg, I think you should stand down. New claims are verified by at least one reliable source. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third diffs, certainly, but I'm not sure how With this move the Zionist regime showed that its real goal is science and technology, and it has come to war against Iran's scientists using the tool of terror isn't blatantly original commentary in an extremely sensitive area. And Shidrokh radmehr shouldn't be editing a page that is related to Iran-Israel War anyway except to make an edit request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check the edit count. So I'm informing Shidrokh right now. (user was already warned before) Ahri Boy (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've been warned before for violating ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 month. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

so an account with no username has this up address 105.158.201.17 keeps adding and vandalizing the font of this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Moroccan_Army#Air_defense_systems without any sources , I worked really hard to keep it up to date and he just doesn't seem to care SemperSupra (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SemperSupra: - You do not hold sole title to any Wikipedia article, and the IP's edits are not vandalism. 'Vandalism' has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and any edit in good faith, which these are, are not it. This is a content dispute; I've protected the page for 72 hours and encourage both you and @105.158.201.17: to discuss this at Talk:List of equipment of the Royal Moroccan Army and come to a consensus about the content of the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I hold any title , I said that it's not fair for a person to change the font size and add sections without any proof SemperSupra (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked really hard to keep it up to date and he just doesn't seem to care may not have been intended as an assertion of ownership, but it can be easily seen that way by other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SemperSupra,

You might try reporting this to WP:AIV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help SemperSupra (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admins,

I’m requesting assistance to move "Culpeper, Virginia" to "Culpeper." There is currently a redirect at "Culpeper" pointing to "Culpeper (disambiguation)," which blocks the move. I don’t have the permissions to delete the redirect or move the page myself.

Also, I’m unable to add this request on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page because any edits I try to make there get automatically removed by bots. Because of this, I’m posting here to ask for admin help.

Thanks for your time! Waypoint47 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done. Please see WP:USPLACE. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (music) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 16:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Special:Diff/1300487471

Reasoning: I do not believe that the closer properly evaluated consensus. First, the close only addressed one side of the debate; it summarized why editors promoting an expansion of the guideline (option 1) opposed the status quo or a more restrictive interpretation of the guideline (options 2/3), but didn't address the arguments in support of option 2/3 or explain why they were outweighed by those in favor of option 1. Second, the close implies that those opposing options 2/3 are correct in their assessment of Option 2 potentially introducing (or in Option 3's case, leaving-put) language potentially superseding the general notability guideline ("GNG") and/or worried Option 2/Option 3 creates a conflict with the notability guideline ("N") as a whole. But that was the whole debate in this RfC, and those supporting options 2/3 made significant arguments about why this guidance makes sense in the context of the guideline and why the normal relationship between SNGs/GNGs (which was itself discussed and argued in this RfC) isn't as clear cut as was described in the close. Finally, I don't believe that the close adequately grappled with the argument that this RfC was prompted by a non-issue; editors supporting option 1 largely rested their arguments on articles being wrongly deleted, but (as far as I can tell) they couldn't point to a single article that failed at AfD that shouldn't have.

Just a quick note: I specifically encouraged this person to raise their concerns here if they felt I was in error, so thanks in advance to everyone for helping us both check it out. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 10:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the closure. Buffs (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. Seeing the discussion at hand in the context of broader, higher-level consensus (especially as documentet in our policies and guidelines) is an important part of the closer's job, and I think the closer of this discussion handled it well. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. That's not my complaint. My complaint is that the closer didn't address an entire side of the debate. Closers are required to accurately summarize the discussion, weigh between the arguments, and evaluate consensus. Merely reiterating what one side said, asserting that there's consensus for that side, and not evaluating counterarguments reads more like a super vote than a neutral close. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also note that this discussion involves a potentially major change to the notability guidelines. I would expect a closer to very clearly explain why one side has consensus, not just assert that it does. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I get what you mean. I just wasn't being clear enough. What I meant to say is that some aspect not being covered in the closing statement does not mean that the closer did not weigh that aspect appropriately. While we may wish slakr had dedicated some words to describing the other viewpoints in their own terms, we cannot from that conclude that they did not understand and consider them, that is, that the substantive result of the discussion, "rough consensus for Option 1", was wrong. That's not to say an omission cannot be indicative of a problem, but I personally do not see that being the case here, right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I see a pretty strong consensus that an SNG such as NSONG should not override the GNG. As noted in the discussion, this was settled at a 2017 RFC. WP:SIGCOV is also pretty direct in saying a topic (which in this case would be a song) "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for it to count as significant coverage. I realize the closer suggested you come here, but I really don't understand what more you're looking for. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't understand what more you're looking for I think my statement is pretty clear. What part do you not understand? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2017 RfC you're citing is about NSPORTS and the opposite issue of too-loose SNGs eliminating the need for SIGCOV. The issue in this RfC was primarily about WP:NOPAGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That RfC also ended in no consensus, which is clearly how this one should have closed given the significant diverging views about whether we should have articles for every song that gets SIGCOV vs. covering those songs in album articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Notability guidelines are too complicated and open to interpretation to form a good basis for subsequent incremental policy making that is rational and takes the whole system into account. Most editors do not know that much about notability and use their natural good sense of what kind of articles to create and avoid creating. Notability is a mechanism of social control against the problematic users who lack this commonsense compass and want to expand the scope of the encyclopedia against the majority's instinct of it's supposed to look like. Reasonable people don't need notability guidelines. With an RfC like this, it's fine to count votes and see if a fire starts somewhere later on. If we start getting tons of ridiculous song articles, we'll deal with that issue then. If it turns out that we can't deal with it, that's okay too, Wikipedia will also be a Songpedia, and that's not that terrible. I like music. —Alalch E. 22:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will opine that I think having SNGs being more restrictive than GNG is a slope we really don't want to start tobogganing down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone was arguing for that though. The disputed guidance is about inherited notability and when not to split content. That's yet another reason why this close is flawed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate notices on an IP for a public library. See User talk:153.111.229.202

It's pretty clear from the activity on the page of this user that it is used by multiple users accessing a public library IP. It has been mentioned in various places. The public library users edit a wide variety of topics including local history. User FlightTime thinks this is a conflict of interest, and has reverted articles based on this misunderstanding.

The notices should be removed. It would be good if users from other countries did a little research before reverting changes, and understood different localities have different internet access not to mention different types of history. Not to mention that this type of action seems to contravene the wikipedian notion that anyone can edit wikipedia. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with them warning you that if you have a COI, address it at Talk:Christchurch City Council, and you would receive none of these warnings if you decided to create an account to edit, which is encouraged in a public environment to provide edit clarity. You also previously posted copyrighted content we had to remove, so be thankful you can still post at all from this IP. There's discussion going on there, so I would advise you to return there, and this should be closed as there are no administrative issues to be dealt with. Nathannah • 📮 23:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was addressed at Talk: Christchurch City Council, and ignored. Wikipedia terms of use say you don't have to create an account, and that edits are accepted from all. Not everyone can create accounts safely. The issue here is a misunderstanding that an IP for a public library is not an IP for a council so there is no conflict. The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here. The message said if you have an external relationship. If you in fact do not then there's nothing to be concerned about as only the potentiality was mentioned. On the other hand, if your editing evinces a CoI other editors may start a WP:COIN thread despite your denials. All of that is irrespective of whether or not you have an account, or where you choose to edit from.

All reverts and their edit summaries are visible at Special:PageHistory/Christchurch City Council. None of those reverts cited CoI as a reason which in any case is not normally ipso facto a reason to revert though the details and nuance of that are off-topic for now. Your edits were reverted for introducing copyvios and due to apparent disagreements over the scope of the article. The former is non-negotiable. The latter is a content dispute which does not belong on AN.

The WP:Dispute resolution guideline covers how to deal with disagreements over content; I suggest you read it. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties, yes. Third parties that appear to hold a COI. That is why you were notified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 153.111.229.202, you should have posted a notification of this discussion at User talk:FlightTime. I have done that for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I suggested that the IP come here to air a concern of the welcome template on their talk page is incorrect, as stated on my talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Whois info says what the Shared IP template says and I'd say a public library is a government facility. So from my POV it's perfectly fine. The history of responses to problematic editing on that IP's talk page all read as though they're the same person, so the complaints ring hollow to me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the same IP complained in the morning on my talk page that I reverted copyright violation they introduced to the article (not sure what they expected, but anyway). Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Against All Currents on ENWP. NL:Tegen alle stromen in exists. How do articles get connected by interwiki?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via wikidata. There is a languages option in the sidebar, with an "add links" button. Click that and put in the information about the article on the other project and they will link up. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've taken care of it. Deor (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deor, Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m requesting administrator intervention regarding User:LVLewitinn, who is leaving harassing and deeply inappropriate messages on my user talk page and his user talk page in response to my placement of a COI template.

Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LVLewitinn#c-LVLewitinn-20250715215600-LegalTech-20250715202000

In the message, he states (among other things):

> "Hey, LegalTech: You clearly have some sort of mental issue. You spent an entire month editing, line by line, the entries for a married couple. Please name yourself and explain your motivation behind it. Jilted lover? Bigot? What's your real motivation? Interesting that you're based in Oregon. Gee, I wonder who else is there...."

This is a clear violation of WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks), WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL. It includes personal insults, insinuations about mental health and personal relationships, doxing-adjacent behavior (reference to location), and a hostile tone intended to intimidate.

I am requesting that this user be **blocked or otherwise formally warned**. This behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and I am not engaging with him further.

Thank you. LegalTech (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to all 25 edits, but of the 17 edits by LVLewitinn that I can see, there is quite a bit to go over from today. From the page history at Sarah Lewitinn, LegalTech has been editing that article since 2023. More notably, there was a series of edits starting from June 8th onward with 24 edits from June 8-24 and then 3 more edits on July 11-12. One of LVLewitinn's edits that seems interesting is this reverted one (Special:Diff/1297198902) with the edit summary proposed deletion. despite substantial efforts to improve the article, notability fails and sources are marginal at best. the page has a history of being heavily edited by individuals with a relationship with the subject, and one of the primary sources the article relies on even states the article is maintained by the subject's brother. (Emphasis mine.) (Quick note: Reverted per WP:PROD as LegalTech already had proposed this back in 2023 and it was reverted as contested by Jfire both times.)

LVLewitinn starts editing the page today (as far as I can tell) and all six edits are reverts in under a ten minute span. Revert three accidently restored the PROD notice that I covered above, leading to revert four (Special:Diff/1300680154) where LVLewitinn claims in the edit summary they are who LegalTech is referring to, before attacking LegalTech. (Again, today appears to be User:LVLewitinn's first edits to the article and all are reverts.) Eventually, LVLewitinn reverts everything back to January 2024 (Special:Diff/1300680815) while saying that LegalTech had attempted to (...) harass subject by vandalizing page. LegalTech starts a discussion at WP:COIN with claims, alerts LVLewitinn, and LVLewitinn responds by blanking LegalTech's talk page (Special:Diff/1300681095) and then starting a discussion called "Knock it off" (Special:Diff/1300681169) on the blanked talk page. LVLewitinn then goes to Daniel Patterson (chef) where LegalTech had been editing since last month and proceeds to revert all of LegalTech's edits again (Special:Diff/1300681897) with claims again in the edit summary that LegalTech is harassing the subject and says that LegalTech should be banned. Finally, LVLewitinn makes the edit above as mentioned by LegalTech. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for attempted doxxing. I know other admins were trying to avoid a block, but this attack was just too far, in my opinion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Andrew West (linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BabelStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As stated in the title. 阿南之人 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

阿南之人, thanks for letting us know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just requested full protection for this page at WP:RFPP/I. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure full protection is needed, but deceased editors' accounts are usually globally locked; I've requested that at meta. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DWGU says deceased user pages must be protected from vandalism. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY. Soni (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4