Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371	372	373
Incidents (archives, search)
1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186	1187
1188	1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194	1195	1196	1197
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
489	490	491	492	493	494	495	496	497	498
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	40	49	89
TfD	2	11	13
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	0	5	5
RfD	5	60	65
AfD	0	2	2

Willbb234 unblock request

UNBLOCKED

We have consensus to unblock, without conditions, though with the broad understanding that this is the "final chance". asilvering (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

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

I return to AN to ask that the community places its trust in me and allows me to edit again. I have learnt in my time away through a reflection on how I edit here and particularly on how I communicate with others. Please allow me to summarise my thoughts.
It has been 18 months since I was blocked, and while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block (although I have now read through and reminded myself), I can recall the distress it caused others. Personal attacks are completely inappropriate and disrupt the process of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. They can also hurt or degrade others and personal attacks, especially of the sexual kind and even if intended as a joke, can make others very uncomfortable and deter them from continuing to edit Wikipedia. For these reasons, I intend to completely change how I interact with others, ensuring not to be at all personal when disagreement arises during discussions on content or policy.
I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack (such as abusive language or attacks on someone's nature or affiliations), why they are disruptive (as mentioned above), and the consequences of my actions (this indefinite block has demonstrated thus). I hope that I can be trusted to return to collaborative editing and would greatly appreciate this opportunity. I also understand that another personal attack would result in an indefinite ban that would certainly not be overturned. In other words, I ask you for a final chance. Willbb234 21:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

I'm not going to vote yet, but I do have thoughts. I am generally supportive of second chances, especially when the block is for what I might call egregious yet banal incivility. This is the kind of thing I think most people can learn to not do. However, I am concerned by the fact that he needed to post three unblock requests just now to realize he needed to address it; that's in addition to his previous attempts at an unban. It makes me wonder if he truly does understand, or is just trying to say what it takes to get unbanned. I'd like to hear others' thoughts before I commit to a side. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still weighing my position. @Willbb234: I would like to hear an answer to Kingsif's question before I decide. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big believer in ROPE but I'm concerned at an unblock request where the requester can't recall why they were blocked. If it was such a forgettable incident, then it would be easy for circumstances to repeat themselves. I think this "amnesia" is a way of not taking responsibility for whatever actions were taken or words said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock as I did in 2024, and more generally I'm against indeffing established users wor one-off incidents so don't think an indef was justified in the first place (which is a fringe minority position, and I know nearly no other admin will agree with me here). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. They got a history of edit warring (such as 1 2) in contentious topic areas. Also, Liz's point of forgetting when or why they were blocked doesn't help is spot on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was edit warring in spite of a 1RR restriction as a previous unblock condition, so some ROPE has already been afforded. Looking at their history of raising the temperature in GENSEX and AMPOL I can't support an unblock, that is the last thing those areas need right now. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Willbb234 during the initial block you stated as a defense that the rev-delled personal attack which multiple admins characterized as sexual harassment was "just joking." Could you please address that line of argument and how you might act differently in the future? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting to your question, I wanted to take a moment to think about my response. I branded my comment as a joke, but later realised that this was incorrect and inappropriate and so not a valid line of argument. This was also rightly pointed out by other users. In the future and if I am unblocked, I understand that I am on a last chance situation, and so I would be very careful about how communicate with others, and ensure that comments are appropriate. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Willbb234 asked me to copy over the following comment:

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

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

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

I disagree. If I did an action that caused me to be indefinitely blocked, I think it would be seered into my memory and I'd be thinking about it for a long time afterwards (What did I do? What should I have said? What could have been done differently? etc. etc.) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone centers their life on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: - speaking from experience, being indefinitely blocked was so unpleasant that it is still painful to revisit the memories or circumstances. I was quickly unblocked, and for me after that it’s the opposite of what you described. starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support lets give them some rope--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support granting Will an unblock, with the understanding that this is a final chance. Their apology seems sincere and they have solved the issues from their previous appeals with this one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose for the moment~~Very weak support I don't find Willbb234's response to be satisfactory. We cannot see whatever it was that Willbb234 said that led to their initial block because it was apparently bad enough to get revision-deleted but we can see they tried to defend it as "just a joke." This is a defense that I find especially inappropriate to the point of being contrary to the intent of the statement as a defense as it's grounded in a bad-faith renunciation of one's own words without actually walking anything back. As Willbb234's only response after I raised this question was to plead they don't remember specifics I can't say with confidence that they wouldn't respond the same next time. I'm also concerned about the edit warring that REAL_MOUSE_IRL brought up in their oppose !vote. If the editor responds in a satisfactory way to the "just joking" part of their initial defense I might possibly consider WP:ROPE but, in that case, I'd propose topic bans from AMPOLI, GENSEX and BLP should be applied as part of a trial return. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I saw the "enlightening followup" that @REAL MOUSE IRL identified below and this strengthens my opposition. If they cannot remember saying that to another editor and if they have nothing to say about it being "just joking" then I think we don't have confidence we won't see another heated tirade. Wikipedia is not Reddit or Twitter. People should not be saying such things to other editors, full stop, and to avoid any contrition under the veil of forgetting strikes me as insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I have changed my !vote to very weak support on the basis of the reply to my "just joking" question. I will admit that this line of defense really bothers me so seeing a renunciation of it was very critical to my decision. I find myself quite divided between the points raised by REAL MOUSE IRL and by Ivanvector - both of whom have made very good points in this discussion. I think, on the balance, I am applying a similar standard here to what I have in other appeal discussions currently active on this page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. With that being said, just as in the case above where I supported with a 1RR restriction as a form of assurance against a return to old patterns, I think assurance against a return to this sort of inflammatory behavior should also be supplied. Having thought about this for some time I think the best form for that would be to allow a return to editing but with a topic ban on BLPs. The last dispute happened because they lost their cool in a BLP discussion and so having them work on areas which might not be so heated to start would be a good way for the editor to show that they won't blow their stack and say... regrettable and deeply inappropriate things... again. I will say that, while their own comportment has no bearing on this discussion, learning that "fruitloop" was a direct reference to another editor's username rather than an epithet was significant on my reasoning here. But REAL MOUSE IRL is also correct that Wikipedia should not tolerate sexualized comments, especially when used as a personal attack in the course of an edit dispute. I would suggest that a return to such behaviour should be met with an immediate return to an indefinite block should they be unblocked as a result of this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support I don't know what the comment was but Ivanvector suggests it is not of the 'inexcusable forever' type, and I do think they have probably learned the perils of personalization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it was quite mild, on the spectrum of sexual harassment we see here. I probably would have redacted it but not revdeleted, but I also don't think it was a misuse of revdel. They were originally blocked 2 weeks for the comment, which was likely longer than a first-time block for that offense owing to their block log. It was when they defended the comment as a joke and repeated it in a retort to a different administrator that they were indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at the moment I'm just confused by I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack. What has that got to do with anything when the reason they were blocked was way, way past the basic definition of NPA and they know that? I'm just a bit nonplussed. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't interpret [...] while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block [...] as "I don't know why I was blocked," but rather that it was so long ago that they don't even remember the context of (circumstances surrounding) why they were angry. This unblock request appears candid and sincere, and I do not think an ongoing block is necessary to prevent them from doing this again. --tony 18:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock. Seems to be an isolated incident (I see some claims of a "pattern of behavior" but I don't see the evidence for it, if significant additional evidence is presented I'd likely change my opinion), the editor understands the problem and has apologized. If anything like this reoccurs they can be blocked again. Rusalkii (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Willbb234 A question I had during last year's community unblock request has not had a response, so I'll ask the same thing. Willbb234's various blocks have been for different 'final straw' moments, but (and as REAL_MOUSE_IRL points out), those moments follow a pattern of behaviour that is very anti-community. When Willbb234 is asked to be accountable to the community, is when the moments that get them blocked or given 1RR restriction that they break etc. occur. So, Willbb234, how do you plan to better engage with discussion and collaborative editing - or to at least be less hostile in response if you still won't - in order to snuff out the root cause, in effect? Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rev-del’d edit is inexcusable but I think an opportunity to redeem himself is reasonably low-risk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having looked at the only revdel'd edit I can see in their history...I have to agree with Ivanvector that I'm surprised this was even revdel'd. A personal attack, absolutely, but I'm honestly struggling to see it as "sexual harassment" as opposed to "crude insult". It's entirely unacceptable either way, but I'm inclined to extend some WP:ROPE here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ROPE. I'm a fairly big believer in 2nd chances whenever reasonably possible. That said, there is a history here. So if I were Willbb234, and this request is approved, I'd make a point of treading v e r y carefully going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ROPE, per Ad Orientem and others above. BD2412 T 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note This discussion is probably ready to be closed. (I am WP:INVOLVED.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clean start (Morning277)

BAN NOT LIFTED

There is clear consensus below that the community ban of Morning277 should not be lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support With proper disclosures as described elsewhere in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Morning277 still runs their paid editing business and has been actively promoting it as recently as April. They still describe themselves as having been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade - not as having last edited a decade ago. And their website still offers page creation services along with editing, monitoring and translation services, while openly stating that they never disclose their clients. As long as they continue to offer those services, and apparantly continue to edit in spite of the ban, I do not see this being in the project's interests. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this request been authenticated? How do we know we are talking to the same person who operated the Morning277 and other accounts? Given the facts in the bullet immediately above, I find it difficult to believe the same person would even ask this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If the last verified socks of Morning277 were in 2014 (as noted above) then there is going to be no technical data for a CU to compare the current account to. The most they would be able to do is check whether they have been socking in the last 90 days. We either have to trust them or not trust them, but it would be very odd for someone unrelated to pretend to be someone who was community banned over a decade ago for something that is held in even lower regard now than it was then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, they might be messing with us for many possible reasons, there's no need for us to guess. If they want to verify that the are who they say they are, all the need to do is put a set text on the main page of their business webpage, let me suggest "Hi, Thry". But they can come here and tell us what Wiki-specific message that they've left on their main page. Let me suggest, while they are at it, they explain the page on that site removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/ dated August 2024. What does it mean when you say

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

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonrandom break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Smallbones Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool. They can answer questions on their talk. Getting unbanned starts with being honest, and I believe they haven't been so far. Compare: I am not Wiki-PR nor do I have a relation with them[1] with Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.[2] Polygnotus (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has responded to my email as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked him to explain the passage on his business page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use on paid editing
Since this article was written in 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation in their infinite wisdom (please excuse the sarcasm) implemented new terms and conditions that requires paid editors to disclose their work on Wikipedia. Based on my experience with what happens when people disclose their work (according to the article above), I will continue to protect my clients (both current and future clients) by NOT disclosing any of my paid work.
[...]
I no longer edit the site directly and as such am not bound by their terms of use.
I have a team of editors (paid and volunteer) who I work with. I can assure all my clients (past and future) that their identity will never be disclosed, while at the same time fully honoring the terms of use implemented by the Foundation. Members of my team who perform edits are also not bound by the terms of use for paid disclosure based on the editing methods they employ and as such do not disclose any affiliation with my clients.
Want to know more about how I can help you with your Wikipedia presence? Send me an email and let’s chat.

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

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

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

I was fully anticipating a flood of "now way, never" responses given the extent of the deception, the enormous amount of volunteer time, and innumerable checkuser hours that went in to untangling and monitoring the socking involved here. I don't know why were tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out a way to allow this former editor to continue to use Wikipedia for their personal gain. It's a hard no from me, but that's probably because I remember what a nightmare this case was.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to hear him out when he returns from his trip. It's been over a decade now. If he comes back and commits to complying with the rules, updates his website to make that clear, I don't see an issue with extending some rope. I'd even be okay with an edit request only restriction and mainspace block so that every single edit he makes is scrutinized. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts It's been over a decade now You have no evidence for that claim. We know they have been editing for years after getting banned, we are just not sure how many years. I would not at all be surprised if they are still doing the same stuff. every single edit he makes is scrutinized Why should Wikipedia volunteers waste their time scrutinizing the edits of a paid editor who specifically asked a CLEANSTART so he can continue spamming trash without too much scrutiny? Someone who has wasted many hours of volunteer time? They clearly have no respect for our time and do not care about our requests and rules so why should we care about their ability to make money? Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q - Why do you want to be unblocked?

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

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

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

Q - Can you make a list of accounts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike W.

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

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

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

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

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

Good Block - Oppose Unban - Looks like a clear-cut case to me: toxic. Jusdafax (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Newslinger's evidence. It seems to me that Morning277 is trying to present one face to us and another to his clients. I detest that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Compassionate727: I would actually like some clarification from the editor on that. If he is talking about disclosing who his clients were from before the ban, it is possible that those clients were not promised anything. It seems obvious that if we check all of his sockpuppets, we will be able to tell who the clients were anyway. BD2412 T 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all of that evidence are from blog posts he wrote a decade ago. Mike, will you commit to making clear to your clients / the public (via your website) that you will be complying with WMF policies? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts How would that help in any way? They are still not going to be unbanned. They are already lying that they comply with policy, despite the fact that that is obviously untrue. Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you find yourself stuck on anything, you can always reach out for assistance. I offer telephone consultations as well as quotes to do the project on your behalf. Again, from 2024. You are allowed to disagree, or even have an objectively bad opinion. But please don't say things that aren't true. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the blog posts where he criticized the WMF's paid editing rules, which seems to be most of what Newslinger quoted from. I recognize that he is still engaged in his business and has been violating the rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I do not understand what you are talking about. Polygnotus (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late but this -pardon the AGF violation- seems like a poor attempt at playing devil’s advocate. What they mean is that his opinions regarding WMF paid editing rules is no longer valid. 95.5.189.52 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's his business website. He expects his clients to read it. He should expect us to read it. I see no reason to believe he doesn't mean everything he's written there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with voorts that it is some merit to having an editor making requests through our processes (and thereby revealing who is paying to get their Wikipedia content edited) than to have them sending content to their clients to be added without such notice. The editor currently only has access to their user talk page and to email, and has not abused either yet. If there is no "pathway" of the sort the editor has asked about, we should just maintain this status quo and allow them to make their disclosed paid edit requests on their own talk page, and see if that leads to any shenanigans. BD2412 T 21:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 How would Wikipedia benefit from allowing them to do anything? It will not. Polygnotus (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do we benefit from his clients uploading shit without disclosure? We don't. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Which is why they should be banned as well. But it is no reason to allow this dude back in. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see if that leads to any shenanigans We already know that they are currently actively meatpuppeting, so we already know "shenanigans" are afoot. Polygnotus (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is required to actually look at or pay heed to their talk page, so if they are allowed to post there, about the only thing they can do is reveal the identity of entities trying to pay to edit Wikipedia, which is to our benefit to know. BD2412 T 21:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree. See Public relations#Negative. And they claim to never disclose their clients. Polygnotus (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how they could request an edit at all without inherently making such a disclosure, if not formally. Perhaps they have talked themselves into a catch-22. BD2412 T 21:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I can request a negative edit about X, claiming I work for Y, but secretly working for Z. Catch-22 evaded. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but to play devil's advocate, if their claimed purpose is to make edits on behalf of clients, I would expect proposed edits to be positive, and a positive edit about X while claiming to work for X would not benefit a Y or Z. Even a legitimately paid editor requesting a clearly negative edit would raise its own set of suspicions. BD2412 T 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 Sure it could. Let's say your company, or political party, works with or uses the products/services of, another company. Maybe you are a reseller, or in a coalition or whatever. You could request a positive edit, pretending to work for them, which in turn benefits you. Maybe you are the only distributor of that product or service in English speaking countries.

If I work in a specific niche and have the largest company in that niche, then any edit that is positive about that niche benefits me. And I can easily pretend to work for the competition. Potential customers are more likely to end up hiring me, because I am the largest company in that niche and appear at the top of Google. Polygnotus (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can come up with any number of hypotheticals, but I would suggest that our actual experience has been of a lot of paid editors trying to very add positive information to articles on specific companies, with that information being very specific to that company. BD2412 T 22:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have experience with UPEs who were far more subtle than the scenario you describe, who were trying to hide who they work for. I can give you some very concrete examples if you'd like. Polygnotus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know. In this case, however, we're talking about an ostensibly openly paid editor rather than a UPE. I would be interested in what you have seen by the way, but that is probably fodder for a separate discussion. BD2412 T 22:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 No, in this case we are talking about an entire network of UPEs: I have a team of editors (paid and volunteer) who I work with. I can assure all my clients (past and future) that their identity will never be disclosed, while at the same time fully honoring the terms of use implemented by the Foundation. Members of my team who perform edits are also not bound by the terms of use for paid disclosure based on the editing methods they employ and as such do not disclose any affiliation with my clients. And I would bet that this guy has socked long after his ban, because giving people instructions sucks compared to just doing things yourself, as anyone who has dealt with employees will confirm. Polygnotus (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first link on Legal Morning's "In the News" page is a summary of a podcast video titled "E08 From Fired to Freedom: Building a Six-Figure Consulting Business | Mike Wood", dated "Apr 24, 2025", in which Morning277 says at 20:50, "I never disclose my clients that I work with for Wikipedia". (To see the video transcript on a desktop computer, click on "more..." to expand the description, then click "Show transcript".) Indeed, despite the length of Morning277's email response that was posted here, he does not disclose his past clients and does not offer to disclose any client or sockpuppet account that was not already discovered.
If a sockpuppeteer who is still creating sockpuppets requested an unblock promising to stop if we unblocked them, any reviewing administrator would decline that request instantly, as we do not unblock users who say that they will stop violating policies only if we unblock them. An undisclosed paid editor who is continuing to perform undisclosed paid editing by proxy and promising to stop only if we remove three community bans (Morning277 community ban, MooshiePorkFace community ban, and Wiki-PR community ban) and a global lock for cross-wiki promotional editing should not be treated any differently. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: My reading of his statement is that he will disclose his clients from before the ban if there is actually a "pathway to return". I would expect that to include undiscovered clients. BD2412 T 17:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morning277's answer about that refers to his previous answer about the sockpuppets listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277 (which now total 568 sockpuppet accounts, not including the 61 listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MooshiePorkFace, after I tagged over a hundred that had not been tagged), so my interpretation differs from yours. Of course, Morning277 is free to clarify with another statement, as well as an explanation of how that relates to him saying "I never disclose my clients that I work with for Wikipedia" on video less than four months ago. In any case, Morning277 should have disclosed those clients prior to requesting an unban, instead of offering the disclosure in exchange for a community-endorsed return to paid editing, because it is not appropriate for us to remove three community bans and a global lock as a ransom payment. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's important here to remember that Morning277 asserts that not all of the socks listed as his are actually his, the strong implication being that that category actually contains three sets of accounts: Socks Morning277 is sure are his, socks Morning277 is sure are not his, and socks that Morning277 is unsure about. Regardless of whatever else they say I see no grounds to disbelieve them on that point.

Their attitude to the disclosure of accounts and socks seems to be that they are willing to put the time and effort (and it would be a non-trivial amount of both) to answer those questions if and only if there is a realistic prospect of him being allowed to return after doing so. They are not (by my understanding) willing to do that if he's never going to be allowed to edit again regardless of what he says - and I cannot fault that. Frankly think it entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to jump through hoops if you're [generic you] just going to say "no, never" regardless of whether the hoops are jumped through or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf if and only if there is a realistic prospect of him being allowed to return after doing so There is not. disclosure of accounts and socks seems to be that they are willing to put the time and effort We don't care if they have 600 socks or only 200, or if 100 are misattributed to them and another of 100 their socks undetected; the result is the same.

They are not (by my understanding) willing to do that if he's never going to be allowed to edit again Fine, it is irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Thryduulf here. We can be strict and deny a global unban/unblock under these circumstances and still be empathetic. I think there are two possibilities here. Either Morning277 genuinely wants to edit within the rules, or their request is part of some scheme that involves not editing within the rules. My predisposition is to favor second chances and give editors enough WP:ROPE and see what sort of knot they tie with it. However, I am also a pragmatist, and I can see that there is not much appetite for such an experiment in this case. BD2412 T 03:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've always said that to be unblocked after a ban you need to demonstrate that the reasons for the original block no longer apply. Morning277 still offers paid editing services for his clients. He still states that he will never disclose his clients. I can't reconcile his statments online with expectations here. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morning277 still offers paid editing services for his clients. This is not directly relevant - he was blocked for undisclosed paid editing (and socking to support that), going forward he wishes to engage in the explicitly allowed disclosed paid editing. He still states that he will never disclose his clients. This is not clear, with different people reading statements different ways. I don't have a strong opinion about whether they should be allowed to return, but I do have a very strong opinion that the decision should be made based on the actual facts not based on incorrect assumptions, misunderstandings and flat-out untruths. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to me to be directly relevant. He still offers paid editing for clients, and he still states that he will not disclose them. How is this not relevant to undisclosed paid editing? From his website: "Our firm was started as a professional Wikipedia editing service and we understand the Wikipedia page creation process. In addition to page creation, we offer page updating, monitoring and maintenance." and "For your protection – WILL NEVER DISCLOSE MY CLIENTS – we never disclose our clients in order to protect their anonymity".[3] Those look like facts to me. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just hypothetically (since we have not actually seen anything to this point), does it matter what he tells his clients if he does, in fact, disclose them? BD2412 T 16:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many problems with paid editing that we face is that disclosure has to be based on trust. We do not know who the clients are, so we need to trust that any given paid editor is being honest and revealing all of the clients that they work for. If a paid editor is telling their clients that they will not disclose them, while telling us that they do, I think we have a trust issue - are they misleading their clients, us, or both? - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a deeper and more philosophical issue as to whether we should allow paid editing on Wikipedia at all. Currently, the rules allow it with specific strictures. If paid editors can never really be trusted, then that is a policy worth revisiting, although the counterargument to that is rather directly on the table here, whether it is better to have no outlet for paid editors knowing that there will be people editing for pay, or to have some outlet that imposes some level of controls that we can monitor. BD2412 T 23:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that paid editors can never be trusted. I am just saying that if we have only three choices - the paid editor is misleading clients, the paid editor is misleading us, or the paid editor is misleading both, they can't be trusted. That said, I do agree that we are better off having paid editors who meet our expectations, as that does pull at least some work away from the UPE. But for that to work we either need to be able to monitor the editors or we need to trust them. Unfortunately, I can't see how either is possible here. - Bilby (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them blocked, we do not need more paid editors. I do not believe a word they say. Paid editors will say and do anything to get what they want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock I have written several drafts in the last several weeks is a clear acknowledgement that they are engaging in WP:PROXYING contrary to their ban. SmartSE (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: We might need to clarify the reach of WP:PROXYING in that case. If one editor asks another to post something, that is clear proxying. If an editor writes something and gives it to another person and basically leaves it to the other person to do what they want with it, then it doesn't appear that anyone is actually being asked to make an edit, though it is obviously preferably that people post their own words rather than something written for them. BD2412 T 01:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Newslinger for now. If there is disclosure, both retroactively and on a going forward basis, of accounts and clients (which may not be legally possible for them at least for past clients), that would be the prerequisite for a return with whatever restrictions the community deems fit. They should clarify what their position for disclosure on their past, present and future clients is. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock Generally I try to look for reasons to say yes to an unblock request, but there is way too much history here. This user's goals and values do not strike me as being inline with those of the community. FWIW, I have always leaned against allowing PAID editing, though I realize it's a complicated subject with no really good solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ronaldinho

EVERYBODY'S BLOCKED, DAVE

Subject of report sockblocked, OP sockblocked, another edit-warring editor sockblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scratch that. All three have been blocked, which includes both the original poster and the user who should have been notified. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible disruptive editing by SpaceHelmetX1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CleoCat16 and SpaceHelmetX1, you keep saying you want to hear what admins say but then you keep attacking each other. Your point of view won't hold sway because you are belittling the other editor. You need to argue on the strength of your position, not attack the other editor. That only makes it more likely that you'll receive a block for incivility. You've both had your say and this is the wrong place to even bring this dispute. If CleoCat16 brought this disagreement to DRN, SpaceHelmetX1, you shoud have agreed to have this dispute heard. If you didn't participate in the discussions on the article talk pages, that doesn't speak well of you. I encourage you to return to the article talk pages or DRN to talk this out and not edit war or levy personal attacks on each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thenks and apologies if I came off strongly. I already make a request for comment on Silverchair, but may do one on Anne's Song too. CleoCat16 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I. I didn't attack anyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Super Goku V has politely told me what I've done wrong. I know you're probably trying to help, but you're making it sound like I'm a disruptive editor who Wikipedia is better without. I've only been here five months, I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. I don't see how I refused to follow WP:BRD, when I was told I needed a better source on Every Rose Has Its Thorn, added a better source and didn't revert again until discussing, but I'll do differently in the future. Thank you, but this has been stressful, and I'm taking a break from Wikipedia as a result. CleoCat16 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is an essay, but it shouldn't be ignored. Many editors here follow it cause it's recommendable. What WP:BRD states is that when your bold edit is undid by an editor, you shouldn't revert to your version again, but rather, take that dispute to the article's talk page. In Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, our fellow @FlighTime asked you to create a thread on that article's talk page. As I could see, no thread has been created there. They challenged the reliability of that ref you've added, a website called "I Love Classic Rock", created in 2019. WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proving the reliability of some material falls on the editor who intends to add/restore such content every time its questioned, and such thing didn't happen. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can probably be closed; Cleo has announced that they are abandoning their account for a "clean start".[4] Schazjmd (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note, we already discussed above that DISCUSSCONSENSUS is policy and covers a good chuck of BRD.) Regarding BURDEN, it goes both ways and I think I am seeing why FlightTime said what they said. Having gone through page after page of results more than once, I literally could not determine if the song should or should not be soft rock or not. I found a lot of what I would describe as noise, but nothing definitively for or against it.

In any case, CleoCat16 has indicated that they are trying to withdraw from this discussion, so it might be best to let this AN discussion end. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since CleoCat16's retirement seems to be conditional I might as well mention one thing I forgot to make clear above. While BRRD isn't generally a good thing, frankly I'd have less concern if CleoCat16 did at least initiate a discussion when they reverted the revert. But as I did say above, they didn't. Instead they just reverted and left the discussion for sometime in the future, perhaps hoping FlightTime would initiate it. So what we ended up with isn't even BRRD, it was BRR. That's exceedingly unhelpful. As I said, it helps no one when two editors refuse to discuss something because they're waiting for the other party to initiate discussion. One of them needs to just be the better editor and start the discussion and not worry about who should. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since CleoCat16's retirement seems to be conditional Ugh, I hope they actually read Clean start before doing it, but whatever. They were moving so fast that I don't think I kept up on things.

Anyways, hopefully whatever they do, they do start following DISCUSSCONSENSUS and BRD. Though their statement that I don't see how I refused to follow WP:BRD is making me doubtful, but it would be great to be proven wrong. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out this fellow here: @Uncountableinfinity. That account was created nine days ago, on August 8 or 9, around the time content disputes began on articles like this. They simply appeared yesterday on that article's talk page only to share their views on an RFC that was started a few days ago by @CleoCat16. This seems a bit odd to me, as it coincides with them announcing their retirement. It was clarified here that editors cannot announce their retirement and then returned with a new account (a sock) to edit on articles where they entered into disputes. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for CleoCat16's new account, here it is. I check Wikipedia periodically, but no longer make edits. I didn't want to comment here, but I also don't want another user getting in trouble for no reason. TheWizard70 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...announcing "I was formerly X" is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? I read WP:CLEANSTART, but it seemed more a recommendation than a rule. Still, it defeats the point of clean start, and I only did it because I didn't want another user to get in trouble, and decided I have no more interest in editing. TheWizard70 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEANSTART is a policy, so yes, it's a rule, not a recommendation. Even when it is a recommendation (not the case now), it shouldn't be simply ignored because of that. But, especially in the case of WP:CLEANSTART, it's a rule. Breaking such a rule may result in a block. Regarding other users... that account I've cited has been created 11 days ago. Who's to say you didn't create another account in the meantime too? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I found the fact deeply strange, so I think it should be investigated. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceHelmetX1, if you believe that someone is a SOCK and wish to, you can then report them at SPI with evidence per WP:HSOCK. Claiming that another user's behavior is suspicious without good evidence does not align with assuming good faith. (It also wasn't good that you didn't notify the other user.) --Super Goku V (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? Here is a list:

Every (or almost every) spot where "I was formerly X" would be seen as a violation of WP:CLEANSTART.

The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior.
However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly.
Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions. The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks, or sanctions (including but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account. (Sgv: Adding this in as I would have advised against a CLEANSTART to begin with.)
If you attempt a clean start but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts. The fact that you notified someone of the change will not excuse you from the consequences of your actions or protect you from recognition.
It is best that you completely avoid articles or topics that you previously edited, especially if you were involved in a dispute with another editor(s). If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s). Likewise, if you want to make a clean start because of harassment from other editors, you should avoid editing articles that may place you in conflict with the same editors, because they will probably recognize you.
However, returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper.
These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start. Even if the original account is not under a formal editing restriction, changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute. It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account. Changing accounts, and then resuming to edit in a contentious area, carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize you and connect your old and new accounts. You may be viewed as evading scrutiny, which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans.

For what should have happened, you should have let SpaceHelmetX1 take Uncountableinfinity to SPI, which would have come back negative based on this discussion. Uncountableinfinity would not have gotten in trouble from my point of view.

So, what happens now? Well, the good news is that if you don't want to make edits, then you won't see much change. There is a decent chance here that both accounts (CleoCat16 and TheWizard70) get a block, potentially indefinitely. (I am not sure here, but there is a chance here.) To make sure this is said, an active block would prohibit another attempt at CLEANSTART. If I am correct to this point, your best bet for editing in the future (if it interests you again) would likely be to wait down the road and ask for the CleoCat16 account to be unblocked while following what is said at WP:UNBLOCK. (UNBLOCK is a guideline, but guidelines are recommendations and this is a recommendation you should follow if you are blocked indefinitely.) If you do make an UNBLOCK attempt, I would advise waiting a few years for this to settle. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpaceHelmetX1: Ignoring what is going on in the other reply, I did indicate what could happen if this was closed. (Though, it seems maybe it was an implication only.) Regardless, if you did want this to continue, my suggestion was going to ANI regarding CleoCat16.

As for why I am not addressing your claim despite that I said I was going to be ignoring the other reply, it is because you didn't notify Uncountableinfinity of this discussion. (I know the edit notice says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" and not "When you bring up a claim about an editor..." However, the intent of the notification is so that people can address claims that are made against themselves.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Notified: [5]

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

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

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

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

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

Closer (S Marshall)

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

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

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

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

[Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.

Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything in User:S Marshall/RfC close log about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.

Thanks in advance for taking this on.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participants (POSTNOM)

Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[6], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say bold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on something to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing MOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when WP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the status quo ante bellum is maintained. It does not mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a new consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of WP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.
Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly overturn. I do agree with S Marshall on a theoretical level regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes. CNC (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No policy-based rationale for unilaterally voiding the previous RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If there's no consensus for any of the options, but there is a consensus for "current wording shouldn't stand", you have to make that call. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Rename through protection.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:BARTENDER closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based on WP:PAGs arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain the status quo ante bellum. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn narrowly the section voiding the previous RfC. Status quo means status quo, not a repeal of a prior existing RfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requires active consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that they don't. For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading to WP:QUO; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. This reminds me of WP:NOCON for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus. CNC (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removing MOS:POSTNOM entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact opposite of what it does. It deletes a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there are never any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptable WP:BARTENDER close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review, The ed17. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it by WP:SUPERVOTEing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutely can have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether you should depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—S Marshall T/C 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants (POSTNOM)

I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's comment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on due weight, original research, and clutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If something lacks community support and there is no consensus, then it should not be in the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that some people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything HB has said. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn. The close contradicts itself by saying there's no consensus and then imposing Option 1. DrKay (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeatedly challenged" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that it wouldn't have survived close review. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus that they formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly that the status quo ... isn't working for us and that restoring the status quo isn't the best idea, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable of summarizing rather than deciding, perform the close. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.
When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.
Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer of this discussion would absolutely take account of.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closure is done at AN so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.
When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think I didn't follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.
I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citing MOS:POSTNOM (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize the use–mention distinction aspect of this. While it might be useful sometimes to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received, using that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "LEAD SENTENCE" and infoboxes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have post nominals in articles on Catholic members of religious orders and that's normal for those biographies. Secretlondon (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To side fork your questioning that you don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor) here and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfC here (search for the bit referencing "gnomes"). ~~ Gecko G (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys about anything we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was repsonding to your assertion that Commonwealthers writ large care about these things. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified. PamD 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. HouseBlaster and The Bushranger are correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just because I personally was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures. Gecko G (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American). Regardless, I feel that S Marshall was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said, I understand opposers' concerns with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with its closure). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.MWFwiki (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this is overreach, pure and simple. Discounting the cultural divide and imposing a blanket ban based on that was always a poor decision. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment. MWFwiki (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initial status quo seems to be the right call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. Also WP:BARTENDER (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some1 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you argue that This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC (...Reversal of the Exclusion), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).

Your own post in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfC you yourself suggested a new RfC about it.

(I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed) Gecko G (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this is not about the Commonwealth versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smaller Commonwealth realm, though far from universal even therein, versus common practice everywhere else. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. – notwally (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (POSTNOM)

I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording and consequent discussions on my talk page, is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentence failed to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposal divided the community, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there was weak consensus and not just consensus. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo, S Marshall. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly since WP:BARTENDER refers to situations where there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of WP:BARTENDER, I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2. BD2412 T 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.

SMcCandlish: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
MWFwiki: Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
Nford24: The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
Peacemaker67: The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
SchroCat: I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.

I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, is not normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.

At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not are not PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and uses MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A small note on the above, Ixtal—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes do not assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one might read that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification. That being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it. MWFwiki (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is PAG is an acronym for? Gecko G (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko G, WP:PAG is a shortcut to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 19:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining the acronym.

I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.

Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due to changes to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn't WP:DETCON correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".

Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closes should be based on the strength of the argument, not hyperbole. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us to write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...] (from WP:MOS). The lead sentence, which should be written in Plain English (from MOS:FIRST) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to [telling] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (from MOS:FIRST). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.

For what it's worth, I'm not a USAmerican. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention in MOS:FIRST was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?). Gecko G (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 version of the MOS that was discussed in the RFC did include that language diff, Gecko G. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak). Gecko G (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gecko G: I think(?) you've missed that MOS:FIRST and WP:LEADSENTENCE go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic. Gecko G (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gecko G, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility" ≠ complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".

°= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking to LEADSENTENCE was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English". Gecko G (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko G, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having a guaranteed overturning. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Peru history pages

User contributions for Diego 2001xD - Wikipedia

--

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddu16 - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2001:1388:1B8E:4D5B:C47A:164C:D15A:19DC - Wikipedia

theres a couple of similarities between Diego and previous eddu sockpuppets

- peruvian history

- adding politically charged or unhelpful terms like Senderista to infoboxes

- often marking edits that are substantive as minor to reduce visibility

- activity on the same articles in peruvian history (prison masscares, infoboxes)

- some activity that looks designed to just add confusion? like no human contributing in good faith would want to change the names of campaigns in the Peruvian civil war infobox to be less clear / to reflect the regional geography inaccuracy

Aside from Eddu and the IP i noted as well im sure ive seen a couple of other reverted accounts

Can we look at some sort of longer term solution to protecting these pages? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please report suspected sockpuppet accounts at WP:SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cheers I made a report as best I could any feed back or help improving it areas where I was inappropriate would be welcome

Do i need to do anything else to get these pages protected? Something like this happens every couple of months and affects many pages in the Peruvian history section (which honestly isnt active) so when they go unnoticed people edit over them but leave the vandalism i think it really risks building up. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Diego. Clear and obvious WP:DUCK. LeChatiliers Pupper, that report should have gone at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddu16 as that's the sockmaster. :-) In terms of prevention, I'm not sure it's reasonable to protect basically all Peruvian military history articles? I have a bunch watchlisted now after the last socking spree (Manuelito123xd) and will chip in to revert if I see suspicious edits. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, check that last. I've thrown some semi-protection on a few of the frequently targeted redirects. Open to protecting more of those if you have preferences. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats probably the right balance some of the pages - Peruvian Internal Conflict, The independence war will have plenty of traffic and people watching them. Those I'm least worried about.

You might want to consider adding protection to these technical pages;

Template:Campaignbox Peru conflict - Wikipedia

Template:Campaignbox Civil wars in Peru - Wikipedia

These as perhaps most people genuinely new to wiki probably wont be going here to make edits and edits here affect a large number of pages.

Likewise this page comes to mind as one that have next to no traffic.

Canto Grande massacre - Wikipedia

As eddu created recently but wasnt culled as it was semi saveable but will have an absolutely tiny number of people 1-3 at most watching it perhaps,

and there have been some other redirects targeted that you might not know about;

Operation Fortuna - Wikipedia

Second Battle of Higos Urco - Wikipedia

Moyobamba uprising (1821) - Wikipedia

Battle of La Ventana - Wikipedia

Siege of Arequipa - Wikipedia

There will be more no doubt but yeah I appreciate the balance we need to get here. Cheers LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper: I put long-term semi-protection on the redirects and the campaignboxes. I'm a little hesitant to do that on regular articles, but I can reevaluate if we see more socks. I did watchlist all those pages as well. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer : Michael.C.Wright

UNBLOCKED

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, the block of Michael.C.Wright is lifted. By the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the agreed-upon unblock terms on their talk page, Michael.C.Wright is subject to a topic ban from Covid-19 in general, and Martin Kulldorff in particular, broadly construed, appealable after one year. By the agreed-upon unblock terms on their talk page Michael.C.Wright is subject to a voluntary WP:1RR restriction, appealable after one year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for "Edit warring" on Martin Kulldorff several years ago, and has requested his unblock be looked at in the light of Bbb23's desysopping. Looking at the evidence as it stands, I agree this is complete overkill and would personally support an unblock. However, as previous unblock requests have been declined, I'd like to get an agreement first. There is also an active SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael.C.Wright) but no confirmed socks have been identified. Hence, my decision to open the standard offer. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks are cheap; I'm in favour of an unblock. If he starts disruptively editing then we block again, but if he doesn't then we gain a contributor. I'm hopeful it'll be the latter, but either way, I see no reason not to give him a shot. CoconutOctopus talk 12:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock per current good standing - He did pretty well elsewhere. No fuss, he received positive reception on other projects. So this is a good opportunity to give him another chance, as long he will not participate in another edit war. Welcome back, Michael. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with topic ban from Martin Kulldorf--Unblocks might be cheap, but reblocks aren't always, especially when dealing with tendentious editors on "controversial" talk pages. The amount of sealioning and stonewalling we see on the Martin Kulldorf talk page is truly absurd, and only tends to get relieved when blocks get handed out. But blocking isn't always easy when admins who watch that page have to respond to the sealioning, and thus become INVOLVED. Upgrade whatever "probation" they're talking about to an actual, indefinite topic ban, and that sounds about right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban from Martin Kulldorf, broadly construed, sounds fine to me. Could even be arb-enforced, via the COVID-19 contentious topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock with COVID/1RR conditions agreed upon here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with topic ban as noted above from Kulldorf. Seems to be where the block-worthy conduct was focused. Star Mississippi 13:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I'm also fine with a C-19 topic ban if that's what consensus is for. Star Mississippi 00:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with topic ban on Martin Kulldorf Regain constructive user; avoid problems.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth linking a previous ANI thread about reviewing this block, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Block_review_request_by_User:Michael.C.Wright. I was an involved with the discussions that led to the block in the first place. I'll quote my response to the last thread, which summarizes the issues: Michael.C.Wright has been disruptive at the Martin Kulldorff for a while. In the recent incident the MO was to attack a reliable source on highly dubious grounds, then declare that that means the content is 'unsourced' [7] - it clearly isn't by any reasonable definition of the word 'unsourced'. Then the argument is that since BLP allows for removal of unsourced content, the content must be "be immediately removed without further discussion." (their words). We went around with this same tactic once before, in September - that led to the previous block for edit warring. I think it is also worth mentioning the talk page section Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 3#What's a "disease control measure"?, which details an effort by Michael to keep a sentence out of the article as some sort of bargaining chip to get another sentence they wanted added in - a clear violation of WP:POINT. I think Michael's edits on coffee related articles have been good and helpful overall, but they have been wasting a lot of editor time at the Kulldorff article. I suggest that the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions should be employed, and they receive a topic ban from COVID-19 in place of the current indefinite block. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with TBAN. I'm not particular about whether it's Kulldorff or COVID. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Bbb23's desysopping (which I've never been convinced was justified anyway) is relevant at all here, especially since the block was endorsed by the community in the 2022 discussion MrOllie linked above. But happy to support, with or without a TBAN, as a standard offer unblock (and would have been happy to support that even before Bbb23 was desysoppd). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with topic ban on Martin Kulldorf; we will see what happens. BD2412 T 16:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the latest unblock appeal is couched entirely in a false presumption that Bbb23's desysopping makes an action they performed two and a half years prior invalid; it does not. Their appeal fails WP:NOTTHEM, fails to acknowledge that their own edit warring is the reason for their block, and does not convince me that they will avoid edit warring in the future; see also what MrOllie wrote above. Were they to write a new appeal that addresses their disruptive behaviour, rather than just blaming the blocking admin, I very likely would support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23's desysopping was absolutely necessary given his behaviour, and it certainly does justify re-looking at his blocks on appeal. I'd support reducing this block to a topic ban from Martin Kulldorf.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tban from all COVID-19 related articles, explicitly including Martin Kulldorff. Hopefully that will solve the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not object to this scope of a TBAN either. BD2412 T 03:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with TBAN from COVID and a WP:1RR restriction per the editors aggreance at Special:Diff/1248808844 and per WP:ROPE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:J. K. Rowling#RfC: J.K. Rowling's views on transgender issues

RfC has been closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would anyone care to close this RFC? It's run for over a month and comments have slowed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dedicated noticeboard for these kinds of requests. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abusing "Black Hole Cosmology" page

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Black hole cosmology

– Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at ANI using the link above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User "Simple non combat" is abusing Black Hole Cosmology page, self-promoting there his own, irrelevant work. This is against the Wikipedia policy. Please intervene. Citanotable (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the diffs? Please provide the links. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked at the issue but here are some links:

Citanotable (talk · contribs)

Simple non combat (talk · contribs)

Try asking for opinions at WT:WikiProject Astronomy. This discussion should probably be at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the issue is that Simple non combat is making dozens of edits in hours, Citanotable opposes on some grounds, and both are getting into an edit war with the other with what looks like seven reverts between the two. (Can we copy and paste this over with a template added here or is there more to do?) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to appeal my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban in its entirety

I would like to appeal my topic ban in its entirety. There are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons". I know I made mistakes in the past, but I have had few to no incidents for over one year. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous appeal in February. —Cryptic 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Define "few to none" with diffs, please. Seeing these examples might help determine how the IDHT and CIR concerns that were raised when you were topic banned in the first place. It's fine to appeal after a year, but I think most are going to want to see more information about how you've handle disagreements over the past year. And yes, you should have included the previous appeal in your request from 6 months ago for full disclosure. I'm not inclined to support at this time, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for guidance here about what I should and should not post. I have participated in an appropriate manner at this Redirect for discussion. I apologize for not including my February 2025 appeal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a convincing appeal so far, but copyright is IMO serious enough that I wouldn't mind carving out an exception for histmerge templates. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More or less where I stand too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I imposed the topic ban but am fully neutral on this request as I haven't been able to assist Jax on their Talk due to limited on wiki time. The question I ask though is the same one I did last time - Jax should make a case why they need to be the one applying these tags vs. either letting someone else do it, or complete the action rather than just tagging. I am not opposed to the carveout C727 suggests avove. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing that people might not know about some articles that need to be history merged unless I notify someone about the specific pages, as noted below. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a reasonably clear difference between using templates like {{history merge}}, {{edit template-protected}}, or {{db-move}} that require permissions that Jax 0677 doesn't have, and the templates people were complaining about in the original discussion; so like Star Mississippi, I'm not opposed to a carveout for them. But I'm very wary of rescinding the ban completely - people had, for example, been complaining about the part that personally irritates me the most - the opaque, idiosyncratic template redirects - for more than a decade (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Template:Wpcy and the following seven nominations; also several more nonconsecutive ones on that same daily subpage) without a hint of behavioral change right up until the ban was imposed. —Cryptic 03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be agreeable to a "carveout" for templates that require permissions that I do not have. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles, specifically, would you like to tag? Can you list three or four please.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jax 0677/Histmerge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thoughts on that list as a regular histmerging admin:
  Rajput (surname) and Rajput (disambiguation) have WP:Parallel histories that make history merging not practical in my opinion
  
  Sravanthi (given name)/Sravanthi is technically histmergable but seems like a rather low-priority history merge since the content being merged isn't copyrightable in the first place (nobody's attribution is lost) and it would require a delete/undelete and the attendant mess that entails to do right. I most likely couldn't be bothered to do this, but if another admin wants to do this I wouldn't complain.
  
  This doesn't mean that I oppose this proposal; histmerging is notoriously arcane with few of its conventions documented and they often differ from admin to admin, so I can't really expect Jax 0677 to know them all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I just saw it listed here so I think I should point out that the Rajput articles have been the target of extensive ideological sockpuppetry and likely have hijackings in their history. That page may be a case where a histmerge would be more harmful than helpful. I haven't actually reviewed just now to get up to speed but please proceed with caution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Would you say these are candidates for the "list of contributors" approach? So we can get into strict compliance with the terms of use without doing heavy duty reconstruction of unhelpful edits in the page history, I mean.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It seems these aren't the target articles I'm thinking of. Probably I'm thinking of other articles that the socks have tried to hijack to insert their Rajput POV forks into those pages; hard to find but not relevant here anyway. For the (surname) and (disambiguation) pages that have parallel histories, I don't think anything should be done really. It's basically the same small group of contributors, and very little of the content (maybe none) is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright treatment anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template breaking

RESOLVED

By the OP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

At Adrien Nunez, I tried to embed {{langx|en|Adrien Núñez, the only Dominican looking to continue advancing in March Madness}} inside {{cite web}}. Is this possible with some sort of fix?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured something out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ban appeal (TonyTheTiger)

I was banned from having multiple GAC nominations a while back. I have recently created three articles Boating Party, America Windows and City Landscape that are within striking range of WP:GA. My last GAC nomination (Adrien Nunez) took 8 months to get reviewed. I don't really want to wait 24 months for these three articles to get reviewed. The ban has been on for about a year and a half.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ban discussion. I posted this after SandyGeorgia posted below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't in any way addressed how your approach may have changed; one immediate example of how you might indicate having changed is to include a link to the discussion of your ban, rather than expecting others to do the work for you. Or you might include some helpful information about ways your editing may have improved in the "about a year and a half" (with no link). Most likely, there is a reason it takes so long for your nominations to get reviewed. I'm unlikely to support this appeal without some very good indications of how your editing approach has changed, and moved away from reward collecting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, can you list some other GAs you've nominated since the restriction was imposed? Adrien Nunez looks good to me but I'm not a GAN reviewer, and it doesn't appear to me that there's any reason that it took so long to be reviewed beyond the chronic GAN backlog. I also agree with SandyGeorgia that some effort from you here to explain why your ban was imposed and how your approach to GA and the WikiCup has or will change if you are unblocked would serve you better in reviewing the appeal, because what you've already written here just sounds like you're being impatient. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, thanks for the link. I read only the lead at Nunez, and if that is the GA prose standard, I'm surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prior complaint was that my nominations was that I blasted GAC with subpar quality nominations that jammed up the works there. Here, I submitted three impending nominations as samples of my work. Both the America Windows and City Landscape include research beyond my usual google searches. For the latter, I have included both printed sources and JSTOR journals with more sources on the way. E.g., I picked up Joan Mitchell: Lady Painter at the library today. The former already has a handful or print sources, with more on the way. E.g. I have checked out a book on Marc Chagall from the Library already. Regarding Boating Party, since Caillebotte is on exhibition here in Chicago at the Art Institute of Chicago, interest in him is high and print resources are hard to obtain at the library. Since the work was held in a private collection for nearly 130 years up until it was unveiled in 2023, it is not widely written in the journals. However, I think these three are all at a level that would be welcomed by GAC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Nunez, is my first foray back into GAC since April 2024.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's absolutely nothing in this appeal that shows why lifting the ban would be good for the community, just Tony. That is unfortunately a recurring issue with this editor. Star Mississippi 19:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose: there is no meaningful reflection about why the ban was imposed, what has been learned from it, and what corrective measures will be taken to avoid the conduct issues that caused it. The only rationale I see is I don't really want to wait 24 months for these three articles to get reviewed., which does nothing to assure the community that the user's overall approach in the topic area will change. Left guide (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lifting the ban would put risk of gaming the GA processes once again. I don't see this appeal as helpful. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This has exactly the same vibes as when Tony appealed his WikiCup ban in January - "I don't want to wait". There is no indication whatsoever of acknowledgement of what led to the ban or why the behavior that led to the ban won't be repeated - in fact, it very much gives the vibes that any lifting of the ban will be followed by "full speed ahead". Tony, you must reflect on why you were topic-banned and how to avoid repeating the behavior that got you topic-banned; further appeals like this and the previous one could lead to unintended consequences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I currently have a nomination which has been waiting 9 months to be reviewed. That you have to wait like everyone else is not cause, in itself, to lift the topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support some narrow loosening. I'd be fine with some "mercy rule" where after, say, 6 months of a single GA nom pending, Tony is allowed to submit another, to a maximum of maybe three total. I don't think this is a well-crafted appeal, with similar issues to the WikiCup ban appeal in January, which I had intended to oppose before it was SNOW-closed. Nonetheless, when a user comes here with an appeal arguing that their sanction has some defect, I don't see the same need for understanding and contrition as with a full ban appeal. Rather, I look at it as a policy-drafting question, and here the "policy" seems a bit too strict—just a bit, but enough to justify some slightly increased leeway in my opinion. This support is only weak because GA is an entirely optional part of the project (I mean, more optional than everything else), and I'm less worried about being overly draconian there than with, say, a content TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support of your weak support. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately this kind of thing has been a problem for Tony for some time and across multiple processes. The ban appeal here provides no assurances or other evidence that the problematic behaviour won't reoccur. Having only one GAN open at a time isn't a particularly serious restriction, so it seems sensible to leave it in place for now. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's so important about GA anyway that's worth spending more than a few seconds looking at a ban appeal? It only means that another editor agrees that it meets the criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not an admin, so I won't be voting to support or oppose. But as someone involved in the GAN project, and who remembers well what happened that led to Tony being banned from the project, I do have a few questions. Tony was banned from the project after dumping no less than 70 low-quality articles onto the nominations list, in the middle of a backlog drive, single-handedly setting back the progress of numerous reviewers and wasting the time of several others. The GA project still has a chronic backlog problem, caused by an insufficient number of reviewers, which is what is leading to the months-long wait times that he is complaining about here. However, when I look at his ratio of reviews to nominations, he still has 226 reviews for 319 GAs (a ratio of 1.4 nominations for every review). Rather than seeking to be unbanned so you can nominate even more articles and put even more strain on the project, why not first help bring down the backlog by reviewing existing nominations? You say you have only nominated one GA since the restrictions were imposed, but how many articles have you reviewed since then? Do you understand that the problem you highlighted, of nominations taking months to be reviewed, will not be helped if you continue nominating multiple articles without reviewing as many (or more)? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Grnrchst, Yes, I have nominated one article and reviewed 3. I nominated Nunez in December 2024 and took part in the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2025 reviewing Welcome to the Jungle (Jay-Z and Kanye West song), 2020 Sparta earthquake, Lou Whitaker.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Great, that's one of my three questions answered. Can you answer the other two? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure it's good to have someone reviewing articles if they don't understand the standards ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think they don't understand the standards, it's a lack of care for the community's time and energy that I'm worried about. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the Good Article nomination processes have been become stricter as many people joined Wikipedia. You don't always ask for GAN on new articles, it's not worth getting the award, it's a top layer of the cake. Focus on making new articles instead of bragging for GA status. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs more quality articles, not more quantity of low-quality low-importance barely-notable topics. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All editors may vote in discussions like this. You needn't be an admin. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I don't believe I knew that myself. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, Tony, you could try adding a reviewing pledge to your nomination or joining a review circle. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I had reviewed 3 articles after nominating Adrien Nunez, I did not WP:GARP that one, but I just added a GARP to a new America Windows nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its clear from on going activity, even today,[8] that Tony neither understands nor acknowledges the reasons for the restriction. If lifed, history tells us we will be back to square one within minutes. He's promising not to flood while at the same time proposing three weak articles for GA? Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read through that I can only reitirate my oppose above - with the added suggestion that Tony should seriously consider in fact withdrawing this appeal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the responses so far. Paul August ☎ 21:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there is no merit or benefit to Wikipedia by increasing the number of GA's in the queue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you don't need a silly green icon atop the article for it to be a good article. Editors write good articles all the time without the need for a status symbol be attached to the article. Just continue on with your writing, and let the folks at GAR do what they do. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: loosen restriction (TonyTheTiger)

Tony is genuinely an active content generator and is genuinely trying to improve content, and they're one of only a handful of users I've encountered in sixteen years here who take an interest in rescuing salvageable topics from deletion, even if they have been primarily motivated by scoring points. The spirit of the restriction was to get Tony to stop mass-submitting clearly unsuitable nominations to game a contest, and banning them from the contest has mostly dealt with that. As for limiting them to one GAN at a time, the intent was to slow them down and to ensure they would vet the few nominations they were permitted and learn from reviewers' feedback, but with an eight-month backlog they are not being reviewed in a timely manner, Tony is receiving no timely feedback, and the restriction is far more punitive than originally intended. At this rate it will be years before Tony is even able to demonstrate if they're improving. We should fix that.

I propose replacing the current restriction with the following:

TonyTheTiger is banned from participating in the WikiCup in any capacity;
TonyTheTiger is limited to one good article nomination per calendar month.

I support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of idea could be workable. It strikes me that one a month is still a heck of a lot. Could we go lower?—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With options of 1/2/3/4/6 months per nomination, that would be 12/6/4/3/2 reviews a year. Given that part of this is to help with seeing improvement, it seems like once every six calendar months would not be enough with a lowered amount, but the others seem like they would work. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the eight-month backlog is an indication, one per month would create a soft limit of 8 concurrent nomninations, and presumably create a scenario where one is reviewed each month (assuming the backlog stays the same). Considering that there are currently 831 nominations, 8 more hardly seems to be adding much of a burden. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If what we're aiming for is that nominations are reviewed in a timely manner, then allowing more nominations will not help that, it'll just add even more nominations to the backlog. We need more reviewers; this is the only way to address the problem of months-long wait times. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose one at a time is an adequate rate. If they get reviewed in a couple of weeks then that allows a higher rate if the system is working fast. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, one at a time is enough for a 20-year editor who has not evidenced they can learn from feedback. Re ... "slow them down and to ensure they would vet the few nominations they were permitted and learn from reviewers' feedback", as a FAC Coord who processed many of his ill-prepared FAC nominations, the reward-seeking issue furthered by the WikiCup was not the only problem. The other issues are that a) Tony does not take on or learn from feedback (the basis for this alternate proposal), rather Tony b) waits for or expects other editors to pull his articles up to standard rather than doing, or showing he can do, the work himself, and c) he has not understood the need to build a network of collaborators to help in his weak areas. (If he is even aware of those areas.) From what I've seen of his GANs, the same problems exist at that level as existed at FAC, and his nominations sap precious reviewer time. Someone who submitted dozens of nominations to FAC, and received feedback for years, should be able almost two decades later to write an article at the GA level. One at a time until there is evidence he has taken on board the ample critique always presented, over many many years. Taking even more time to review such a poorly presented appeal is yet another example of the wasted editor time caused by the ways in which Tony doesn't take on feedback. He is not a newbie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re "At this rate it will be years before Tony is even able to demonstrate if they're improving", the appeal already demonstrates the answer to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When FAC initially instituted a one-nomination-at-a-time rule in 2010, that was precipitated by TTT's misuse of the process; fifteen years later, GAN is facing the same issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as issues with TTT's sticker-collecting extend back many, many years, and he has provided very little reasoning in this appeal to show that has changed. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there was the slightest indication that Tony has learned anything from his topic bans, I'd support this. There isn't. At all. The attitude evidenced in both this appeal and the WikiCup appeal is solely "This inconviences me". If Tony wants his bans loosened or removed, he must demonstrate that they have had an effect on his behavior. To loosen the ban before that will risk starting a camel's nose scenario, where his doing nothing was "rewarded", so further pressure to loosen the ban will follow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, adding to the backlog will not help the underlying issue, nor is there a reason to allow them to have more when it's not clear they're any more familiar with the criteria then they were. There's no reason they can't wait other than they don't want to, which isn't a reason to increase the load on other editors. Star Mississippi 01:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support some form of loosening. It is not the editor's fault if the backlog process has considerably slowed. BD2412 T 01:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have strong evidence the backlog process has considerably slowed, it has varied slightly and inconsistently over the past few years. CMD (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment about the page quality and topics Tony wishes to present - and three obviously "Good worthy" nominations at a time seems a better use of Tony's talents. Importantly, Tony knows or has learned the difference now that he's limited to just nominating his best. As for topics, Chagall's America Windows is an icon of the Chicago Art Institute, one of Chagall's masterworks. Boating Party is literally not only a national treasure of France but "was described as the most important national treasure acquired by the French Republic in the history of the National Treasure program". And a good focus on one of Joan Mitchell's paintings would highlight a major but semi-neglected woman artist. But bottom line, I just wanted to give Tony a "job well done" after reading the discussion (an "o my" at the comments about this volunteer). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment: Is it possible that people aren't reviewing TTT's GA noms at the same rate as others' because they know it's historically been a headache to deal with him if problems are found? If so, then the solution is not to alter the sanction, but for TTT to convince others that he's changed his approach to being reviewed. Based on the approach in this request, my uneducated hunch is that this could be the problem. But if he has already changed his approach and this rate of review is typical, then I would have supported some kind of "one GA nom after every high-quality GA review he makes, up to one per month max" restriction (and also, no gaming of the restriction, though I'm not sure how that could happen). But a review of the comments above seems to show that this is obviously not going to happen this time around. It's painful to watch someone make a request like this, and know that if they'd just approached it with the right attitude, it would have succeeded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA can be a bit of reviewer roulette, especially given the current number of nominations. It's hard to know for sure if Tony's wait time is related to his approach. It could be that it's just lost in the backlog - with 800+ noms at any time, the chances of one particular article being picked up randomly by a passing reviewer are low. It may also be that for some reason reviewers aren't interested in the particular topic he has nominated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angrysct0tsman12 suspected edit warring via IPs

I'm suspecting that user:Angrysct0tsman12 is conducting edit warring via IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193 on page Battle of Đồng Hới. There's a correlation between the comments of the user and the IPs on the talk page.[9] On the article page, the user and IPs continuously conduct mostly identical reverts.[10][11][12] I kindly ask if any measures can be taken, either by me or any admin. 95.252.72.125 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is someone else that shares the same opinion. My edits are being made in good faith and I am engaged in the talk page with the expressed intent of achieving a consensus. The issue here is that the primary source here being cited is biased. In the interest of maintaining a degree of fairness, my edits have been made to reflect measurable outcomes (i.e. equipment damage) which are contained in the sourced material as opposed to simply passing off the claim of a "moral victory" as evidence of an actual tactical or strategic victory. There wasn't a particularly significant battle so both sides could easily claim "victory" here. Thus my proposal is sidestep the back and forth claiming entirely and stick with what is objectively true.

Edit: After looking into WP editing policies more, allow me to try and articulate myself better. The source of contention revolves around a primary source that exclusively uses the first hand account of North Vietnamese pilots who flew during the Vietnam war. This is one of those cases where the source itself is reliable, but inherently biased due to its point of view.

The point of contention revolves around what should be placed in the "results" section of the info box. The source itself says "The twenty-minute attack was hailed as a great moral victory". Now this is very much an opinion; not a concrete fact. Moreover, the Merriam Webster definition of a "moral victory" says it is the "achievement of something that is important and good". This tag is usually applied to cases where a side lost but found a silver lining somewhere.

Therefore it does not seem appropriate to cite this singular source without properly contextualizing what was being said. That phrase could certainly be included in the body of the article. It just doesn't belong in the info box based on that source alone. Let's stick to providing factual narratives and not try to plant nationalistic flags of "my team won, yours lost" which is seemingly what has been happening the previous 16 years this article has been live.

Side note... this seems like a extremely inappropriate means of hashing out this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrysct0tsman12 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a matter for WP:AN3, not here. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 03:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Higashizakura is Japanese or Vietnamese?

Inquiry misplaced on WP:AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

In article Arrange and merge administrative units, this user gave a silly reason that there were no administrative units "zone" (khu) and "litte zone" (tiểu khu) before to delete them. I explained it in detail in the message section for this guy to understand, but the user continued to vandalize. (Worvandae (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
There is only one edit to the page by User:Higashizakura. Clarifying why you made this change by adding a source that includes these names would justify their addition. It's possible that this editor had not heard of the terms used in this context before and without a source it is not obvious that they are accurately used here. Discussing it on the talk page is a good first step. Rather than speculating on their nationality or place of residence. This may not be an issue for administrator attention at this time. However, there is no qualification for any editor to be of any nationality to make any kind of edit, addition or deletion, to an article.

I note that you have barely given Higashizakura any time to respond. You also need to notify them that you have started this discussion on their talk page (which I have done for you this time). -- Recon rabbit 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't even "vandalize", I just thought that the "zone" and "little zones" doesn't exist in Vietnam. – Higashizakura (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Năm Căn district, I just want the article Năm Căn commune to be splitted. Just like the Vietnamese Wikipedia, they always keep the former urban and rural district, provincial city articles for history. – Higashizakura (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User: Hummel329875: Non-communication, and botlike behavior

This is not an issue for AN, and editor has agreed to double check their work ( thank you). Star Mississippi 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hummel329875 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I first heard of Hummels work while stalking recent changes, so I checked out their page which is Willy Tiedjen which I did some editing work on, and helping with the sections, and even removing bold face from parts that bold should not be there for, but he kept editing his page every second with very long edit summarys, I tried using AI checkers like ZeroGPT which gave me a result of 4.9% written by AI, but it still seems like this is a bot account being a WP:SPA. When I asked him if he was using ai chatbots, he never responded, just working on the page every minute or so. shane (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shane! I am not a bot and happy to engage with you on this. I've been working in Word and in Excel on my research, recording my findings with the German newspaper website (https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/) and preparing my notes as I begin to build my first (yes, first) Wikipedia page. I am from the US but moved to Germany and fell in love with Willy Tiedjen (and Fanny's, his wife's) artwork, and thought their story should be share with the world. If I need to improve any text I'm adding to the page, please don't hesitate to let me know as I'm happy to comply. I'm a bit older so taking this all in has been overwhelming but VERY exciting for me to engage with. Again, open to your feedback, but I sure hope I don't get banned, ha! Thank you so much. -Angela Hummel329875 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also share with me where you asked me about using AI chatbots? I would just like to learn about where those messages would have arrived, if not this talk page. Thank you! -Angela Hummel329875 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page which is always right next to your name when you chat shane (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's something very wrong with the references you are using, or at least the urls you have provided. As an example in your latest edit[13] you say the reference is for the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten published 1913, but the link you provided[14] goes to tariffs on tobacco in Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate from 1729. I've spotted checked a few others and the urls all appear to be nonsensical. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shane, have you just... reported a user to AN for working hard on writing an article?

Have you ever heard of a chatbot editing in lots of consecutive edits with well-written edit summaries? That's a hallmark of a competent editor, and the opposite of a hallmark of a chatbot. Do chatbots know to boldface alternate names of an article subject on first mention? Generally no, and on that note almost every part of this edit of yours goes against MOS. And I guess, most importantly, a month after I and Giraffer gave you this warning about wading in too deep in admin areas and making incorrect statements of policy, why are you telling a newer user that we have an entire policy on using those types of unethical methods [AI] to write, while linking to an essay, not policy, that does not in fact say AI use is unethical or forbidden? (I'm satisfied by Hummel's answer above, but even if she were using AI to generate individual statements about Tiedjen and then adding them one at a time, that would be an indicator of the kind of human-vetted AI use the community somewhat begrudgingly allows.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Before saying that, have you looked at the sources? Most of them are nonsense. This is meant to cite a painting from 1912 but is in fact from 1590. This is a map from 1834. And most of them are like this (apart from the ones that are 404). I suspect this is simply AI generated. Unless the editor can explain this, I suggest the whole lot is removed. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go deconstructing, I'm happy to review them. In my excel, I have had to hand type in the numbers from the URLs that I'm copying, so perhaps I've not transcribed it correctly. I am trying with a good heart, I promise! Hummel329875 (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, you're adding huge amounts of information at very fast speed without checking any that the sources back up your additions. If it was just one or two citations that were wrong, I could understand that, but it's nearly all of them. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did spot-check the sources, yes. Found 5 that seemed fine, 1 that didn't resolve, seemed normal enough for a new editor making some referencing errors. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but this does not seem like the normal "AI slop" we get, and regular beginners' errors still exist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the recently added ones (especially the ones from www.digitale-sammlungen.de URLs). You'll see the problem straight away. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the problem. I'm just not convinced that it's AI, or that this is a matter for AN rather than say the Teahouse. I've seen enough enthusiastic new editors who were making some mistakes get chased away at AN(I) by someone who decided they were some random assortment of bad things. I really don't like seeing it happen. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely unconvinced, but if the user is going to go through and correct the dozens of incorrect citations then great, and hopefully it won't happen again. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, Black Kite. I hope this turns out well one way or the other, because potentially we get a quality article and a quality contributor here once the bumps are smoothed out. If my initial comment to Shane comes off as naïve, well, so be it, but I do think it can be true both that a user was making significant mistakes and that an AN thread was ill-pleaded. Or maybe my frustration with Shane's past poor judgment got the better of me and I assumed the worst; I'll leave that for others to decide. I'd be as happy to be wrong on that as I'd be happy to be right about Hummel, because in Shane too we have an editor with lots of promise who needs to smooth some bumps out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct! Thank you and my apologies for the misunderstanding. I am a fan of accuracy (I'm also a hobby genealogist) and will review it all. Hummel329875 (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, thank you for the insights. I can definitely review and edit the urls if they're not directly properly. I was so proud of all the ones I found, haha! I'm going page by page on 35 pages of results of 'Tiedjen' and am using Google Translate to translate the German to english (of course, if this isn't allowed, I'm also happy to comply), but it all seemed in line with YouTube tutorials and reddits I've been reviewing. Open to feedback of course! Thank you again. Hummel329875 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, the main reason why I reported her to an was because of her silence to my question. the secondary reason was her bot like speed in editing. shane (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shane. My apologies for not replying more quickly, and I will slow down the copy/paste from Word/Excel, including popping the URL into the browser to verify it's accuracy before adding in. I'll review the URL links I have, too, to be sure they're directly properly. I have screenshots of each newspaper source so it won't take long to correct (but it is late in Germany so I'll finish by end of the weekend if that's acceptable). Hummel329875 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For editors who prefer to edit with lots of one-sentence additions, that's a fairly normal speed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restoration of permissions

I am returning to Wikipedia in a limited capacity. As per my previous voluntary relinquishment of permissions, I request rollback, pending changes reviewer, and page mover to be restored, but not NPP or AFC reviewer. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Salvio giuliano

21:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my password and my PC where I last was logged on to is bricked - what to do...

Admins I come to you in a time of need. Well not really that much need. Hoping an admin can add a notice to the user page of the account I can no longer log into, User:LegalSmeagolian, and link them to my new account and note that I am no longer editing under that account anymore due to loss of access.

Would also love Extended Confirmed permissions per my other account, as I was engaged in some topic areas requiring such permissions, but I am fine waiting and just editing in other topic areas. Thanks to whoever helps out. LegalSmeagolianTheSecond (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried resetting your password? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Unfortunately, if an email was associated with the account (I can't even remember if one was) it would have gone to a .edu email account which is no longer accessible. LegalSmeagolianTheSecond (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can try contacting Trust & Safety and see if you can prove your identity to their satisfaction. Maybe they'll reset your account password. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe see if you can gain brief access to the .edu account? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried that in the past and the institution is a real pain about reactivating. However, I think there might be a way for me to contact T&S to verify based off of some of my contributions (I have snuck photos of my cat on here, so maybe I could do some kind of cat ID verification). I will email them sometime today. Thanks for the suggestion. LegalSmeagolianTheSecond (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, cat ID verification made me laugh out loud. Appreciated today! Lulfas (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. You (LegalSmeagolianTheSecond) are using proxies to edit Wikipedia instead of using the same ISP as LegalSmeagolian. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

I have requested move for Government of the Grand National Assembly quite while ago and now the request is not relisted or done anything till now kinda abandoned. A$ianeditorz (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive page moves

GhoshThakur has made multiple disruptive page moves involving caste-related titles without prior discussion or consensus. These actions appear to be caste-based POV pushing.

Problematic moves:^[1]

GhoshThakur also created a blatant hoax redirect[15]. Requesting review, reversion to stable titles, and administrative action to prevent further disruption. Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a final warning about the caste-related extended-confirmed-restriction. Counting on someone else to fix the page moving mess. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Firefangledfeathers for your efforts. ~~Please also revert this page move: [16].~~ Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came to this through CAT:CSD and only just noticed this AN thread. I've deleted 2 of the bad titles under the WP:ARBECR for Indian caste history; another was deleted by BusterD. Some protections also applied. Any remaining questions about the page title can be handled through the normal editorial process. Checkusers may also wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Move log

Proposed modification of Arbitration Committee procedure

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#CTOP/AE page protection logging. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lorraine Crane

Lorraine Crane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lorraine Crane, formerly known as Villkomoses (User talk:Lorraine Crane/Archive 1), has been a new page reviewer for three weeks. I first encountered the user at the Roly Porter article, and I am afraid to say that some of the user's recent reviews are inappropriate (Wikipedia:Tag bombing). Examples:

They tagged {{Excessive citations}} to the Roly Porter article, below infobox (diff). I think two citations for one sentence is acceptable because, to quote Wikipedia:Citation overkill, "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources".
They tagged {{Independent sources}} and {{Orphan}} to the Miramar Christian School article (diff). It is already linked from one article: List of schools in the Wellington Region.
They tagged {{Orphan}} and {{No significant coverage (sports)}} to the Ricardo Valdéz article, below infobox (diff). It is already linked from two articles: Dorados de Chihuahua (basketball) and Plateros de Fresnillo.
They tagged {{Orphan}} to the LightShip (spacecraft) article, below infobox (diff). It is already linked (via redirect) from two articles: Solar electric propulsion and List of European Space Agency programmes and missions.
They tagged {{No significant coverage}} to the Pass the Plate (album) article, below infobox (diff). I think the AllMusic review is a significant coverage.

I am requesting the removal of Lorraine Crane's NPR rights. Although the user's NPR rights will expire on 28 August 2025, it would be helpful if someone else could take a look at their contributions. フランベ (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@フランベ, why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Lorraine Crane first? Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Because I would like an administrator to determine if Lorraine Crane deserves NPR rights. I've just left a notice on User talk:Lorraine Crane, so I think we can discuss the issue here now. フランベ (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

maybe they would have done self-reflection and apologize. administrator intervention would never be required in the first place. i agree that it's a bit premature. 85.98.23.90 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: granted the temporary right and may be interested in this discussion. We need new page reviewers, and educating those who are just starting and may make mistakes is a whole lot more helpful to the project than running to a noticeboard to publicly call them out without even telling them about any errors or giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Schazjmd, and would further note that tag use frequency is perhaps the easiest bad-NPR-behavior to correct for, as it typically just means recalibrating how quickly one moves to tag, rather than having to learn a complicated concept like notability, OR, or copyright law. That said, the concerns raised are valid; I would like to see a response from Lorraine Crane before determining whether any actions are necessary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing despite block?

Question answered and confusion resolved, no actionable concern raised. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm slightly confused here. I reverted an edit by 197.185.176.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and then went to look at their contributions - Special:Contributions/197.185.176.53 - and the message says that the IP is currently part of an anon-only range block. How did they edit? --B (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a partial block from one page, Draft:Sphokuhle N. They can still edit other pages. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness, I feel like an idiot. I completely missed that. Blocking people from editing one page didn't used to be a thing. Thanks. --B (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:RFPP backlog

I just opened WP:RFPP and saw the 71h backlog, which is the longest I have ever seen (this is of course anecdotal evidence). It was built gradually, still yesterday there were requests not processed for 48h. I have processed a few oldest, but I have now go to bed. Some attention would be appreciated. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog there has been slowly building up the last few days. Unfortunately I don't have much time because of work, but will take a look. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog is mostly dealt with. Thanks to all who helped. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create Talk:Margaret Mitchell (scientist)

Page exists, editing advice given. Thanks, OP, for helping us. Star Mississippi 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the person depicted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mitchell_(scientist), which has several tags that need to be addressed, and has had them for awhile. I am happy to help address them.

I also think the article could focus more on my work and accomplishments, and would be happy to provide relevant information with sources/references.

Following the instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard/COI , my understanding is that first an administrator needs to create Talk:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret Mitchell (scientist) , and I can submit suggestions/references there; and that the way for this page to be created is for the request to be made here. Let me know if I should be doing something else.

Thanks! M.Mitchell (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Margaret. I believe all users can create talk pages. You should just be able to click "Create page" or "Edit page", add content, then press "Publish changes" below the edit window to create the page. Also, the page already exists. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Talk:Margaret Mitchell (scientist) already exists; just click the "+" tab at the top of the page to start a new talk page section, which will let you make the edit requests you'd like to make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you might be pasting the entire URL into the Page Name box in the Edit Request Wizard. Just paste in "Margaret Mitchell (scientist)" (without the quotes). REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 07:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Free Republic of Verdis

Globally blocked editor VerdisSupporter9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to re-create and re-add edits related to a social media project for a micronation called Free Republic of Verdis from Simple Wikipedia, evading a previous block: Special:Contributions/VerdisSupporter9. Disruptive editing which has been reverted and cautioned against by multiple editors on Simple Wikipedia and more recently here. Deletion forums are being spammed here and here; article templates removed here, spamming here, hostile behavior toward others here, among other disruptive edits. It appears the related accounts are attempting to move their disruptive editing from Simple Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia:

VerdisSupporter9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is evading a global block put in place back in 2019

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

Attempted to erroneously redirect article and is recreating VerdisSupporter9's earlier edits

Thank you for taking a look at this. 2601:646:8081:8100:45D9:4B0F:EB46:70C (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction from DAndujar ^: I only added the internal link in your first remark, I'm not sure why I'm being added here for that. I created an edit for the Verdis page before VerdisSupporter9 was banned from the platform, and I redid them after the page was defaced by protesters. (This was after the page was recreated by a different individual. I am simply a 3rd party in this, who is just making edits that were previously (at least from what I saw) defaced on simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAndujar (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting to see how you upgraded Verdis from a micronation to a full country here. The Banner talk 13:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia is a separate project, but it looks like someone has already proposed the article for deletion there. If this is a sock it looks like the original account, blocked on en.wiki, is VRDSupport. CMD (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know who that is! That account was blocked 6 years ago it says. I have a similar name that is all. Do you not think that could be a common occurrence when you google Verdis and see all the attention at the moment? VerdisSupporter9 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/daniel-jackson-unclaimed-land-croatia-serbia-verdis 2A00:23C5:2E0:3D01:A8E6:FC72:C58:AFA6 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChickpeaAnxiety

ChickpeaAnxiety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just spent the last few hours making an about a hundred small WP:AGF edits to many different articles. Unfortunately almost every single edit was breaking WP:NOPIPE and/or WP:NOTBROKEN. I just spent combing and reverting many of them, but there’s still more edits to go through. i think it might be a case for a mass-rollback, but I don’t have rollbacker perms. We explained the policies in question to the user on the talk page, so hopefully they won’t make the same mistake again going forward. Raladic (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was doing something good and didn’t expect it to be a problem. I have read the rules, and I believe an important part of the edit I made can still be considered appropriate. ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Move log

[1]

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