Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	3	12	159	21	195
TfD	0	1	17	2	20
MfD	0	0	7	1	8
FfD	2	6	70	0	78
RfD	0	0	100	18	118
AfD	0	0	0	20	20

• 18 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 11 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 14 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 48 sockpuppet investigations
• 80 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 10 Fully protected edit requests
• 5 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 17 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 33 requested closures
• 34 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 15 Copyright problems

Problematic behavior of Al-Hilali Z

Hello, I wanted to avoid getting to this point, but I think I've done everything I could to try and resolve this.

All of this is characterized by blatant bad faith and a complete lack of neutrality on Daghaghra. As can be seen in my latest complaint, for example, he dismisses historians' sources on the grounds that what they say is false and that the medieval author he cites doesn't report it, and then demands that I go and study the medieval historian myself and provide proof of this. "...but actually a source used by the user Mhmdgrd litteraly dont talk about the tribe, he claim that Ibn Khaldun told something about them, but litteraly not."

He had used another historian's source in the introduction to the article (Mohamed Hassen, source 1), however I did not have access to it, and it seems to be the most reliable and modern source. He omitted the fact that this source also supported my view and reported the tribe as Berber with more precise details.

He bases all of these arguments on a work that does not come from a specialist, but the one on the article page describes him as a historian (article origin section: They are a Bedouin[3][4][5][6][7] tribe from the Bani Sulaym[8][9] confederation, like many historian said, like Mohamed Bouzerara, a Tunisian historian from Tataouine., which makes it a misuse of source because after verification he admitted that he was indeed not one. And he goes on to say this time (without proof) that he is the manager of the Remada Cultural Center, which still does not make him a historian or specialist in the field.

He puts several sources together, some claiming to support his position, but after verification, this is not the case, and he is content with vague answers that drown the discussion page in a debate full of sophistry that leads nowhere and makes the third-party contributor lose track ( like here, here or here).

With good faith, it's clear this matter could have been easily resolved, but the way we're collaborating is appalling, bordering on the absurd. I believe all articles, regardless of the subject, deserve quality writing; there are plenty of good articles out there, so why shouldn't this one have the same? We're stuck in its qualitative development, it's becoming a problem. I've done everything I can, including discussions and RFCs, but it doesn't seem to be leading anywhere.

I think that at the very least, a reminder of the rules and fundamental principles of Wikipedia would be necessary for the good of the encyclopedia. and above all Wikipedia:Citing sources. Mhmdgrd (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought them to a noticeboard without telling them (and without providing any diffs), this is not optional. I've explained this to you before. I will notify them, but you will need to provide evidence in the form of specific diffs to support your allegations. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 22:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I'll redo that with the differences, thanks. Mhmdgrd (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Hello, I added all the diff. Mhmdgrd (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, administrators deal with long-term, chronic behavioural issues that cannot be resolved using other dispute resolution methods, or are so severe that dispute resolution isn't appropriate. They do not deal with content disputes - if this is a content dispute then the report will likely be closed.

As the reporting editor, it is your responsibility to show that things have gone this far in your report; diffs are required so that others don't need to dig through the history to try to figure out which edits you're referring to. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 22:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Sorry for forgetting to inform the other person concerned. I will try the conflict resolution method even though I have little hope. If it fails again, I will come back here unless there is a better alternative. Mhmdgrd (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Stop copy-paste everytime the same thing. You are obviously lying in the RFC, you didn't talk about all the sources i putted telling that they are Arabs and even the last edit you made was a pov-pushing. You have only source telling that the Daghaghra are berbers, only one, from André Louis. This debate goes too far, and litteraly i can't accept anymore what is happening, you only have one source, i have many, from Mohamed Bouzerara who are the responsible of the REMADA CULTURAL CENTER, but you are lying about him telling that he is just a random radio guy (he litteraly just made promotion of his books, like many writers), and other sources that you dont even talk about in the RFC. You benefit that the debate is long and the peoples you try to bring in will not have the patience to check all. Im litteraly all long citing sources and you behavior is already known on the french side of Wikipedia. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Al-Hilali Z, please remember that you must be civil in content disputes. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that thus does not seem to be covered by an official contentious topic. Surely we have seen enough disruption in the area of Arab-Berber relations for it to be declared one? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a small, isolated tribe; I don't know if it has the necessary notoriety. But with all the evidence that exists, if we do the same thing, everything related to Berber culture and the Maghreb could become a source of discord, in my opinion. I would just like us to use quality sources, and what they say is something that's perfectly feasible. Mhmdgrd (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbcom recently had a case on the Maghreb, and declined to establish a contentious topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by this edit summary. In all of the talk page discussion, I get the impression that fine-grained engagement is hampered by verbosity. Perhaps a warning? In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 04:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this thread. The Bushranger I do think it is time for some action against this user. I also have had to leave multiple and repeated warnings on their talk page, all of which have gone ignored and unheeded. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5

ChrisP2K5 (talk · contribs) has been a disruptive edit-warring user for the past week, refusing to accept my edits as they were, and now he's falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Hdayejr (talk · contribs), a user who has been blocked for 18 years and has made no attempt to sock, and I have no connection to that blocked user whatsoever. His edits were completely unnecessary and often unfounded (in this case, he had a dispute over his refusal to provide legal, official sources). Furthermore, over a decade ago, he had been blocked for similar mentalities and was given a second chance over a year afterwards. This time, it's the final straw. Some lines have to be drawn. ~2026-17508-59 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't notify him, as he's blocked IPs from editing his talk page. ~2026-17508-59 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That is entirely not true, his talk page is indefinitely semi protected. Untamed1910 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17508-59 I've notified them on your behalf.

@Untamed1910 semi-protection does block IPs (and temporary account users) from editing the talk page. The log states it was semi-protected in 2009 due to persistent harassment. It looks like the LTA is still active, but whether they are still targetting ChrisP2K5 I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason why I requested protection was because of repeated incidents involving anonymous IP address users, most of which were proven to be Hdayejr. EDIT: I would also like to add that I did receive a notification before Thryduulf sent me one. One of the WikiBots sends me notifications whenever my name is mentioned; I did not need the anonymous IP user to tell me. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have very good reason to suspect that this user is Hdayejr because of the pattern of behavior. If you look closely at this person’s pattern of edits, which have been done under several different IP addresses, my edits seem to be solely targeted. And every time that I’ve raised the concern that the person may be Hdayejr, the edits have resumed using a different IP address. This is the third different IP address this person has used. Call me crazy if you must but this can’t be coincidence. As far as the article linked to here is concerned, the edit made the page unreadable and basically left it with no real reason to stand as it was, I suggested that the user nominate it for deletion. It has not been, and honestly I would think that if there isn’t enough information available to satisfy Wiki standards on it then the page shouldn’t be up. But that is neither here nor there.

As far as some of the other behavior that’s being cited here by this anonymous IP address user, another reasons why I contend this is Hdayejr is in his statement heading this submission. He may claim Hdayejr has made no attempt to get back through sockpuppetry, but that is clearly false because of various attempts I have made the admins aware of over the intervening years. Hdayejr has also said he will “make sure I’m off Wikipedia” in the past and I see no reason to believe that he wouldn’t try again if he so desired. I have kept pretty much on the straight and narrow for most of the time that this anonymous IP address user has cited (I will freely admit I’ve had a couple of troublesome incidents but have stayed out of trouble otherwise), and I don’t appreciate being dragged into this under largely misguided pretenses by someone who clearly has a grudge with me for some reason I wish I knew.

If this person is not Hdayejr, I will apologize. But the pattern of behavior is there, and I would like to know if there’s a way to check the IP range so we can know for certain where this user is. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Editors with TAIV privileges can see the IP address associated with temporary accounts (while they are active). The IP addresses in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hdayejr last edited Wikipedia over a decade ago so their present geolocation is not a reliable indicator of where the editor behind them was located at the time (which may of course be different to their present physical location). The temporary account in that category has a different underlying IP to the one who posted here. The two IP addresses geolocate to different regions of the same country. It is worth noting for others though that the TA, which is not bloocked but was tagged as a suspected sock by ChrisP2K5, is the only (temporary) account or IP address in the confirmed or suspected socks of Hdayejr cateogries to have edited more recently than 2008 (Hdayejr's last edit was an appeal of their block in early 2009).

There are three other temporary accounts associated with the TA who started this thread, none of them are blocked. At least three of them have contributions that overlap enough for me to be comfortable saying they are the same editor as each other. The fourth has only a single contribution, to an article not edited by any of the other three, which is insufficient to say anything about whether or not they are the same person.

I have not done any more behaviour analysis. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is Hdayejr (and knowing him like I know him, as I know him off of Wikipedia as well, I still suspect it is), I must say that it is very concerning to me that this IP user has seemed to target me. I’d also like to bring up, again, that these edits have been made under several different IP addresses, and each time I raised the concern that this anonymous IP user is apparently offended by, the edits magically shifted to a different IP with the same patterns. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I guarantee you, I am nothing like Hdayejr. He made his edits for all the wrong reasons, whereas I make sure articles are kept simplified. What you think is "unreadable" clearly is not. ~2026-17508-59 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No, that’s not what you’re doing. My edits are intended to streamline the information and make it more understandable and readable. Your arbitrary reverts aren’t doing anything but being disruptive, which is exactly the kind of thing Hdayejr is known for. Not to mention your apparent obsession with me, which he is also known for, your jumping from IP to IP after I raised my concerns that you might be him, and your apparent obsession with driving me off of this website because you don’t like my methods. I’ve done nothing wrong here, despite what you may believe, and quite frankly I am offended that you don’t seem to be inclined to acknowledge your responsibility in this entire exercise. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

They were already readable and understandable to begin with. And Hdayejr never made reasonable edit summaries like I did (and why would he?), which you choose to ignore and undo without any edit summaries of your own explaining why you did it (reasonable or not). I was not after you. I was keeping the articles simplified and removing excessive and unnecessary (and sometimes unfounded) information. It was only a coincidence you just happen to be editing those articles. ~2026-17508-59 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don’t believe you. Plain and simple. It’s a pattern of behavior that is eerily similar to his. And I seem to be your only target. That isn’t fair and I can’t say that I don’t find this very disturbing. If it’s just a coincidence, then it’s a hell of a coincidence because I will say again the pattern of behavior is almost exactly the same as his. The passage of time doesn’t matter; he has always exhibited these types of behaviors on various social media sites.

Your edit summaries may have appeared reasonable to you but your behavior tells me that you were only doing this to target me, outside of that lone edit on the Shop Til You Drop page. Your edits and reverts were not done in good faith, judging by your responses here and your initial filing. If I am in violation of any Wiki policy, it is certainly not remotely worth of a permanent suspension of my editing privileges as you seem to want it to be. I shouldn’t have to, for lack of a better term, look over my shoulder every single time I make an edit on a page because I have someone with an axe to grind against me. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17508-59 can I please ask what you were doing here? Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 23:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I make a request for closure here? It’s been two days since Blue-Sonnet asked the question and we’ve had no response, and I don’t really think extending this beyond then is going to solve anything. All I would ask is for the edits I made to be restored and left alone, for whoever this person is to stop targeting me and to leave me alone. If that’s a lot to ask I will apologize, but regardless, I think the point has been somewhat belabored at this juncture. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Admins do not have authority over content. If you wish the edits restored, that can be done by yourself; note there is no guarantee they'll be left alone of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. But would you all agree that this ought to be closed? The IP hasn’t responded to Blue-Sonnet's allegation since it was made, it’s been four days, and I don’t think we’re going to hear anything from them anytime soon. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

An admin will get to it in due course - someone will go through this board periodically and close threads as they go. Worst case scenario is that this will get archived if no-one touches it for the next week, so it's fine either way. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Recreations of Carlossuarez46 geostubs

I've come across a number of articles which were part of the 2021 batch deletion of Carlossuarez46's Iranian "village" stubs and recreated in 2025-26, once again sourced only to census records. For those not familiar, CS46 had created thousands of "village" articles based on the Iranian census and many of them turned out to be things like factories, wells, individual farms and other entities which are used as census-counting points but are not villages and do not meet WP:NPLACE. I don't have a complete list but my prod log for May 2026 gives a good idea of what we're dealing with.

My question is, what is the most expedient way to handle these recreated articles? I PRODded this batch (they're ineligible for G4 Speedy Deletion since there was no AfD discussion) and the creator User:Brightkingdom will let them stand, but I'd like to have a better way than hundreds of PRODs if this turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg. –dlthewave ☎ 00:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The story of CS46 seems to be a well-worn legend and I've familiarized myself with as much of it as I think necessary to understand the history of his mass-production, tied with an apparent contest of some sort back in the day in order for him to obtain administrator status.

My own history in looking for some way to make a difference in this vast area was to try to understand as much about the administrative structure of Iran as possible and attempt to make some sense out of a somewhat complicated system–and whether or not I could untie various knots and problems arising for anyone else who wants to understand what Iran was all about.

I only came across CS46 after he had apparently left the picture, simultaneously realizing he had done a lot of damage along the way, but had also, on the other hand, provided some insight into transliteration, at least some reasonable coordinates, and one or two other tidbits that gave me clues as to how complicated this was going to get. But his work was uneven because of possibly using a robot or something.

Along the way I discovered that many changes had taken place in deciding whether or not a geographic location was "notable" enough to have its own article. Old parameters suggested that at the very least, administrative divisions could be considered notable, since they delineate the structure of all governments, and the encyclopedia contains articles on virtually every administrative division in existence, and many former ones as well.

So I started there several years ago and I believe I have built a truly outstanding set of tables for every level of division for Iran: province, county, district, rural district, and city. This entailed such extensive research as to make a paid editor's head swim, never mind one is unpaid and contributes to boot!

But I found it personally fascinating, learned to read Persian and Arabic along the way, and felt I made a signification contribution. But once I got into making new pages for villages, I got into trouble. I made the assumption that if CS46's many undeleted pages were extant, I would try to improve those and fill in gaps where necessary. I felt for the most part that if I had a reference for its inclusion in the hierarchy; reliable coordinates that I could cite to Google or OpenMaps; populations for three consecutive censuses; transliterations; and a history of its movement among disparate administrative divisions, it would justify a page. Because there are hundreds of these pages kicking around for years with so much less information than my minimum, that my thinking went, "Geez, no one got rid of those, and after all they are stubs that can be improved as per Wiki pleas, and I can make better new ones that don't look in any different from what was already acceptable at one time. If we rid ourselves of my recent creations, I can make a very good argument with deleting those without so much as a 2006 census figure and no reference whatever to where it actually is now: because thousands of them are attributed to laughably incorrect divisions.

I don't wish to fight. I absolutely see your side of the issue, trust me. I genuinely felt I was improving the encyclopedia and it appears I was tragically wrong. It doesn't mean I'm going anywhere...there's a lot of work to do. I'm just giving my side of the story to possibly enlighten the folks who want to flush my stuff. I get it. No hard feelings. It is I who have misunderstood. I guess I took the "be bold" and "do what's best for the encyclopedia if bending the rules doesn't break anything."

Brightkingdom (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have revoked Brightkingdom's autopatrolled permission since I think this discussion shows that their article creations need NPP review. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to do this but 1) I'm involved and 2) the disruptive article-creation has stopped. I don't disagree with doing so at this stage, however.

What I would say is these articles should definitely be WP:G4-eligible, and not allowing G4 on them is slowing/stopping any effort to work on them. There was a substantive discussion on their notability - quite a lot more analysis than happens in many AFDs actually - that ended in them being deleted, and this should be sufficient.

And yes, this is yet another instance of the insane "legally-recognised, populated place" standard causing us problems. People think there's some kind of government-maintained list of villages/towns/cities for every country that can be used to generate unproblematic articles when this simply isn't true. The Russian census lists farms and railway stations! The Polish census lists forester's cottages! The Iranian census lists literal coffee houses! FOARP (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran about this.

I picked a random one to check, Larim Dahaneh, and it seems to point to coordinates somewhere outside an apparent settlement on the OSM map. When I did a check for the enclosing features, it found only the level 7 Larim-e Shomali Rural District. So it's not clear what would be the level 8, which is listed at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#Sub-national for Iran as Village (روستا / Rousta). On the Google Maps, it's identified, but there are no boundaries, and no Street View to check if the place is signposted.

If that's the best we get from current crowdsourced information, which doesn't have to be accurate but could at least be indicative, it's not clear if these apparent settlements are villages or hamlets worth documenting individually as gazetteer entries or not. --Joy (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Worth quoting the Iranian census-enumerator's guide on this:

"In this census, a settlement is defined as a set of one or more interconnected places and lands (both agricultural and non-agricultural) located outside the boundaries of cities and having an independent registered or customary boundary. Accordingly, not only villages, but also farms, coffee houses, mines, railway stations, etc. that have independent registered or customary boundaries are also considered settlements."

So there just isn't any concrete verification that this is actually a village/hamlet.

It's important to note that the Iranian census is hardly special in including things that would not normally be described as a "village" - lots of countries have such entities recorded in censuses and other official lists of settlements. They do this because their goal is to count all of the people living in the country, not just the ones living in places that we would consider "villages".

It means that a straight-forward, naïve reading of WP:GEOLAND, such as the one Brightkingdom describes doing above, results in editors generating thousands upon thousands of articles about railway stations, petrol stations, water-pumps, farms, shops, bridges, forester's huts, military camps, police stations, research institutes, railway-sidings, martialling-yards, passing-loops, mines, churches, shops, factories, hotels, prisons, camp-sites, nomad-counting-places, dams, oil-rigs, (etc. etc. etc. etc.). This list isn't made up - every one of these is an actual case we've had to deal with. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Once again: G4 is strictly for recreations of deleted content, not for different articles (even problematic ones) on the same subjects. Of course, we can G7 anything that Brightkingdom chooses to db-author. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Brightkingdom did nominate a bunch of articles for G7. Be on the lookout for ones that were created from blank-and-redirects, since some of these are being improperly declined because they still show CS46 as the original creator. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

On a different note — permanent military camps (versus temporary bivouacs) and railway stations are pretty much always notable, like villages, so I'd oppose deleting articles about them without good evidence that there's a problem. Of course, "we don't trust that this is really what it claims to be" is a good reason, especially in bulk, but one can always edit and improve a given article and demonstrate that it can be kept, independent of the rest. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NSTATION requires GNG, so a lot of train stations aren't going to be notable. In any case the station is going to be a completely different topic and would require different sources than the census. I would lean toward deleting the spurious "village" articles and let editors create new ones about the stations if they're so inclined. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Right. Hardest, hardest possible disagree with the idea that a railway station or a military base should have a GNG-defeating presumption of notability. These are ultimately all organisations/buildings/railway stations and we already have dedicated GNG-based notability guides for all of these. This is especially when so many of these are not as described.

Take, for example, Hashemabad Air Force Base (permalink) - that's CS46's translation of the Farsi name پايگاه پدافندهوائي هاشم اباد, which Google translate renders as "Hashemabad Air Defence Base". Instantly you see the problem that an "air defence base" is quite a different thing to an "air force base". One is simply a base for personnel and equipment for shooting down enemy aircraft, whilst the other is typically a base for aircraft - but which is it? I'm not a Farsi speaker so I don't know. CS46 thought that he understood written Farsi, but given what happened, and the views of Farsi-speakers who reviewed his articles, it is possible that they did not read it as well as they thought they did.

Then you look at the location - no runway/airstrip can be seen there, despite Brightkingdom including it on a list of airports. It is unlikely to have been an "air force base" in the sense of being a base for military aircraft, though I suppose it's possible that it was a base for Iranian air force personnel.

Then you look at how the location in the article is labelled on Google maps: it's a military base called Majid Askari. Brightkingdom relied on OpenStreetMap to add this location to the article, but OpenStreetMap is a Wiki-like source. Looking at OpenStreetMap and running the names shown through Google Translate's image-based translation it appears to show both the names "Majid Askari" and "Hashemabad Military Base" for it. So what actually is the name of the location? We don't know.

And this is the same problem reproduced across thousands and thousands of articles that CS46 dumped on to the encyclopaedia at a rate of hundreds a day. Literally hundreds a day - the day he created Hashemabad Air Force Base he created 500 other articles (EDIT: that's "at least 500 articles" because the ones that have since been deleted won't show up in this search).

TL;DR, these articles sets are a total mess. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The bulk nature of the whole thing should suffice to void the presumption of validity in this case.

On a more general note, the standard of WP:5P1 is already very inclusive - everything that is in an encyclopedia, a gazetteer or an almanac is already presumed eligible. But if we only have unclear primary sources and vague crowdsourced information, we're below even that standard.

A generous thing to do with the bulk information would be to assume WP:potential for a list based on these primary sources. --Joy (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joy -WP:5P1 absolutely does not say that everything in a gazetteer or an almanac is eligible. Even the briefest read of a typical gazetteer or almanac would show you why this is.

Here's just a random section in a random page of a randomly-selected Virginia gazetteer (Henry Gannett's 1904 one):

Page from the 1904 Virginia Gazetteer

This is not cherry-picked, it's a very typical example of what a gazetteer actually is, which is, as our article says "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas". That's right, a gazetteer is an example of two things that Wikipedia is explicitly WP:NOT.

For almanacs the situation is the same. Here's a randomly-selected page in Old Moore's Almanack:

Random page from Old Moore's Almanack, 1862

Again, this is a very typical almanac listing all the dates of all the fairs and farmer's markets in England. There is no cherry-picking going on here. This is exactly what an almanac actually is. The typical almanac "includes information like weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables, and other tabular data often arranged according to the calendar. Celestial figures and various statistics are found in almanacs, such as the rising and setting times of the Sun and Moon, dates of eclipses, hours of high and low tides, and religious festivals". This is exactly the kind of indiscriminate information that Wikipedia is also explicitly WP:NOT.

I'm sorry to go into detail here but the idea that Wikipedia is also a gazetteer or an almanac, when these things are - for very good reasons - explicitly not what Wikipedia is, is one that is unfortunately widespread. FOARP (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@FOARP I don't know why you have the need to argue such a red herring with someone who is agreeing with you :) the key point here is that we do not have evidence of a Larim Dahaneh listing in an almanac or a gazetteer, so it's immaterial to even ponder that route. --Joy (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, I've seen many, many, many people stating essentially this: that anything in a gazetteer/almanac is elligible. Typically it's based on never having actually read either. Apologies if you are not in that number. FOARP (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Could we just G7 CS46's articles?

We've been WP:G7'ing the recreations of CS46's articles by Brightkingdom based (AFAIK) on Brightkingdom's statement that they would let the deletions stand. CS46's last statement here was:

"Go ahead. I'm sufficiently pissed off at the blatant racism and attacks that I really don't care what more you do. You all have sullied WP. I would like to withdraw all my contributions here as you all don't want them. Please make it so. I'm gone."

I'm not planning to go wild on these articles, any more than we have been deleting all of Brightkingdom's recreations, but the above looks like a clear case of "author requests deletion" to me. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Support This will skip the bureaucracy of verifying 10000's of questionable village stubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, no-one's objected so far, so I'll run a test-case and see what people say. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Please unblock me...I have not done anything...not vandalised a page and yet I am not allowed to edit enhance a page....Please help

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

---

Please Help ~2026-32883-37 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

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

RD1 tag cleanup

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

---

I added a {{copyvio-revdel}} tag to various articles targeted by recent WP:LTA/SB1 socks, which have all been redacted per RD3 but the tags are still up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Lifting topic ban

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

---

Hi I was told to bring this up here.

I was topic banned on 5 November 2025. When I asked to have my topic ban lifted, PhilKnight said: "I think it is too early to lift your topic ban, you need to wait 6 months and build up a track record of constructive editing." and 331dot said: "I concur with PhilKnight." It has since been at least 6 months since I was topic banned and in that time I have done a lot of constructive editing. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You should address why you were topic banned, why you want it removed, and why the topic ban is no longer necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was topic banned for creating frivolous redirects. I want the topic ban removed so I can create articles without having to go through the AfC process. The topic ban is no longer necessary because I have proven I can be a constructive editor to Wikipedia and will be careful about what redirects I create in the future. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you like to show us some of your work through AFC? Morwen (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You can find a list of my created articles at User:GoldenBootWizard276/Created articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You've created roughly 200 drafts in the past six months. How many of those made their way to full articles the first time you submitted them? How many required further work to become full articles? How many are still in draft phase? If we are being asked to allow you to create articles directly, I think these are key questions. Anyone know if there's any sort of automated way to gather this data? --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

For those assessing this request who would like to know the history:

• The original block on April '24 was for repeated copyright violations.
• After some declined appeals [1] they were unblocked [2] in Jan '25 to follow the AFC process & eventually allowed to edit again.
• They were reblocked from mainspace [3] in August '25 after creating over a thousand redirects and not showing an understanding of why they were problematic. [4]
• Another failed appeal was made in September [5] and they were eventually unblocked one month later with the a ban on creating new articles. [6]

Since then, I'm seeing a lot of accepted drafts (mainly stubs) but only one warning/issue that was a while ago. [7] In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have accepted many of their drafts via AfC, however from my memory not one had more than a single reference. Not sure about the totality of their submissions, though. Lynch44 18:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276 - Following up on @Yamla's questions and @Lynch44 comment, please point out a few example that you feel represent your best work during the Tban period - both articles accepted through AfC and Drafts in progress. — ERcheck (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of my best work during the topic ban would be:

1. Norman Bleehen
2. Draft:Suicide of Nautica Malone
3. Murder of Michael Kahan
4. Beer House Cantina arson
5. Simon Whistler
6. Paul Zuckerman
7. Draft:St Helena Hospice
8. Draft:Ivan Dikov
9. The Lakes Mental Health Hospital
10. Chicomuselo massacre

Honourable mentions: John Laugharne (DYK), Francis Scobell (DYK), Caroline De Haas, Draft:Dennis Graham (musician), Draft:Francis Itimai. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that Norman Bleehen was created/completed prior to the Tban. — ERcheck (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look through some at random, and the only ones that weren't stubs have been expanded by subsequent editors. User:GoldenBootWizard276/Created articles shows 214 stub/start class articles, one list and one C class article (Indian Mineral Leasing Act).

Most of his recent work looks like Robert Squire - a single paragraph based on a single source (usually the same one across articles). Quantity over quality for sure, but the majority of his articles are accepted so that's definitely a plus.

That said, I really wish more work was put into the articles before submission, since there seems to be a strong focus on just getting the things out there so he can move onto the next draft.

Take yesterday as an example, all of which were sourced to History of Parliament Online (HOP):

1. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit Charles Mompesson.
2. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit John Gauntlett.
3. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit John Moyser
4. Add lead, one paragraph, one source to HOP, submit Wharton Dunch

This makes it a little difficult to judge whether we have an editor who fully understands Wikipedia policies, or someone who's found a set process that they can repeat for different politicians. There's not much venturing outside that set process for us to go off, so I'd like to see how he answers the above questions and probably look into his editing history a little more (including finding any articles that aren't sourced to HOP).

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There is value to creating verifiable content that is accepted, even if it is small. metawiki:Inclusionism, metawiki:Eventualism, and metawiki:Incrementalism are views creating lots of stubs for others to flush out later would align with. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Good point, he's done a lot of good work, it just makes it a little difficult to tell whether he's got a full understanding of policies when assessing whether to remove his TBAN.

To be clear I'm more on the support than oppose side, it'd just be a lot easier if his work was more varied. That said, I've just seen his post with other work, which should hopefully tip the scales. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we only require one suitable source for ye olde parliamentarians? I was under the impression that all subjects had to have multiple good sources even if they're presumed notable. Meadowlark (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds credible sir, especially for the Japanese. ~2026-33190-89 (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There are a few SNGs where a single source is enough to establish notability for AfC's purposes (although obviously multiple sources are always preferred). WP:NPOL and WP:NSPECIES are two of the more obvious examples. In solidarity, nil ^nz 07:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Two questions come to mind when making a vote:

1. Did GoldenBootWizard276 meet the terms of the Tban, i.e. "wait 6 months and build up a track record of constructive editing"?
2. Does the editing in the past 6 months show a need for a continued Tban?

On Question #1: There were no specific criteria set out for "constructive editing". It feels that GoldenBootWizard276 created many drafts to go through the AfC process to try to build up that track record. (@GoldenBootWizard276: It was noted by Yamla that there were ~200 drafts created during the Tban period. The question, "How many of those made their way to full articles the first time you submitted them?" - which was not answered. In addition to AfC drafts, what other areas Wikipedia were you active in during the Tban? )

On Question #2: It seems that there may be quite a few AfC drafts that have had to be revisited. That would indicate that both GoldenBootWizard and Wikipedia benefit from the Tban/review through AfC - which is not that restrictive. The proliferation of stubs during the Tban appears to point to a desire to crank out articles rather than create meaningful content. How many HOP stubs are in the count? I hope that GoldenBootWizard's desire is to improve Wikipedia, and wonder if he and Wikipedia would benefit from some time in improving articles rather than creating articles.
— ERcheck (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

---

---

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Of the ten "best work" chosen by GoldenBootWizard276, three failed the AfC process. Considering the shear volume of drafts, the number of stubs/start-class, and single sourcing, all concerns raised by others, I'm afraid I think it would be a bad idea to lift the topic ban at this point. I think if GoldenBootWizard276 is able to create articles directly, it just means more cleanup work after the fact for other editors. I appreciate GoldenBootWizard276's enthusiasm but I think they still need at least one independent set of eyes on what they are creating, and the topic ban ensures that. --Yamla (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This is a somewhat unfortunate vote to cast, but I feel as though GoldenBootWizard is not putting sufficient work into these drafts and is instead simply trying to get out as many submissions as possible. I have reviewed several more of their one-reference stubs and was able to (pretty easily) find extra sources related to the subject, for example John Plumptre (1679–1751) and Nathaniel Palmer (died 1718). As Yamla has stated, many of GoldenBootWizard's drafts have been declined, including many which go beyond the one-source-automatic-SNG-pass articles on British MPs (which, even still, have been declined by several reviewers because of a lack of sources). These articles are fine, however until we see some indication that GoldenBootWizard can expand these past their microstub state, we should still require they be submitted through AfC to allow for better oversight. Lynch44 18:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose I have to oppose due to a lack of evidence. I was initially happy to see the longer articles, but as mentioned above there are too many stubs & declined articles to justify lifting the ban right now. He's almost there, but really needs to focus on quality over quantity. If he can get a decent number of accepted articles above stub (and ideally start) class over the next few months, I'll be happy to reconsider. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Modest oppose In most unblock requests, I'm thinking about whether disruption will ensue if unblocked. Because the restriction is so minor (requiring AfC process for all new articles rather than being able to start articles in mainspace), I have a higher standard for removing the block. I'm looking as to whether the project will benefit from lifting the restriction or not. In this case, I think there would be slight harm to the project, as they're still cranking out a decent number of unsuitable articles that get caught by the AfC process. This also gives GoldenBootWizard direct feedback, which should help them improve further. So the status quo is beneficial. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Unresolved Notability tag and stale discussion on Giuseppe Palamara

Hi everyone,

I am seeking assistance or a third-party review regarding a long-standing {{Notability}} tag on the article Giuseppe Palamara.

The tag was placed over a month ago (41 days ago to be precise). A request for a Third Opinion (3O) was opened in order to resolve the matter, but unfortunately, it received no responses and the discussion has since gone stale. I also left a message on the article's talk page opening a 7-day window for any policy-based objections, but no users have come forward to discuss.

The article currently contains multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources that, in my view, fully satisfy the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE).

Since I want to strictly avoid any edit warring or disruptive behavior, I am refrainining from removing the tag myself. Could an administrator or an uninvolved editor please review the sources currently present in the article and help determine if the cleanup tag can finally be removed?

Thank you for your time and help.--Kasper2006 (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk page misconduct

• Revision as of 12:10, 30 May 2026
• Revision as of 12:00, 1 June 2026 (this made it so much more palatable!)

Cyanmax (talk · contribs) has blatantly violated WP:TALK guidelines, which they were quoted in order to strike [8]. They have not edited Wikipedia since my comments on their talk page but were active before that. I had hoped that by now they'd strike the unacceptable remarks, in a contentious topic no less and within a move discussion of all places, but I shouldn't have expected much from someone with a racist "Armenian lobby" userbox [9]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Battleground to me as well as aspersions and should be stiked, but as you said, they have not edited for 2 days, give them time to respond. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

They were quick to respond to a move comment [10] but when I raised the concerns on their talk page, they became inactive. By all means, let's give them time. However, a user competent enough to edit contentious topics (or Wikipedia for that matter) shouldn't have posted such remarks in the first place and then doubled down. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

At minimum, the "Armenian lobby" (linking to the Armenian diaspora article) and "This user opposes the so-called Korean wave" userboxes are unacceptable, IMO. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Zero Contradictions

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

---

I have brought this appeal as part of the appeal process, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 

Statements may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Zero Contradictions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite sitewide block, imposed at WP:AE#Zero Contradictions, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Zero Contradictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sennecaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zero_Contradictions&diff=prev&oldid=1357839463

Statement by Zero Contradictions

The block was the first warning that I've received that my edits are problematic with how contentious topics should be handled, contrary to WP:BEFOREBLOCK. The CTOP box posted on my talk page was not a warning because it says it does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

Sennecaster judged me entirely by my talk page comments and one non-representative mainspace edit. On Jordan Lasker, I made two honest mistakes (1, 2) when I genuinely misread a source, which I later conceded on. I also now condemn this big edit since most of its sources were unsupported due to WP:RS/SPS, although a few were RSs. Aside from those three, the consensus rules that my other 20 mainspace edits were positive changes. This is my only change out of those 20 which didn't survive into the current article version, although it's supported by its sourcing. Overall, my mainspace edits demonstrate that I care about following policies and procedures.

Jordan Lasker and Talk:Jordan Lasker are simultaneously the first BLP and first Race & Intelligence CTOP pages that I've ever edited to a great extent. I didn't fully understand what it means to follow the CTOP procedures. It was always clear to me that fringe views should not be expressed on mainspace pages. But I had no idea that fringe views should not be expressed or defended on talk pages either, otherwise I never would've written what I wrote. I simply didn't know any better. Now that I do know better, I will not defend any of my past fringe statements on Wikipedia. I regret writing them.

I always knew that I cannot link to my website outside my userpage. But I didn't know that I shouldn't refer to it either. If I am unblocked, then I will make every effort to avoid mentioning my website. Instead, all wordings or ideas that I want to convey will be expressed on-wiki.

All my problematic edits on contentious topics occurred within the last two weeks on Talk:Jordan Lasker, the AfD discussion, and Wikipedia talk:No Nazis. Given my overall editing history, contentious topics are clearly not something that I usually edit about. I don't oppose having a topic ban placed on my account regarding R&I. I could easily follow a topic ban because I really have no interest, patience, or desire for such tiresome discussions on Wikipedia anymore. That's why I stopped talking for days before I was blocked, besides a final statement that I made for closure. Sennecaster was unwarranted to rule out warnings, questioning, and topic bans. She recklessly resorted straight to blocking me.

If I am unblocked, then my foremost objective will be to finish and mainspace User:Zero Contradictions/Freiland, and expand related economics articles. I will also strikeout every inappropriate reference to my website and all the text that I've written that's not sanctioned by WP:FRINGE. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sennecaster

If it's not obvious, I'm not accepting the appeal outright as the enforcing administrator. If this is overturned, the minimum sanction I argue for is an R-I topic ban. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 13:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger; This is an AE block. It cannot go through normal unblocks procedures for a year, hence why it's being appealed here. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701; I don't want to downplay the seriousness and importance of CHILDPROTECT, but that was not why I blocked. CHILDPROTECT blocks are an entirely different thing. A block where we'd have to say "it could have been childprotect" wouldn't even be an AE block, it'd be a block for childprotect. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 02:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't actually read the blog; I'd rather not read opinion blogs that others have informed me have hateful statements on them, and clicking on someone's blog where a clarification is about how they don't believe in eugenics is almost certainly going to be that. Plus, their onwiki behavior was disruptive enough for me to AE block. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by theleekycauldron

There are some fringe beliefs you can sweep under the rug. Anti-vaxxers and pro-acupuncturists can walk away from POV pushing in those topic areas and go do something else. There's nothing inherently disruptive about that – they were trying to push wrong information, but nothing more.

Zero has argued on his blog, which he's repeatedly pointed people to, that some races have been naturally selected to be more intelligent. He seems to be very good at writing paragraph upon paragraph with big sciencey words to dress his belief up into something nicer than average-Joe racism; he'll tell you that he doesn't think race causes variance in intelligence, pointedly ignoring the fact that his real belief – that common factors cause both genetically – is not much better, if at all. He'll tell you that he's just talking about the truth, not assigning value, while casually dropping statements that every admitted racist and non-hereditarian would immediately pick out as value judgments like increased intelligence ... and paler skin color were naturally selected in Western Eurasian populations; [s]ome races have innate dispositions to commit more crimes; and bad people [criminals] make bad neighborhoods.

Barely-disguised racism is never something you can just sweep under the rug or downplay as a "fringe view"; whether Zero Contradictions is lying to himself about that or lying to the rest of us is immaterial, because hate is disruptive regardless of intent. It is the height of entitlement for Zero Contradictions to conduct himself the way he has and then ask the people of color on this project to just let bygones be bygones and comfortably collaborate with him in other areas. I wholeheartedly endorse this block. (Oh, and if anyone's still looking for the reason people of color often don't feel comfortable editing here, maybe start with the fact that (1) Sennecaster needed to make this a CTOP block in the first place and (2) Riposte97 tried to wikilawyer around this block with an amount of grace and AGF they do not extend to people they actually disagree with and will probably walk away from that scot-free.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nyttend and GiantSnowman: per WP:CTOP, an arbitration enforcement action can be appealed to AN, where it can be accepted only by a clear consensus of uninvolved editors (emph. in original). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Riposte97: I don't think even ZC contends that the current scientific consensus is amenable to his beliefs, since he refers to them as fringe. I think the R&I CTOP dexists because when people of color speak up about their experiences – like a guy who says that some races have an innate disposition towards murder – they have to deal with not just those people, but the editors who seemingly have more empathy and sensitivity for people accused of racism than they do for people who have to endure the racism. Not all allegations of racism should be actioned, to be sure – but calling an explicitly race-based value judgment "racism" is not an unhelpful escalation and anyone who disagrees with that should get their priorities in order. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Riposte97

I came here to repeat what I said at Sennecaster’s talk page. I see my comments have preceded me, though I haven’t been tagged. Although it is clearly popular with some editors, I maintain that the block was too sharp. You can call it ‘wikilawyering’ or ‘problematic’ - I was showing empathy and sensitivity to someone I know disagrees with me. A more proportionate course would simply be a ban on ZC linking to their blog, even in userspace.

Leeky, part of the reason R&I is a CTOP is because the scientific literature is amenable to interpretations that are uncomfortable, even offensive. To come in and call ZC a racist (and incidentally call me the same by implication) is exactly the kind of unhelpful escalation that the designation is designed to prevent. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I agree with you, as far as what you’ve said goes. The uncomfortable/offensive interpretations I refer to are primarily that there are observable differences in average tested IQs between self-reported racial groups, which might imply an interpretation of differing intelligence (this doesn’t imply a genetic cause - the literature clearly attributes it to environmental factors). I don’t think that’s ’race realism’. In fact, I think ‘race’ is a junk category. Nevertheless, editors have been more than happy to call for me to be blocked in this thread for perceived wrongthink. Similarly, none of ZC’s mainspace edits appear to deviate from our policies. This firing squad has assembled itself due to their personal philosophical opinions. If we keep blocking editors with whom we disagree, even on things we self-righteously put in a special category (like ‘hate’, as if ZC has been caught burning a cross on Wikipedia’s front lawn), then the echo-chamber effect that we all recognise as a problem will only get worse. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Katzrockso

Endorse the block. The views openly expressed by this editor (including in the AfD where their comments waxed towards WP:NOTFORUM issues) are not compatible with contributing to the encyclopedia.

• Riposte97 (talk · contribs) - the scientific literature is amenable to interpretations that are uncomfortable, even offensive is manifestly false. If you are insinuating that the scientific literature supports "race realism" or anything in Zero Contradictions blog, that is not correct in any sense. There are indeed WP:FRINGE unreliable sources that are supposedly in the 'scientific literature', but they are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources or a meaningful part of the scientific literature, largely published in fringe outlets like Mankind Quarterly or OpenPsych.

Katzrockso (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Zero Contradictions

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

This is the administrators' noticeboard. I don't think it's the right place to make any arbitration-related appeals, and even if it is, I can't say that I've ever seen one here before. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Block and ban appeals states that The Arbitration Committee hears appeals from editors who are blocked or banned. GiantSnowman 20:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions suggests this is a valid place as long as ArbCom hasn't heard it yet. Sesquilinear (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Riposte has two culture war tbans in addition to the above behaviour, does this have to be filed at AE or can someone just indef him. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seriously. --JBL (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  What rubbish, Riposte was clearly not referring to 'environmental factors', mainly because that would’ve been a non-sequitur to ZC's block, and they’re not "uncomfortable truths" by anyone’s measure. In addition to arguing that blatant and dehumanising racism is acceptable in what’s meant to be an inclusive collaborative environment, ZC's block could have easily been based on WP:CHILDPROTECT, which makes Riposte's CPUSHing here all the more insidious. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701, what's the CHILDPROTECT issue here? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  On ZC's website he has an essay by Adam Lanza that argues in favour of pedophilia and against age of consent laws, he says himself Most pedophiles are not monsters, although some are. Most arguments against consensual pedophilia are contradictory or fallacious, except for a few. I don't support legalizing or normalizing pedophilia. and I have to emphasize for the fifth time, I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE. My position is that children would not be harmed by consensual sexual interaction with adults any more than other adults are, unless their culture forced them into being ignorant of it and manipulated into being horrified by it. I recognize that my anti-pedophobia was only a futile retaliation against culture, so I will never have the motivation to improve any of this., which may fulfil the off-wiki advocacy criterion at CHILDPROTECT Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Worth noting that that second quote is from Lanza, not 0C, although 0C's analysis of Lanza's writing still reaches similar conclusions in the end. Arguably they reach a worse conclusion (somehow...), because it seems the only reason they disagree with Lanza's defense of child abuse is by applying fascistic principles about sexual degeneracy to the victims of said abuse. (In other words, to paraphrase Community, they're saying I can tolerate child sexual abuse, but I draw the line at consensual kink.) And like... come on. No one innocently stumbles their way into citing Tom O'Carroll (a name I only know from securing a WMF ban against a user who was promoting him). Were 0C not already indeffed, I'd certainly be comfortable making a CHILDPROTECT block here based on their own self-disclosed off-wiki comments. I'd shoot an email to T&S regarding 0C's global account, but we already have arbs watching, and they can probably get that handled faster. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• not an admin and am also confused by this. There really is no compelling case to lift sitewide ban. Riposte97 has remained fairly problematic as well, i would not be opposed to an indef for him as well User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Cannot say anything about article mentioned in decision (being unaware with), but would mention about non-contentious topics being presumably free from problems. Witnessing them initiating an investigation against other editor, who were cleared from the accusation charges there in result, and then "excusing" for it by saying that as they are "probably" innocent, they would now "forgive" them for it then, despite "all those observations are still true", don't put much confidence in overall conduct (while this particular example is too outrageous on its own, it's outlier only in it's level of severity, there are many).~2026-33554-45 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Zero Contradictions's unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, including via referrals to his off-wiki writings (which cover not only his support for scientific racism within WP:CT/R-I, but also his support for reshaping views outside of WP:CT/R-I to create conditions for enforced eugenics), indicates a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", which is an example of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Zero Contradictions can submit an unblock request per appeal under the standard offer after taking a break from the English Wikipedia for at least six months, and in the meantime make constructive contributions to sister projects or non-English Wikipedias that can be used to build a positive track record which would support a future unblock request. — Newslinger talk 19:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC); amended after reading Tamzin's and Sennecaster's replies 22:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  As an admin on both a sister project and a non-English Wikipedia, I will politely disagree with that last sentence. People who are too racist to edit enwiki are too racist to edit any Wikimedia wikis; the fact that we don't globally block them all is more an economical matter than a reflection of any community sentiment that they are welcome elsewhere. I also don't think the standard offer is well-suited to cases of hateful conduct. Instead I proffer Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive § Atonement as a standard more specialized to cases like these. One of the greatest editors in Wikipedia history was a reformed racist; perhaps Zero Contradictions can be as well. But that requires a change in outlook, not just some time off and some Wiktionary edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  OK, I recognize that participating in other Wikimedia projects isn't necessarily going to strengthen a future unblock request in this situation, and could potentially lead to negative cross-wiki consequences, so I've struck the second part of my last sentence. Zero Contradictions appears to have operated their website since 2022, per the copyright notice at the bottom, so a credible change in outlook would probably take some time. My mention of the standard offer is intended as a suggestion for Zero Contradictions to refrain from immediately submitting another unblock request (which would likely fail). However, the standard offer is not an entitlement, so I am going to emphasize that waiting six months is not going to lead to an unblock if the next appeal is also unconvincing. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Pennecaster: Yes, of course. I've changed "unblock request" to "appeal" to be more precise. — Newslinger talk 22:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Riposte97, you say that the scientific literature is amenable to interpretations that are uncomfortable, even offensive. I get the impression that you and Zero Contradictions are the type who follow the facts to their logical conclusions, however uncomfortable they may be—that's how I see myself as well. Now here's the problem. The facts have definitively debunked and discredited the theory, and it is not amenable to the uncomfortable interpretations you're implying. So I'm going to follow that fact to its logical conclusion: anyone who entertains "race realism" is either starting from a mistaken premise because they were misinformed and are led to an incorrect conclusion, or they are starting from a point of inherent racial prejudice and then selectively accepting facts (consciously or unconsciously) to support their prior beliefs. In both cases, it would be unethical to welcome the person into a group because that would do a disservice to the people whose intelligence they are denying. Zero Contradictions, I know you can't reply, but I ask that you think on this as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse block I've spent a while thinking about this and was going to posit that they could be allowed back with a topic ban. Then I re-read the appeal and realised that they still hold the same beliefs - their apologies are for not providing reliable sources and a regret for having written their beliefs down, but there's nothing to indicate that they've changed what they believe to be true.

Then there's the possible scope of any topic ban & if one can realistically be placed. Their belief system involves a huge portion of the human race - even the article they want to return to (User:Zero Contradictions/Freiland discusses race. We know that their belief system is strong enough that they've created their own website and mentioned it multiple times during discussions. We also know it's strong enough to affect their editing behaviour.

Since they still hold those views, I don't think they will be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally and I also wonder whether their presence may make other editors feel unwelcome or unsafe (considering they've freely confirmed creating a website about "race realism").

Honestly, even with my AGF cranked up to the max I don't think I can get myself over the hurdle to endorse their return right now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse block, decline appeal. I saw this at AE and had read through much of the evidence when Sennecaster placed this block. I share her conclusions about the evidence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Possible COI / Identity claim

The editor user:~2026-33323-74 changed the date of birth in the article without providing a reliable source. When questioned on their talk page they stated that they are the subject of the article (Sudha Rani) and that the date of birth in the article is incorrect. Diff showing the response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-33323-74#c-~2026-33323-74-20260605124000-A1-K-20260605123800 A1-K (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Since both DOB claims are unsourced I have just removed as unsourced. KylieTastic (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I also looking for a Wikipedia tool or gadget that allows me to send warnings notices to user talk page messages with a single click while reviewing their edits or contributions. Is there a tool available for this and how can I enable and use it? A1-K (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@A1-K, I would look at Wikipedia:Twinkle, as it is probably the most widely used tool for warnings, maintenance tagging and more. KylieTastic (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic Thanks. I already use a custom mobile script at User:A1-K/minerva.js for some editing tasks. I was wondering if there are any other tools, gadgets, or user scripts that work well for mobile users and can help with warnings, notices, vandalism reporting, or general maintenance work. Do you have any recommendations? A1-K (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry no, I hardly ever edit on mobile, I don't use the app and the few times I do edit on a mobile browser I have it set to force desktop mode. KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem..Thanks. I mainly edit on mobile using a browser though I occasionally switch to desktop mode when needed:) A1-K (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a specific version of Twinkle that works on mobile, try User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile if you haven't already. Most of the others (e.g. RedWarn) kind of work but aren't always happy to do so... In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Thanks I'll check out TwinkleMobile. Most of my editing is done on mobile so that could be useful A1-K (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, June 2026 (3)

At their request, the checkuser permission of Dbeef (talk · contribs) is removed. The committee sincerely thanks Dbeef for their service as a checkuser. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, June 2026 (3)

revdelete theese

also log delete the page creation log summary for both RD1 and RD3 located at first log, second log, third log because no one did it at the logs but it is needed as the text is essentially the exact same as other revdeleted edit summary made by the 3 accounts ~2026-31625-14 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is revdel needed? It looks irrelevant, but isn't it just video descriptions in Russian? Fences&Windows 19:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There are WP:BEANS reasons in support of revdel. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:LTA/SB1's modus operandi. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There aren't any links or offensive words visible on the text, even if this is an LTA do they really need a revdel? Most of us wouldn't even have known about these if they weren't posted on a noticeboard. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect Category Target for ICQ

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

---

"On the page 'Category:Defunct social networking services', the system is incorrectly listing 'Talk:ICQ' instead of 'ICQ'. The category tag is buried or misapplied, making the directory layout messy. Please remove the category from the Talk namespace page so it only displays the clean main article link.

- Me ~2026-33542-83 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Done; it needed to be linked as [[:Category:Defunct social networking services]] instead of [[Category:Defunct social networking services]] to avoid including the talk page in it. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Vandalisms by ~2026-19128-83

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

---

This user has vandalized multiple Eurovision related pages today, as their user log shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-19128-83 AdamantiosK (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Unprocessed CfDS from March

I discovered Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to Czechoslovak with an old CfDS tag from March that was never renamed. This was in the process of cleaning up CfD-tagged categories that were never nominated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The right thing to do here is to add it back to the list at WP:CFDS. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Request change to discussion after unjustified false claim made

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

---

Recently I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Webb which as usual says "No further edits should be made to this page," however shortly before the decision was made and discussion closed someone made a comment stating or implying that I was using false accounts or sock-puppets. I felt it was justified to make an exception to correct the record, but this was reversed. Both the person making the comment User talk:George Ho and the one reversing my reply User talk:pburka seem to accept my claim that these temporary or anonymous accounts weren't me, and I would like a correction, possibly allowing my last Edit or if George Ho is willing if he acknowledges he was mistaken, which he already seems to have done on his talk page If it matters the administrator that closed it is User talk:Spartaz although this will be the first I've commented to him about it. If this is accepted I will of course accept it as a misunderstanding, and, as I indicated in a related conversation, I'm not opposed to having "a checkuser, who can look at technical data behind the accounts" check to see if the accounts are from the same approximate location, which I doubt. I'll leave notifications for those mentioned. I initially assumed that since both the people involved seemed to accept this was a mistake this would be easy to resolve. I know most sincere users recognize that reasonable discretion should be applied when enforcing rules, but when one of them was informed of this conversation at another location instead of agreeing to resolve it he expressed more concern about the proper location, but when people at other articles level act with reasonable discretion they don't have to take disagreements here. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To set a precedent like this may encourage others to make smears just before discussions close. I hope that's not the objective for some Wikipedians. Zacherystaylor (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You should chill out and find something to do other than fret about this incredibly unimportant point. Mostly what you are accomplishing is drawing a lot of negative attention to yourself. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Misplaced comments seemingly meant for § Anthony Lister. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You are failing to grasp the central and very important point that we are unable to edit. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No new 'precedent' has been set, since AfDs have been subject to rules against editing after closure for many years, and I'm quite sure that some of them will already have included unjustified suggestions of sockpuppetry. Anyone with any sense will understand that accusations aren't proof, and just who is going to be trawling through closed AfD discussions looking for such things anyway? This seems a trivial issue to make a fuss over, and certainly not one that would justify setting a new precedent. Not liking what someone said about you in a discussion is clearly insufficient grounds to modify long-standing rules that have been created to ensure that processes terminate in a timely fashion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Misplaced comments seemingly meant for § Anthony Lister. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I respectfully and entirely disagree. This does deserve precedent when the subject is unable to be edited by anyone. This is not a matter of not liking what people say. This is a matter of maintaining a factual and accurate entry by means of editing. Thanks for your response. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a gravitas to this issue that you do not appreciate. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, are you Zacherystaylor? I'm not quite sure why you feel I'm wrong on this matter and Zacharystaylor should have their last edit reinstated - you're also talking about an artist, but this discussion is about an author. Are you replying to the right person? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll also encourage letting this matter rest. Unless it's confirmed by an admin (usually via WP:SPI) then the vast majority of editors won't see or pay attention to it.

Honestly, if anyone did being it up in future it'd be seen as rather unusual and they'd definitely be asked to provide much more solid evidence than an old, unverified allegation/suspicion.

By bringing this to AN you've unfortunately doubled the footprint and made it easier to find, so I'd suggest just letting it sink into the annals of Wikipedia history and move on. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Misplaced comments seemingly meant for § Anthony Lister. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The artist nor I are unable to make our edit. What you have said does not justify our inability to edit.

I do commend your impressively prompt response to this matter. You must be a very good typist. Well done ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Good, and no, this will not sink into anything except for the truth. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We only seek to give this accurate information including, but not limited to, fact checked, verified and published news articles. We are unable to do this. This is the issue we areseeking to discuss, thank you. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere and informative reply. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• In this particular scenario, I'm not sure if this was really grounds to edit a closed discussion. But the "no further edits should be made" is a standard practice, not an absolute rule. If it was an absolute rule we'd just have a bot lock old pages. If someone really did start casting aspersions immediately before a discussion closed, I would say that dropping a line on their talk page asking them to remove or strike the accusations would be in order, and if they did so to the closed discussion, that this should not be reverted as a post-close edit. (And in severe situations, for admins or third parties to just remove the content directly, and again for it to stay removed.) Just so that the moral of this discussion is not "never ever ever edit a closed discussion" which is not the case. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Post-closure discussion

@Tamzin: The addition you reinserted was reverted (diff). This doesn't affect the closure of this discussion, does it? George Ho (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well that's baffling. I don't even really understand the edit summary. @Scope creep: An AfD close is an administrative action. A user posted to the administrators' noticeboard requesting administrative intervention because their comment had been reverted. As an uninvolved administrator, my view is that there's no harm in allowing this post-close comment; this is the sort of determination admins make all the time in moderating XfDs. If you've never seen a post-close comment before at AfD (which I think is what your edit summary is trying to say?), then I don't know what to say; they're not particularly uncommon, especially in the context of replying to a late-breaking comment with implications beyond the scope of the AfD. More to the point, why does it matter? What benefit is there to the encyclopedia to keep someone from getting to post a single comment saying they're not a sock? Can we please just let this guy edit in peace and focus on building an encyclopedia? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I see it was accusation was made. I didn't see it before. Please ignore my message your talk page @Tamzin: scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@scope_creep: Sorry for any miscommunication. I didn't notice till after I made the above comment that you had previously edited the AfD, and thus weren't finding this through the AN thread. I should have linked to this thread in my original edit. Hopefully all's well that end's well though. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Tamzin and Scope creep for resolving this. Oddly another separate account seems to have commented, 2026-33646-13, which I know nothing about except what I see in this conversation, nor do I know anything about Anthony Lister. I can't imagine why one or more people would create temporary accounts, but my impression is that they're created when not signed in attributes to one computer account, if that's the case these come from numerous computers and possible locations which I'm certainly not using. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's just an unlucky coincidence involving someone who mistook which thread they were in. They say bad luck comes in threes, so watch out I guess. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Anthony Lister

Unable to make edits using info directly received from the individual artist who is the subject of this Wikipedia entry. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33646-13 - I find that you have have a temporary partial block that will prevent you from editing Anthony Lister for edit warring. Your comment above indicates that you want to make edits to the article based on information you received from the subject of the article. However, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, privately received information from the subject is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's as reliable as any other source, and there is no option to edit at all. The fact that edits can't be made is the issue I am seeing to discuss, thanks. ~2026-33646-13 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33646-13 - Please see your user page. You are currently blocked from editing that page. When that block expires, you will be able to edit the page again. However, if you continue to make the same edits, you will be blocked from editing. Your assessment of the reliability if the source is not the issue here; you must comply with Wikipedia's policies on what is Wikipedia considers reliable. Also, if you have a dispute with content of a page, you need to take it to the article's talk page; you should not engage in edit warring. — ERcheck (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your post above, you've inferred that you know the artist, or know that he wants to edit the article that's written about him.

Can you please let us know if this is the case? If you know him personally, you likely have a Conflict of interest.

You're also incorrect on the sourcing; Wikipedia requires sources that meet our Reliable sources guideline - if it doesn't meet that set criteria, it cannot be used on this website. Original research is not permitted. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your history and I note that your edits are purely focused on promoting Anthony Lister [11] and removing any mention of legal issues [12].

This has been your entire editing history at Wikipedia. [13]

I am rather concerned that you have a significant conflict of interest and are only here to promote Anthony as an artist, instead of building an encyclopedia.

Can you please respond to this concern, as I'm worried they you'll go straight back to edit warring as soon as the block expires?

You'll also need to follow the Conflict of interest guidelines, so I'd appreciate if you can confirm that you've read this and understand what's required. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see you asked if I was using another account in the discussion above, which is now closed, I am not the temporary account, nor do I know anything about Anthony Lister, which I just said in the portion of this discussion still open. I have not done any edits while not signed in recently, or ever, that I remember. This conversation was closed, and resolved satisfactorily while I wasn't signed in. Thank you. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought as much, this just appears to be a different editor who got rather confused but it was worth checking - thanks for confirming! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Misrepresenting company history (CEO successfully prosecuted as felon for misleading investors)

This dispute concerns convicted-and-presidentially-pardoned felon Trevor Milton and the company he founded and ran as CEO and that is at the heart of his criminal conviction, Nikola Corporation. For brief context, Nikola Corporation spent years passing non-working prototypes off to investors as fully operational, had Milton resign as CEO under the resulting cloud, and was then rescued by a new team of automotive professionals and made into a "real" company producing actual battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

The lede of Trevor Milton has for years represented the state of the legal case against him and the company, and does so to this day, stating in the second paragraph, "In 2020, Milton resigned as executive chairman of Nikola following regulatory inquiries. In 2022, he was found guilty of securities and wire fraud. He was sentenced to four years in prison, a US$1 million fine and $168 million in restitution."

So the conviction is very much on Wikipedia record.

The problem is in the first sentence, which represents Milton as "the founder and former executive chairman and chief executive officer of Nikola Corporation, a manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles."

Why problem? Because when Milton was actively involved with the company, it wasn't manufacturing battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Notwithstanding the possibility that persons at the company were attempting to make a real product, the predominant effective activity at that time was presenting fake prototypes to investors and suggesting they were operational, which is what led to the legal case and Milton's departure under a cloud (all sourced in the article, e.g. NYT headline reading "[...] quits amid fraud claims").

I suggested changing the wording to "a largely fraudulent company during his tenure that after his resignation went on to become a manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles", and provided a source even though the information was already reliably sourced in the rest of the article. The source was challenged, and an additional link to a relevant US federal document added.

Daniel Case enacted unilateral semiprotection on the article, which resulted in the predictable restoration of the problematic status quo that misrepresents the company history as plain sailing and leaves the first sentence without any indication of the overriding reason for the subject's notability.

~2026-32340-15 (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Procedural notice: I cannot leave the named party a notification of this discussion as they indefinitely semi-protected their talk page sixteen years ago. They are pinged above. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute so why is this here? Continue the discussion on the article talk page and if the two of you can't come to an agreement then use some form of WP:dispute resolution. Since this is a biography of a living person, opening a thread on WP:BLPN is an option. Although the talk page discussion is new enough that it seems premature to try to do anything but continue to discuss and see if anyone else joins. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry involving Dance Master Vikram, previously blocked accounts, and blocked IPs

Involved accounts/editors:

Dance Master Vikram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected sock)

~2026-31522-03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

~2026-31519-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

Deakin Macquarie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

I am requesting admin review of Dance Master Vikram due to concerns that the account may be connected to the previously blocked IPs and the blocked account Deakin Macquarie.

Following the blocks of ~2026-31522-03 and ~2026-31519-60 on 27 May 2026, Dance Master Vikram account was created on 28 May 2026 and subsequently became active on Karuppu (film), another article related to Suriya, the same actor involved in the earlier disputes surrounding Retro (film). The timing and editing pattern raise concerns that this may be a continuation of the same disruption under a new account.

Relevant prior discussions/incidents:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive380#Editor_once_blocked_from_a_page_still_edit-warring

2.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1220#Harassment_and_Suspected_Sockpuppetry:_Deakin_Macquarie_and_IP_~2026-23236-22

3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208#h-Abusive_language_by_IP-20251203154700

Reasons for concern:

• Dance Master Vikram was created immediately after the earlier IPs were blocked.
• The account is editing within the same topic area, namely articles related to Suriya.
• Reverts appear disproportionately focused on my contributions across those articles.
• The editing pattern resembles behaviour previously reported and sanctioned.
• The earlier ANI discussion resulted in administrative action against the IP accounts for disruptive conduct and personal attacks.
• After I attempted to discuss the reverts and seek consensus regarding Karuppu (film), Dance Master Vikram responded with "Get lost" on their talk page rather than engaging with the concerns raised, making dispute resolution difficult.

I am not asserting that Dance Master Vikram is definitively the same individual as the previously blocked users. However, the timing of the account creation, overlap in topic area, apparent targeted reverts, and conduct concerns appear sufficiently similar to warrant administrator review and determine whether any connection exists between these accounts. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tonyy Starkk, FYI sockpuppetry investigations usually take place at WP:SPI so that administrators with the right tools can look into these concerns, it also means that you don't need to notify the other party and the issue is dealt with less publicly. Admins will look at the case here now that it's been raised, so this is just for future reference. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)