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	1	8	99	40	148
TfD	0	1	1	39	41
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	3	55	34	92
RfD	0	0	5	94	99
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

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

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)

The trial-run was accepted. See here. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Further trial-runs have been accepted, see 1 2 3 4 5. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

13 more accepted. See my CSD log for more details. FOARP (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. This has been a dreadful drain on editor resources for far too long. JoelleJay (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@JoelleJay - 100%. Could not possibly agree more. I just went through 25 Iranian "village" articles that had "Sherkat" (شركت , which machine-translation tells me means "Company") in the title. Every single one for which there was any way of verifying what it actually was, was exactly what the title declared it to be: a company, not a village. This is more than five years after CS46 quit and more than twelve years after he was made to stop mass-creating these things. After literally thousands of (maybe already more than 20k total?) articles deleted via prods, AFDs, speedies, extraordinary deletions etc. CS46's talk page is now on its 28th archive. Multiple editors have spent years on this, with no end in sight.

We've tested the idea that people are going to improve these articles to destruction. There is no way we can improve articles that completely fail our PAGs because they are about completely WP:MILL, WP:GEOLAND-failing census-generated artefacts that are really companies, military bases, pumps, wells, farms, shops, bridges, coffee-houses (etc. etc. etc.) for which no sourcing is likely to exist. Ever.

And there isn't any reason to either. CS46 himself said we could just delete them. Let's take him at his word. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's remarkable that there has been any resistance to mass-deleting these things at all. Perhaps a filter could be made that flags new articles where the Persian name indicates it's a non-GEOLAND entity (e.g. شركت, though this one might need some tailoring to make sure it's specific to geo articles as opposed to companies) and alerts the creator to the issue. JoelleJay (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair there wasn't much resistance. It was mostly "well, let's take the low-hanging fruit", but we never made the next step from there.

What I'm considering as a next step is putting a G7 notice on every unimproved abadi CS46 article with a population below 10. As documented at WP:ABADI, Iranian law states that localities must (amongst other criteria, such as not being factories or individual farms) have a population larger than 100 people in 20 families to become actual villages. 10% of this limit seems a good safety-margin for the next step. FOARP (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support in view of the analysis above

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Alternate proposal: Could we make an X-series CSD specifically for these "abadi" articles? Example (feel free to improve):

  Articles about abadis with population under 25 (or 10), referenced only to census records, or indiscriminate sources such as GNIS or atlases. This criterion applies only to pages created by Carlossuarez46, with no significant edits since creation.

(here "significant edits" is determined similarly to G5). Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 20:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just highlighting this, but Camp Office, Iranshahr... FOARP (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

And just to highlight this one as well: July 7 International Airport. The things wrong with this include:

1) There is no July 7 International Airport in Iran or anywhere else. Especially, there is no such airport next to the existing Imam Khomeini International Airport.

2) The Farsi name in the article (فرودگاه بين الملي هفت و تير) machine-translates as Haft-e Tir International Airport. Haft-e Tir is the seventh day of the Iranian month of Tir, a date that is 28 June in the Gregorian calendar.

3) There is also no Haft-e Tir International Airport. I checked if IKIA or Mehrabad IA (Tehran's two international airports) were ever proposed to be named this, but drew a blank.

4) Even if there was, an airport is clearly not "a village".

I just don't know how this article was even produced, except that at least 196 other articles were produced using the same methodology on the same day. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@FOARP, is there some reason you aren't batch-deleting these? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we should. The ones that have a population under 100 and haven’t had any improvement since their original creation that is. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In any other situation, a request to "please delete everything I've ever done" in reaction to a dispute as was shown here would be rejected as bad-faith throwing one's toys out of the pram. While I don't actually object to batch-deleting everything Carlossuarez46 what you are really asking for is an exemption from normal procedures not a straightforward following of them. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 14:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as G7, support X series - This can turn into a new speedy deletion criterion, but not a G7. The top thing on the G7 section of speedy deletion is If requested in good faith. This was clearly not requested in good faith. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 17:27, 21 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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 [3] 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)

It's been over a week; no activity from Cyanmax since I left the comment on their talk page. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeff proposal

It’s been 2 weeks since I made this report and 16 days since I asked Cyanmax to strike their WP:ASPERSIONS [4]. One has to assume Cyanmax has a severe case of WP:ANIFLU. They have been given an ample amount of time to strike their aspersions, way more than one would usually get for such, yet nothing, not even an acknowledgment of their own behavior. The issue of custom userboxes that violate WP:NORACISTS also hasn't been addressed (he apparently "opposes" to 8 million Armenians just for being Armenian).

This is why I’m proposing an indefinite ban for Cyanmax. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support as the nom. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: By looking at Cyanmax's recent inactivity, I think they've understood and learnt their lesson by holding back. By restraining from uncomfortable scenarios, they're putting themselves in safe hands, which thus makes an indef ban unnecessary. 🌻 A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 05:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• I've blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. The "Armenian lobby" line on its own could be ambiguous with a healthy serving of AGF, but piping it to Armenian diaspora makes it a flat-out attack on ethnic lines. (The Korean box seems to have originally been a critique of South Korean LGBTQ rights laws, rather than something targeting Koreans by ethnicity, so that didn't play a role in my decision.) Two weeks was more time than most people are given to explain themselves for promoting hate; but if it's all somehow a big misunderstanding Cyanmax can of course explain that in an unblock request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Rfc archiver

Hello, I'm writing because I submitted an old ANI that seems to have been unsuccessful and archived. I would appreciate it if a solution could be found to avoid an endless editing battle on Daghaghra, please. Mhmdgrd (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean this thread? The link you provided just points back to this page. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes exaclty, thank you. Mhmdgrd (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see an "endless editing battle" when the last edit was two weeks ago. You sure this is a problem that needs addressing? Edit: Apparently there is something that needs addressing. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC) (Amended on 07:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)) (Non-administrator comment)

Yes, I'm just saving that. Mhmdgrd (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that is endless actually is what you try to make, re-write history. Your behavior is really tiring, you are not here for the decorum of the encyclopedia, but only to spread your ideology. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder why this complaint is taking so long to resolve. What's the point of what I'm doing? What am I supposed to do? What's wrong? Mhmdgrd (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Since I responded once, I guess I should do so again. What we have here is a content dispute. Both yourself and Al-Hilali Z want to include different text in the article. AN isn't for deciding content disputes, but is for things that Admins might want to be aware of. ANI is for incidents between users and would have been a better choice than here, but they also don't deal with deciding content disputes. They do deal with chronic user disputes. Additionally, neither of you have provided diffs of the dispute here. Instead, it is just a link to the old discussion, which another user has provided as your link just pointed here. So anyone who is willing to look into this needs to go to another thread to try to resolve this. Except. That discussion barely has any diffs at all. In fact it had no diffs until a user told you to stop bringing Al-Hilali Z to AN/ANI without notifying them and without providing diffs. So all we have is three diffs that barely cover your point and no diffs from Al-Hilali Z. On a different discussion. And that has yet to consider that this has some ties to the Maghreb region. A region that I want to avoid after an incident this year that went before ArbCom and I doubt that I am the only one.

So, we have a discussion with limited evidence, started for the third time by a user who has for the third time failed to notify the other party of the discussion, that involves a region in Africa that has been troublesome at least this year, if not for a few years now, and that is posted to a noticeboard that isn't for content disputes. (Additionally, the English Wikipedia is different from the French Wikipedia. This will make sense later.) But, since I was willing to write this up, then here we go:

⛏⛑

• Al-Hilali Z created a draft article for Daghaghra in April of last year and moved it to the mainspace on April 26th. (1287224808, 1287528400)
• The article receives a few minor-ish edits over the next months.
• In November, Al-Hilali Z made their first major expansion to the article since moving it by expanding the history section. (1320814006)
• On December 1st, Mhmdgrd made their first edits to the article, significantly rewriting it. Notable changes include cutting down on a good portion of the existing text, adding a Tamazight spelling before the Arabic spelling, changing the Ethnicity from Arab to Berber, changing the Subdivisions section to use different spellings for the sub-fractions, and changing the short description from Arab tribe to Berber tribe. (1325223245, 1325223245)
• Less than 24 hours later, Al-Hilali Z edits the article, calling Mhmdgrd's edits Vandalism in the edit summary and proceeding to make some additions to the article while mostly undoing Mhmdgrd's edits. (1325322202)
• 3 hours later, Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z (and AnomieBOT) by going back to the revision of Mhmdgrd's last edit. (1325345054)
• We now go forward two weeks to December 16th, when Al-Hilali Z returns to the article, where they significantly change the history section and remove a few additions made by Mhmdgrd. They follow it up with a second edit where they switch the article from being a Berber tribe to an Arab tribe, among similar changes. (1327822786, 1327823102)
• While Al-Hilali Z makes changes to the article for the rest of December and into January, Mhmdgrd decided to make their own article called Deghaghra on December 28th. They follow this up with our first discussion at Talk:Daghaghra to propose a merger of the two articles. User:Jay8g resolves the situation by making Deghaghra redirect to Daghaghra and correctly notes in the edit summary that Mhmdgrd's article was a duplicate. (1329857607, Talk:Daghaghra#Merge proposal)
• Now back to one article, we move from the first week of January to March 12th as Mhmdgrd decides to PROD the article. User:4meter4 reverts the PROD. Mhmdgrd improperly reverts, but now tags the article with an AfD notice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daghaghra is created which gets a speedy keep in about 38-ish hours. (1343138584, 1343138584, 1343386791, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daghaghra)
• Now before we go any farther, it is important to note Al-Hilali Z's comment from the AfD: This page have many sources and already had a debate on the Wikipedia French page where it was kept. The Daghaghra page have nothing in common with others pages under AfD who don't have sources for many. Also, the user who asked for this AfD have already background with this page. We had together a long debate on the french side of Wikipedia where he try with any force to delete this page. (...) (2 an entire debate was made on the page, and Mhmgrd was also banned [3] for Edit warring and many other things, like he did on the Daghaghra page, and try today on the English version to continue his fight against this page, it's not a personal offense against him, but a warning to other users what he is trying since some months) (Emphasis mine) It should be noted here that Mhmgrd has not been banned on the English Wikipedia, but this is the case on the French Wikipedia. If we go to the "Application to administrators" page we can find this archived discussion from December 29th to its close on January 8th: fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2026/Semaine 2#Mhmdgrd : Refus de comprendre, signal bruit élevé, pov-pushing, TI, etc. where Mhmgrd's account on the French Wikipedia was permanently banned with a comment that they can do the French Wikipedia's equivalent to a Clean start on their user talk page. This also does explain why Mhmgrd seems impatient above. For the French Wiki, it seems that they have a system where normal users can make requests to the administrators, which get examined, processed, and resolved or rejected. We don't have a system exactly like that, but it seems that Mhmgrd believes that this is the exact equivalent. And for the final point about this and the main reason for emphasis: This is a content dispute that has also being going on at other projects.
• Back on track, with the RfC failed, we get the back and forth at Talk:Daghaghra:
• March 24th: Mhmdgrd creates a discussion called Origin. Al-Hilali Z calls Mhmdgrd's edits vandalism and neither agrees with the other.
• March 27th: Mhmdgrd creates an RfC called RfC about The origin. This RfC attempt gets procedurally closed.
• April 5th: Mhmdgrd creates an RfC called Rfc about the origin. Both Mhmdgrd and Al-Hilali Z make up a good chunk of the discussion, but the RfC closes against both of their positions: "There is no consensus for A" (Daghaghra are a Berber tribe) "or B" (Daghaghra are a Arab tribe). "There is some support for C which would report Ibn Khaldun's statement and attribute it to him, but the option is somewhat nebulous in nature, and given the limited comments on this RFC I recommend further discussion to more clearly define the other suggestion." (Additions mine)
• May 18th: Mhmdgrd tries to create an RfC called Talk:Daghaghra#Consensus final about origin that goes nowhere.
• May 21st: Mhmdgrd creates an RfC called Rfc for a final consensus on the origin of the Daghaghra which gets a formal "PROCEDURAL CLOSE" with a request in the closing to let it go that points to WP:DROPTHESTICK.
• This doesn't cover the edits made to the article in the meantime where both continue to revert the other's edits:
• March 26th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd, March 26th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z, March 27th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd and then tells Mhmdgrd to "Stop your biased vandalism", April 12th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z, April 13th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd, May 5th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z, May 8th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd, May 15th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z with the edit summary "final rfc consensus", May 20th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd with the edit summary "You are lying, there is no consensus, the previous RFC didn't have one and the last you posted also. And I repeat it WHY ARE YOU DELETING THE SOURCES OF A LEGEND ? AND ALL WHO DESCRIBED THEM AS ARABS ???", May 24th - Mhmdgrd manually reverts Al-Hilali Z with the edit summary "This source is unreliable and not accepted by the RFC consensus. Especially since you yourself acknowledge that it is false.", May 26th - Al-Hilali Z reverts Mhmdgrd with the edit summary "You are lying.", June 16th - Mhmdgrd reverts Al-Hilali Z with Nemov restoring back shortly afterwards. (1345484642, 1345540635, 1345626487, 1345627692, 1348464569, 1348500650, 1352754744, 1353117330, 1354388313, 1355234260, 1355957010, 1356215653, 1359674737)

I don't care if this gets collapsed, but I do believe that both users have likely earned Yellow Cards at a minimum. If this gets moved to ANI and action is taken against both users, then I would be supportive of that. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC) (Amended 03:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC). See this diff for prior version or see this diff for changes.)

You deserve a medal for recapping all of that. Nemov (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Even if this leads nowhere, hopefully it convinces both of them that they would do better to work together to a compromise than either of them trying to get the other punished. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for your effort and these clarifications. I am well aware that administrators are not here to handle content-related disputes; however, as stated in my Annual Report, the disagreement could very well have been resolved with a person acting in good faith. By acting as my opponent did, I could do the same on other, off-topic pages, resorting to sophistry, finding contradictory sources, and then dragging the thread out until it becomes incomprehensible to other users.

As I mentioned, my primary wish is for this page to be written with greater rigor and seriousness, like many other Wikipedia topics. Given the breadth of the encyclopedia and all the sensitive subjects that exist, I doubt this minor conflict is the most difficult thing to manage.

Being afraid to intervene in the face of behavioral problems will not solve the issue. The ArbCom you mentioned should serve as an example of increased vigilance, because as you've seen, this is a problem that has dragged on for several years despite numerous reports. If you think I should also be sanctioned, fine, as long as it helps the page be well-written. However, I'd like you to tell me what I could have done to resolve the issue? I made every possible effort, I gave it my all, and despite that, I'm being asked to move on and leave the page as is, even though it's obvious from the details I've provided that it's problematic. Furthermore, my interlocutor has made absolutely no effort and has simply agreed with their version of events, which is just nonsense.

I don't particularly want them to be sanctioned; I just want the page to be written with rigor and professionalism. The bad faith is so obvious and caricatural, I'm going to give you the latest example which is as big as a mountain:

- He speaks of the Ait Demmer as a branch that supposedly integrated Arab tribes, which, according to him, renders my statements obsolete.

- I presented him with another, more detailed source that explains who the Ait Demmer are, which in turn traces their origins back to a Berber ancestor named Demmer, especially since the source contrasts Arabs and Ait Demmer.

- he replied to me:"You can spam any sources you want, the debate is not on the Ouerghemma, Ait Demmer or the Ouderna, but on the Daghaghra, and there is a lot of sources telling that they are Arabs and many sources show that there is Arab tribes in the Ouderna confederation. You are just coping at this level." How do you expect to reach a consensus under these conditions? I'm convinced that if it had been a user with more renaming privileges, the problem would have been easier and faster to resolve.

I can see a similar problem right below my complaint that seems to be resolved. Why not fix it just as easily by sorting the sources and checking which ones are usable and which aren't? The problem would be solved quickly. Mhmdgrd (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Question regarding Annual Report, can you clarify your meaning there? To me, an annual report would be a document created yearly that gives some sort of analysis, which I don't see in your edits, and a significant majority of your edits are from this year.
• That aside, I don't see any reason for ArbCom to get involved in this. It was an example about why some users *might* avoid this subject. And no, this is a problem with the article Daghaghra and two users not working together and acting in problematic ways, not a problem that has dragged on for several years.
• By acting as my opponent did, I could do the same on other, off-topic pages, resorting to sophistry, finding contradictory sources, and then dragging the thread out until it becomes incomprehensible to other users. Do that and you will be sanctioned. Please don't suggest this again nor suggest that the other user in this dispute is attempting so without sources and an explanation of how.
• So far as I have see, you two are just auguring two sides of things without considering the other side(s). Personally, you two should be trying to resolve your "minor conflict" by attempting to resolving the content dispute between you two instead of coming here for possible sanctions. And I think that this should be put to rest before either or both of you are sanctioned.
• Finally, looking at the thread below, it seems there were concerns that an AI and/or a LLM was used, which is why that thread was resolved so fast. (Plus again, the opening user posted their evidence in their first post which meant that no one had to dig for it to understand what was going on. Not only that, but the sources used were Wikipedia clones to my understanding. I doubt that either of your sources are problematic to that degree. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

About an user uploading non-free child entity logos under different file names.

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

---

The user Spektono is uploading non-free child entity logos in violation of the non-free content policy. Non-free logos under a different name. I reverted his edit on the Portugal national football team page. It even had a hidden message written by me, but he disregarded. Take a look at him. Reprimand him here.

Delete the files in question and make them redirects to the already existant files.

The proof is here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. What do you mean "child entity" logos? The logos seem to be those of the national men's and women's football teams. Mostly they seem to be tinkering with logo sizes. They have been uploading non-free files (because of course these football logos are non-free). (see Ghana national football team) They have been replacing logos with their own. I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, but it doesn't look like vandalism. However, I'm concerned regarding removal of non-free-logo designations (File:Croatia national football team.svg). @Spektono:, can you explain what you are trying to accomplish? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

For the flat version, I've decided to change the license to PD-US. But for the gradient version, I kept it fair use as some gradient logos have been ruled copyrightable by the US Copyright Office. I presume Croatia has a lower threshold of originality than the United States. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55: I share 78.26's confusion about your edits here as well. In your edit summary you mention that the "federation logo can't be used here under Wikipedia policy" but the logo for the Croatian Soccer Federation (HNS) and the logo for the Croatian national soccer team are actually two different logos. The difference is subtle but there: (black outline detail, white outline detail). You mention that you "decided" to change the license. What is the actual license of the logo for the national team? Are you able to work with Spektono to get it uploaded properly? Peripteros (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is moot, as Spektono is blocked as a sock. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know about this. I've only run into one sockpuppet before here, Levi Kambai, from Thailand. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no way you could have known. I didn't know either, the sock was discovered independent of this discussion. Happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_National_Defense_(El_Salvador) years 31 March 1945 14 Dec 1948

From family history and letters and pictures I am of the understanding my Grandfather Manuel Antonio Castaneda was Defense Minister. Mauro Espínola Castro is the person listed. ~2026-35328-58 (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You want Talk:Minister_of_National_Defense_(El_Salvador), not this board. Morwen (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please also be aware that Wikipedia articles require need verification of claims from reliable sources, which means that original research isn't acceptable proof. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Appeal for a block on a certain page

I’m doing an appeal for unjustified block for a month on Vince Mcmahon page even though i was the only user giving actual arguments and points why

the block was by @ToBeFree and there was no edit war since it wasn’t the same exact revert every time

we are also having a discussion on the talk page so not allow people to ruin that page

Thank you MichaelJames98 (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO you should just appeal this like any other block on your talk page but since Wikipedia:Partial blocks#Unblocking does mention AN, I guess it's up to you. However you've either failed to read or to understand Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, as your appeal fails the basics of a block appeal. WP:Edit warring is edit warring and not allowed, even if it's true that you "was the only user giving actual arguments and points why". There's no requirement for it to be the exact same revert to be and edit war, indeed the bright line of more than 3 reverts in 24 hours automatically justifying a block applies even if you revert completely different areas of the article each time. The big red box in 3RR says this within about 20 words "whether involving the same or different material". Whatever others may have done wrong and whether they should also be blocked, doesn't mean we should unblock you per WP:NOTTHEM. Also while ToBeFree has threatened to extend the block to the talk page, this hasn't happened yet and I'm confident won't happen if you only edit the talk page appropriately. If you use it to make accusations against other editors, then you'll likely find yourselves blocked since that isn't the purpose of article talk pages even putting aside such accusations might be WP:personal attacks if you fail to provide sufficient evidence. But technically there's nothing stopping you from continuing to use the talk page appropriately to discuss the changes you want to make. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the extension of the block to the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I was the one who started discussion on the talk page and he blocked me for one month knowing very well no one will discuss the matter afterwards. MichaelJames98 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

He literally said on my talk page to basically disengage or go do something else

when i was discussing the matter with other users MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes because you were misusing the talk page. The talk page is intended to discuss changes to the article only. You stopped doing that with your latest edits. Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

But there is another user @Czello who did the same thing and was basically replying to me and that user wasn’t blocked. MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I was replying to your points about the article and when you got off-topic I tried to steer you back on-topic. I will also add that I did warn you that you were replying excessively - which is the issue ToBeFree raised - while I was trying to keep one, brief reply for all of your extensive comments, where I only focused on the parts relevant to the article.

Please drop this now. Remember that WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. If you keep beating a dead horse you might find further editing privileges removed. — Czello ^(music) 08:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

But the page looked disorganized either way

i was actually the one who was trying to start a new thread instead of just replying and you basically can’t read them messages because we were engaging in one long thread MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No Czello did not misuse the article talk page to discuss other editors, admins or administrative actions. The only thing which came close was ToBeFree warning you to stop misusing the talk page, and mentioning your block but that was reasonable under the circumstances. Also even your earlier talk page comments were problematic. You kept bringing up irrelevant stuff like your personal opinion or analysis which is irrelevant per WP:OR. What we care about is analysis in second or tertiary sources, not your own analysis. Also note the loss of talk page editing is fairly separate from losing the ability to edit the article. As for the partial block for the article, while you didn't break the 3RR bright line, you made quite a number of reverts over several days including 3 times hitting the 3 revert wall, and against multiple other editors. And so a block from the article seems well justified. Again even if some other editor like Czello could have been blocked too, whether they were blocked is not a reason to unblock you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, there were some warnings for you to stop edit warring in the talk page earlier. These are also generally okay provided they are kept limited since they are fairly relevant to the article. Long diatribes about the unfairness of you being blocked but not other editors are definitely not appropriate though. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Before the block,ToBeFree didn’t want me to have a discussion on the page anymore which doesn’t make sense,he could have just said to continue but in a civil watch and no long comments

we have stopped the edit warring,that’s why I went to the talk page and opened the discussion

the edit warring was stopped.

As soon as ToBeFree chimed in,he wanted me out of the talk page discussion (that i started) and to go do something else. MichaelJames98 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay I'll say one more thing. I'll be very blunt, it does you no favours when you say stuff like "we have stopped the edit warring" which makes it sound like you suddenly started to behave. When we all know and indeed the reason why you're here and you even basically inadvertedly acknowledged it when opening this thread, the only reason you stopped edit warring is because you were blocked. If you want to continue to edit here, you need to clearly acknowledge your own wrong doing instead of acting like it didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC) 09:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably a final point before I leave this for others. Besides the irrelevance of your own personal opinion or analysis, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS what other articles say or do is also generally irrelevant. But that seems to be another thing you kept doing in the article talk page which also made your talk page comments problematic.

Finally there comes a point where further discussion is pointless. The length of discussion on that talk page suggests to me you were well past that point. Therefore there was not much point you or Czello for that matter, continuing to discuss anyway. Since it looks like it only involved 3 editors (although with more reverting you), in the general case it might have been appropriate to use some form of WP:dispute resolution to try and involve more editors rather than continuing the fruitless discussion. And since this concerned a living person, posting on WP:BLPN might have been appropriate in the general case.

In my opinion, it was never likely to be useful here. While I have not and will not assess the general strength of your arguments, the fact you kept littering them with irrelevant stuff like your own personal opinion or analysis and comparisons to other articles suggests they were weak. Too weak for it to be useful to get more feedback. However, if you'd done so, and accepted whatever feedback you received (which given the earlier factors were unlikely to support you IMO) without edit warring or posting lengthy responses and demanding answers or complaining about editors, IMO you probably would have been okay.

By this stage it's way too late. While you are not topic banned, since you cannot participate in the article talk page discussion there's no reason for you to ask for further feedback and any attempts to do are likely to be seen as a continuation of your problematic editing and lead to an extension of your block.

Also I'll be blunt that the way you've handled yourself in the article talk page, in the article, on your talk page and here; leads me to believe any attempts on your part to seek help will lead to equally problematic messages. So yes, please edit some other area of the vast encyclopaedia where you care less since I expect the strength of feeling you have on this matter is leading you to miss some very basics. Which is especially bad when you're so new you barely understand the basics.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the talk page block, by and large your recent edits weren't actually a "discussion on the talk page" about the article which is what the talk page is for. Instead they were complaints about editors and admins and administrative actopms which is isn't something the article talk page is for. [5] [6] [7] [8]. You were warned by ToBeFree to stop that [9] but didn't, so the loss of talk page access seems reasonable. I suggest you follow ToBeFree's advice, drop this whole thing and go edit some other article. One where you do not feel so strongly that you will fail to follow such basics before editing. E.g. reading and understanding the edit warring policy before you confidentially say you were not edit warring but give reasons it so clearly says are incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

MichaelJames, you are obliged to notify a user if you are starting a thread about them. I have done that for you now.

I am involved in this controversy, so I'm going to try to keep this as brief as possible. MichaelJames, starting this thread is a bad idea. We're well into WP:STICK territory; please just take your licks and move on. And yes, there was an edit war on your part. You even reverted again this morning. I think you should let this go now and rather than relitigating the point endlessly. — Czello ^(music) 08:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello hello. Thanks for the notification. I think everyone else has already thankfully explained both the issues that led to the block and reasons for my own actions. I acknowledge that my messages at Talk:Vince McMahon have been at least slightly incompatible with the dispute resolution policy's requirement to focus on content, but I responded to a ping asking for me to join the discussion, I saw behavioral issues that needed to be mentioned (and later actioned) in my view and I don't want to get involved with the content decision.

My messages towards MichaelJames98 have been harsh but justified, and the user is currently running at full speed towards a wall instead of wondering about the reason behind the large warning signs they passed on their way so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I just think the block was unjustified and respectfully ask you to remove it so i can continue with the discussion which we want to end and find a resolution for and not come back to it one month later. MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@MichaelJames98, blocks are only intended to prevent disruption, this was placed to give you time to calm down and familiarise yourself with the policies of this website. I also strongly encourage you to read this essay as soon as you have a moment.

When we feel strongly about a subject, that can easily affect the way we see it or behave around it - that's normal and entirely human.

Learning how to spot when we are doing this, and understand how & when to step away from a situation when we're no longer being objective and neutral, is an incredibly important and valuable skill. It's especially important to be able to do this when you're editing an encyclopedia.

Some people can learn this skill quickly, others are naturally passionate people and may find it harder to do. Others can do it naturally. Whichever one of these you are, it's still a skill that you'll need at Wikipedia and one that I hope you'll spend the next month or so learning.

If you feel angry, upset or stressed when editing, that's a sign that something is wrong and you need to take a step back. Open a new tab and edit something else, go for a walk or watch TV/play a game. Break the mindset that you have and return to the subject with a fresh view. If that feeling returns quickly, stay away for longer or drop it entirely - there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors and it's not your responsibility to fix errors, someone else will come along and sort it out in time. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate what you mentioned and i’m glad to discuss it with you

I just don’t think that part of Vince Mcmahon should be left like that Because what happened to that page could be done to any personality on Wikipedia which is basically bringing a negative quote from an interview from people who does many interviews to build a narative

this didn’t even go for 24 hours

i’m not angry or upset,it is just i’m looking for a resolution because i’m not going to it one month later

i’m literally arguing with all of you that those other users are arguing with me that I don’t want to use a quote from an interview that describes/compare someone to Jeffery Dahmer,Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein

3 of the worst criminals in modern american history in terms of assault and abuse and one of them is a serial killer. MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you aren't angry or upset by this, the problem is that you broke this website's policies and now you must unfortunately deal with the consequences of those actions.

The consequences are that you're unable to participate in any discussions about that one topic for a short period of time.

If your feel that the issue is still there when the block expires, you're welcome to participate in a new discussion, providing you're able to stay calm, clear and objective. You made so many posts and arguments that it's extremely difficult to understand the point you were trying to make (less is more, in this case).

Another essay that might help is this one, written by a very experienced editor who's experienced this situation many times. Wikipedia works by consensus - that usually means that the majority get the day, providing they have well-reasoned arguments that are based on existing policy. Everyone reading this thread will have been on the "losing side" at some point, it's normal here and isn't unusual at all. To be a good editor, you'll need to learn when it's best to let things go (we sometimes call it "dropping the stick"). This is the first time you can learn how to do this and (since I hope you stay at Wikipedia) it won't be the last time either. It's just part of the normal community-driven process here, and something we all have to get used to at some point.

You'll be on the "winning" at times and "lose" at others, but the important thing to do is move onto new things when it's time to do so. If you only ever stay in one place and can't let things go when it's time, you'll never grow as an editor. It's your decision - do you let this dispute go, edit other articles and grow in experience, or will you stay stuck in the past debating this one edit? We can't make that decision for you, all we can do is manage the consequences of that choice. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't stress enough how important this advice from Blue Sonnet is. I've been in a few heated disputes in my time and, sometimes, consensus ended up against me. One of the best things I've personally done to keep my nose clean and avoid blocks is to recognize when this situation is the case and to disengage and find something else to edit. There is always something else to edit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Can’t you join the discussion yourselves and determine if the other users broke any wikipedia policies anyway that i’m not familiar with? In wikipedia,i always thought we deal with facts,When you go to the territory of the legacy or opinions from other people in interviews on famous personalities.it gets tricky

It is like Michael Jackson type of sensitive issue

you have people calling him the worst things in interviews but he was never convicted MichaelJames98 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Just look at the legacy Section of Michael Jackson here,not one negative thing,i remember every once in a while there were edits about this,he had a documentary watched by 25M viewers so far about his famous child abuse trial which was huge during the time

should we put any quote from someone in an interview as part of the legacy when they didn’t evenn mention the word ‘legacy’ or were talking about legacy at all? MichaelJames98 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you think that it made sense atall to block the person who started the discussion on the talk page about a subject in the article? How would you block me for a month from my question and then say let other people discuss it? ( which we know won’t happen) MichaelJames98 (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It made sense to block the person who was being disruptive and violating Wikipedia policies. The more you argue here the more justified the block (which was justified to start with) becomes; I strongly suggest you take the advice you have been given to move on and edit other things before you talk yourself into a more extensive sanction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

User Sutyarashi is threatening me.

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

---

I ask you page administrators to go to the history of the user @Sutyarashi . I am impartial in saying that this user makes ethnic edits and most of his edits are in northern regions such as Gilgit Baltistn-, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and also Pashtunistan. The user believes that Pashtuns do not have the right to express themselves freely on Wikipedia. Please look at this user's Narikhche page. He makes ethnic edits and threatens to block other users. I ask you to warn this user.The user who declared the official language in the news is Pashto. Their native language is Pashto. They change it to Urdu and English. Where does all this incomprehensible contradiction come from? I ask you to look at this link from a user on the talk page for the article Pashtunistan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pashtunistan#h-Illogical_map_of_unsourced_edits-20260221200400>. The user blocked it after he objected. I ask you to follow up on such people on Wikipedia. Practical6 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,Practical6,

Please follow the instructions posted several times on this page and notify the editor about this discussion on their User talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Practical6 one month for edit warring in a contentious topic area and characterizing other editors by their ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Requesting removal of AWB perms for User:Will229

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

---

Will229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not sure if this is the right place for this, apologies if not.

Last fall this user got AWB permissions, which should never have happened as the near-entirety of their edit history was a large swath of rapidfire AI-generated edits -- unambiguous given the presence of stuff like WP:OAICITE (Special:Diff/1316932642) and markdown indicating a lack of review.

They haven't edited in about 4 months so I'm not sure whether they're going to come back, but if they do, they probably shouldn't have AWB. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done ([10]); I'll notify Pppery. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

... and they never seem to have used AWB. How odd, Anyway no objection to the removal. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 22:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Partial Block of My Account.

Hi Team. First I would wish general welfare of all here. I would like to bring to everyone's notice of partial blocking of my account for some reasons. The action of writing article in main space was not done deliberately but following policies of notability. This process to me is unjustified and demotivational considering my long term association. I would hence request for last chance before implementation of above restriction.Thanking all.Gardenkur (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You should appeal your block on your talk page. Since we're here, you are still allowed to create pages in draftspace and submit them via WP:AFC, which would allow you to demonstrate that the (entirely justified, given your history) block is no longer needed in six months or so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

To their credit, the block notice on their talk page specifically instructs them to appeal here. tony 02:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

TIL! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I might also be misreading the block log, but it seems they're also blocked from creating new pages and uploading files, which would apply to every namespace. IIRC there isn't a way to block new page creation only in certain namespaces. Right now they're blocked from editing any mainspace articles or creating pages in any namespace, but judging by the block message they received, it was supposed to be only a block from creating mainspace pages. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also pinged the blocking admin, Anachronist, about this. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. It was not my intent to block editing of mainspace articles, only creating them, either directly or via page moves from another namespace. Removing the autoconfirmed right would accomplish the same thing, but that isn't an available administrative action, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately I don't think there's a good way around this (the WMF has been aware of this for years now). If we want to allow them to create drafts while blocking mainspace article creations, we'd have to block mainspace altogether. If we want to allow them to edit mainspace, we'd have to block page creation in any namespace. A third alternative would be getting community consensus to topic ban them from mainspace article creation. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That ticket's been open for five years! And implementing it would solve this problem. In any case, for now it's a mainspace block. A page creation block would be counterproductive because that would prohibit creating draft articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the additional restrictions because they apparently apply everywhere, not just to the namespace I selected for blocking. I changed the duration from indef to 6 months also. I am not convinced, after at least a year of article draftifications and deletions, that this editor understands what is needed for an article to be publishable in mainspace. Practicing getting drafts approved by reviewers would be a net benefit for Wikipedia in the long run. It is unfortunate that one cannot restrict actions more surgically. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Why does the template instruct the blockee to appeal here? That seems unusual. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like that change was made last month by Awesome Aasim. tony 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And I reverted it just now. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't that the case since WP:PBN was merged with AN years ago? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 09:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear all.while I thank all editors for their comments here,I don't think any editor would like to work with remarks on their page while working genuinely on the interest of Wikipedia.I don't have any specific interests to create new pages or do editing unless permitted. Gardenkur (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

My account has been blocked redirecting.

Hello everyone and User: CambridgeBayWeather, I don't understand why I'm being blocked from redirecting pages on Wikipedia? I redirected the pages about a place name in Vietnam without any intention of causing disruption, for example: Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp ==> Mỹ Tho (ward), because there is only one place in Vietnam named Mỹ Tho. And redirected to distinguish it from the old Mỹ Tho (city). For other places like Sa Đéc, Hồng Ngự, Gò Công, and Cai Lậy, I did the same thing to distinguish them. But they were all redirected by the User:CambridgeBayWeather. I even wrote down the reason for the redirection, but it seems this user didn't notice. For example, the place name "Bình Phú" exists in many places such as Đồng Tháp province, Vĩnh Long province, and Ho Chi Minh City. Therefore, it should be written as "Bình Phú, (the name of the province or municipality)". Finally, I would like to ask the administrators to consider lifting the ban on redirecting pages on the English Wikipedia, because my redirection attempts are not intended to be destructive. Thank you and have a nice day! Vietic2 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to move a bunch of pages at once you really need to get consensus from other editors. (Though, as a minor note to CambridgeBayWeather, I don't think this is move vandalism since I think it's good faith lack of understanding of en.wp practices) Sesquilinear (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

They're going directly against the consensus I link below. They would need to change consensus at the talk page for naming conventions. They were warned on their talk page, several times, and didn't respond. See User talk:Vietic2#Page moves, User talk:Vietic2#June 2026, User talk:Vietic2#Movec page. On top of that they were warned about problems with disambiguation pages, linking multiple words an not responding. See User talk:Vietic2#Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I can accept a misunderstanding the first couple of times but continuing and not responding is plainly disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I am Vietnamese, and I understand how that place name should be titled and its administrative role. The User:CambridgeBayWeather ban preventing me from moving page is completely unreasonable. This ban has made me lose interest in contributing more to the English Wikipedia. Vietic2 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The point is that the English language version of Wikipedia is not required to follow the rules of the Vietnamese language Wikipedia or the Vietnam government. You need to follow what the agreed on consensus is on this Wikipedia or start a discussion to get it changed. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 16:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Naming places in Vietnam doesn't necessarily have to follow the Vietnamese Wikipedia or the Vietnamese government, but it's important to name them correctly! Vietic2 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Liked below. Reply at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Places_in_Vietnam. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 15:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies as something came up and i wasn't able to respond in a timly manner. I believe that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Vietnam no Vietnamese place name articles should be in the format of "Name (something)", especially (ward). As in the example above, Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp, is the correct disabiguation. I felt that as they hadn't responded blocking them from page moves was needed. I'm going to be away for the rest of today and tomorrow but will be home again on Saturday. If anyone feels action should be taken please don't wait for me. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 16:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

In this case, the obvious solution is to discuss at WT:NCGN. The Vietnam section needs to be updated because it does not reflect the 2025 Vietnamese administrative reforms. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Places_in_Vietnam. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

A similar discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#RfC on WP:VIETPLACE. I admit Vietic2 wasn't noticed about this until recently. That discussion is about changing primary topic and naming convention with the result: no proposals (maybe). However, their problem is that they keep changing the name back and forth as you see at Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp, not much difference from Mỹ Tho ward or Mỹ Tho (ward) and changing the primary topic without changing the link to (which creates a real burden). They have received notifications and complaints from other users regarding these matters on their talk page. Henrydat (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Offwiki push to promote a streamer

Not sure where best to put this. Was going to go with RFPP when I thought it was only one page, but anyway there's nothing particularly disruptive going on at the minute.

A bunch of seemingly completely unrelated accounts, many with independent activity on Wikipedia, are creating and editing many drafts about a streamer called "Joe Bartolozzi", see;

• Draft:Joe Bartolozzi
• Draft:Joe Bart
• Draft:Joe Bartolozzi (streamer)
• Draft:Joseph Bartolozzi

Given that all of the activity seems to be uncoordinated and somewhat recent, I'm thinking maybe J.B. has told (or at least insinuated to) his fans that they should do this. So far there doesn't seem to be any malicious attempts at forcing this through to mainspace or anything, but I thought it was worth noting. Athanelar (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Notability#Standards for notability prevent many famous people from having an article on Wikipedia for a previous discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It has also affected Bartolozzi and Talk: Bartolozzi. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Upcoming migration to Parsoid

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Upcoming migration to Parsoid. , with instruction for its migration next week MSantos (WMF) (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Bad sources added by GideonEkam

Earlier on today I had to warn GideonEkam (talk · contribs) for adding irrelevant sources to articles. He has previously been blocked by @Rsjaffe:, and unblocked by @PhilKnight:, for LLM use. His new activity seems to be to find content tagged as requiring a source and then to add a source. The problem is that the sources added are mostly garbage. They are either not RS or they fail to support the claims made in the text. I warned him of this and briefly advised him on how to do it properly (diff). He acknowledged this (diff) but then blanked his User Talk page and continued to do exactly the same thing. The latest example (diff) has both problems. That Scribd document added as a source is actually just an old copy of the Wikipedia article itself, so obviously that's not RS, and it has different numbers for the church members anyway. "Sources" like this are worse than no source at all because they can look legit on a cursory glance. I don't know how he is finding these bad sources. He might be using an AI based search given that the bad sources are vaguely in the right topic area, and have plausible titles, but not to the point where they are actually useful as sources. I don't think that that matters. If somebody was using an AI search, checking what it found carefully, and only adding the good stuff then that would be OK. What matters is that he is adding stuff without checking what it actually says or whether it is RS. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I was warned early that I should avoid adding bad sources and I assured that I will recheck and ensure corrections were made, I also recently added this reference as mentioned and I honestly checked it and if I could screenshot what I saw before adding it, I didn't see or note the part you just mentioned and I apologize for my actions. I also blanked my talk because the last time I had issues, after resolution, i was told that I could delete, and this happened today, I apologized and i thought to remove thinking it won't happen again. Well, I apologize for all this that has happened and I really wish to contribute and to share knowledge in Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you GideonEkam (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@GideonEkam, how are you finding these sources? Once you've found them, what criteria do you use to decide if they should be incorporated into the article? Meadowlark (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I use the citation hunt tool to locate articles that needs citation, then I do copy the text on quotation marks to the search engine (chrome), it will show me pages that talks about it.

Going through the pages I do check is, either it appearing word for word or has the same meaning/idea. GideonEkam (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to be careful if you are doing that, as searching for an exact quote match of text from a Wikipedia article is likely to return sources which have copied the text from Wikipedia, leading to citogenesis. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright sir GideonEkam (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Scribd diff linked above is particularly problematic. Not only is it copied from Wikipedia, it's copied from Wikipedia in a way that it's very obvious that it's copied from Wikipedia since it's literally a screenshot of Wikipedia.

• The source added to Ringworld (role-playing game) literally is a screenshot of the Wikipedia page for Ringworld (role-playing game) [11], [12].
• The source added to History of Romania to support the contention that the 1568 Edict of Turda was the first European decree of religious freedom at no point mentions the Edict of Turda. And that's not surprising, because the source cited is to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for a noble who was born in 1572. [13]
• For Great Leap Forward, Gideon added a cite to support quotes from a 1962 conference criticizing the Great Leap Forward. They supported it with a Communist Party document from 1981, that only briefly mentions the 1962 conference, and has at least misquote that comes from the 1981 document, not the 1962 conference [14].
• For Guam, to support text about three native bat species of Guam, Gideon simply dropped the frontpage of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, so it's in there...somewhere I guess. [15]

This is not an exhaustive list of poor sourcing. These are just the first four I found, all of which were made over a 22-minute period. Gideon is rapidly citing these sources, mostly two-to-four minutes apart, and I would submit it would be very hard for a bonafide expert in this area to read the Wikipedia text prose, find a citation that supports the text prose, read the source to confirm text-source consistency, and make the change this quickly. Either Gideon is giving their citations nothing more than a cursory examination or they simply don't understand the purpose of citing information. Either option would be extremely problematic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, of course, it should be noted there is a consensus that secondary sources are preferred to WP:BRITANNICA, though that's not the primary problem here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree that secondary sources are preferable to tertiary sources, but I think a tertiary source is preferable to no source at all. I'll also opine that when searching for sources about something that happened in 1568, it seems highly likely that solid secondary sources may exist but they may not be online. While I'm aware that online is not a requirement, a reader interested in checking sources would typically prefer, all other things being equal, a source accessible online to one that is not accessible online. I'm not arguing this makes a tertiary online source preferable to a non-online secondary source, I'm suggesting that if both exist, I would support using both. However, this is an interesting exchange, it's not exactly on-point because I looked at the source introduced to the history of Romania article, and it is clearly flawed (now reverted). I'd like to encourage anyone who wishes to search for citation needed tags and find citations but much more care is needed when I see evidenced in these four examples. While substandard citations such as tertiary sources are better than no sources whatsoever, that's only true if they happen to support the content. Replacing a citation needed tag with a citation that's not supportive is a step in the wrong direction. I urge User:GideonEkam to slow down, and take more care. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright I will be more careful. Thank you GideonEkam (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have brought it up since it was kind of a side issue that clouded the bigger issue. The big problem with, say, the History of Romania source is that the Britannica source given said nothing about the text it was supporting, not that it was a Britannica source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding amendment to Contentious topic procedure: awareness, warnings, renewal, and banners

The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

To conform with these changes:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
• The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
• Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
• Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
• Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

  1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

  All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

• Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

  13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

• Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
• Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

— Motion regarding replacing awareness with warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

— Motion regarding repeated warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Duration of restrictions is amended by removing (or last renewed, if applicable)
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging is amended by replacing Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry with Administrators who change or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is amended to read as follows:

  All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed according to the standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions, with one exception: When a restriction is imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, only sitewide blocks become ordinary administrative actions after a year. Other restrictions imposed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard must be formally appealed before they can be modified.

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Procedural summary is amended by removing However, page restrictions may be renewed.
• The first bullet point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity (beginning Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions...) is amended to read Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with #Duration of restrictions.

— Motion regarding eliminating renewal

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 18:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding amendment to Contentious topic procedure: awareness, warnings, renewal, and banners

Edit filter trip

I was patrolling the semi protected edit request queue and came upon a request at Talk:Starfall. The request looks fine, but they mentioned it was tripping the edit filter, and the log mentions an LTA filter (same temp account has tripped it on other articles too, full log here), so I wanted to ask if this is a false positive or if it'd be okay to go ahead and implement the request. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The best place to report (possible) edit filter false positives is WP:EFFP where the people who maintain edit filters will see it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for fixing the double redirect issues on redirect pages Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MSLGROUP

Hello, everyone... Please fix the double redirect issues on redirect pages Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MSLGROUP. Thanks. ~2026-35507-51 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

---

Hello. I’d like to discuss my topic ban if that’s OK. I made it to 500 edits a few days ago, but I wanted to wait for today because I was told to wait six months after I did that Iacowriter (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Iacowriter, which topic were you banned from, when did that happen, what were you banned for, can you link to the discussion that led to your ban, what changed since the ban, what do you intend to do if unbanned? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

conditionally unblocked subject to prohibitions on (a) editing box-office figures and (b) rounding numbers.

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/108790

I was told to do 500 constructive, non-trivial, problem-free edits within six months. I have been practicing rounding numbers. But if I’m not entirely sure, I’ll gladly ask questions on how to do this correctly. Iacowriter (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the very premise of the topic ban. As I expressed back in 2024, why were you continually rounding numbers even as you acknowledged that you did not understand how rounding worked? Why would you do that? Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been practicing. $115,071,463,061 is $115.1 billion. Iacowriter (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And I haven’t been rounding for six months. Iacowriter (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s good to know you’ve got better at rounding. Would you like to answer the questions about your judgement? Morwen (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: May I suggest on their behalf Dunning–Kruger effect. If they didn't know they were bad at something, they could have confidently made incorrect decisions. This can impact the best and brightest of humanity. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is IMO that quite a number of editors approached Iacowriter and told them they were doing it wrong before the block. So they were given ample chance to learn they were doing it wrong and should have taken that lesson before the block. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not how it happened. Editors told them that they were doing it wrong, and their defense was that they didn't actually know how to round numbers. They refused to actually stop until a block and topic ban forced the stop, well after they were notified. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please. Iacowriter (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I know how to round numbers nowadays. But if I’m not sure which number I’m actually supposed to add, I’ll ask questions. Iacowriter (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question about why I kept rounding when I wasn’t sure how to do it, and now I forget. And I apologize for that. Iacowriter (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean you've forgotten why you kept doing it so can't explain, or you kept forgetting you didn't know and so kept doing it? Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I forget I kept doing it. I admit I should’ve practice before I first got blocked. It’s possible that I thought I could just teach myself but I see why that was an issue. Iacowriter (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

$115,071,463,061 is $115.1 billion. It is? Hmm. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the "500 constructive, non-trivial, problem-free edits within six months", I'm afraid I'm not seeing that on your Talk page - there are warnings about adding unsourced claims in the past couple of months, [16][17] and one or two edits that were apparently scraping the edges of the topic ban at best. [18][19]

There are other issues that indicate a problem with source verification, such as removing figures that are explicitly stated by the source - this edit removed a $5-6 billion valuation claim, despite the source stating Valuing the property at $5 billion to $6 billion.... In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm leaning more towards "the topic ban is necessary" more than "needing to be removed". Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1328253955 Iacowriter (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the Simpsons edit, I didn’t know that counted as rounded, so I apologize with that. Iacowriter (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the Simpsons edit, I didn’t know that counted as rounded, so I apologize with that. Iacowriter, the problem with that edit is not to do with rounding. Can you tell us what made you make that edit? I am not asking you to apologise for the edit or trying to make you feel bad, I'm just confused about what your reasoning was. --bonadea contributions talk 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I said it was only $5 billion. But that got reverted. This is what it said: 01:38, 28 May 2026 Timur9008 talk contribs 83,271 bytes +14 Reverted good faith edit by Iacowriter. not according to the source Iacowriter (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Iacowriter Looking back at your talk page, a consistent theme I see is other editors being confused at why you made a certain decision, and you responding with an apology; but not an explanation.

The point of edit summaries (which i see you also have a history of being warnrd about) is exactly this: to tell other editors why you're making a certain edit.

It's the same thing here. Bonadea is asking you why you changed it to say just 5 billion instead of 5 to 6 billion. What was the reason? I noticed you said you have autism: is one of the manifestations of this that you feel a certain compulsion to simplify numbers? Athanelar (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No. That’s not the reason. The reason I did that was because before the numbers site was down, I calculated how much The Simpsons is actually worth, and I got $5.13 billion. Because the page didn’t do the video sales for the franchise. I didn’t put that on the page, I just put that in my notes. Iacowriter (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. We do not calculate ourselves what "The Simpsons is actually worth," but we report what reliable, independent sources report The Simpsons is actually worth. And this case, the citation said Fox's crown jewel is its 13-year-old annuity, The Simpsons. Valuing the property at $5 billion to $6 billion, Byrne says, "We're fortunate to have the premier licensee property. It is unique.". You didn't come to that $5 billion by quoting an even better source, you came to it by mischaracterizing what the cited source actually said. Breaking source-text fidelity is a Very Big Deal on Wikipedia, for reasons that ought not need to be spelled out for any experienced editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose lifting the topic ban at this point, and I think the user should be prohibited from contesting the topic ban for a full year. That timeline is not universal, but it's also not unusual in such cases. The discussion above raises further really serious concerns about this editor. Nobody is pushing for a site-wide ban yet, but frankly I think the discussion is closer to that than to lifting the topic ban. I just don't see a topic ban on rounding numbers as all that significant. For most editors, it's hard to believe that would affect more than 1% of their edits. This user also made no fewer than ten WP:UTRS requests, too, which is exceptional, and had UTRS access revoked. That said, the last UTRS request was granted. --Yamla (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Between their talk page, and their explanations here, I'm not particularly convinced the topic ban should be repealed. I think it's beneficial. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - After reviewing most of Iacowriter's recent history, I do not feel that lifting the topic ban would be beneficial to this project at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand why my original edits were a problem. At the time, I was making changes without fully understanding how rounding worked and without verifying that my interpretation matched the source. Since then, I’ve changed my approach. If I’m unsure about a calculation, a source, or a formatting issue, I stop and ask questions instead of making the edit and hoping it’s correct. My goal is to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to the topic ban. Iacowriter (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like we’re going round in circles here. Morwen (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t want to wait a whole year. It took me one year to get unblocked from the site. I haven’t done those edits since I got back on. Iacowriter (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I hear what everyone is saying, and I understand the serious policy concerns regarding source fidelity. Because I want to prioritize the accuracy of the encyclopedia over my own editing preferences, I would like to formally withdraw this request. I am content to leave the topic ban in place so I can focus on building a completely problem-free history in non-numerical areas. Iacowriter (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent! My comment below was written the same time as yours, but I'll leave it, as it should give you hope--that was the intention. There's a lot out there to do, and I'm sure you'll find places where your abilities can do good work for the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It has. But I still want to want to get off the list. Iacowriter (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Your current topic ban only affects a tiny tiny part of Wikipedia. You have so much other stuff you could do that would suit your skills and knowledge better. Why bother with something that has caused you and others so much trouble? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I still want to get off the list though. I realize the reason I actually was doing that was because I thought I was doing it correctly. Iacowriter (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You know what? Keep track of my edits, and you tell me when you think I’m ready to get off the list. Iacowriter (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect another volunteer editor to monitor your edits and let you know when they think your topic ban should be lifted (I presume this is what you mean by "the list"?)

You need to take time to understand how the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy works, because a lot of the issues I saw were due to you either not using sources, or ignoring them entirely in favour of doing your own research. That's not how Wikipedia works, so it's really, really important that you take extra time to understand how verification and sourcing are done. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually meant the topic ban list. And I am realizing that. And I promise that I will show you. Iacowriter (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Christopher Appleton

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

---

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to edit about page creations of pages which only can be created by administrators.

Would anyone mind creating Christopher Appleton with that page redirecting to Chris Appleton if they think that's necessary? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Shouldn't have been salted in the first place.^[self-cite] I've been meaning for years to put together a list of all the not-uncommon full names at Special:ProtectedTitles and propose we mass-unsalt them, because I'm sure it's silently blocking a nontrivial number of article creations. If someone who's been here 9 years isn't certain of the process of what to do in this case, think of how many people never try at all! If you or anyone else wants a project, feel free to steal that idea. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant past revisions

Not an urgent matter at all; more of a puzzle.

In this edit of 7 Sep '25, the creator in his sandbox of a draft on a Belgian art expert (an editor since indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet) deleted that draft and replaced it with one about a trend in photography. This he moved in October to the article New topographics (photographic genre). After the March removal (by Vanamonde93) of alleged LLM slop, the much shorter result isn't bad (and its subject is definitely notable). But the article's history immortalizes a draft about the Belgian art expert (about whom we don't have an article), and before that, another draft (later converted to Gente di Fotografia) about an Italian periodical -- whereas abandoned drafts normally evaporate after six months.

I'm inclined to delete the revisions. But on what grounds? I think it would be a stretch to label it "RD6: Non-contentious housekeeping"; and WP:RD doesn't mention courtesy blanking (which, as far as I know, the subject hasn't requested). Or should these "New topographics"–irrelevant revisions live on? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

i would say do a WP:HISTSPLIT to remove the irrelevant revisions back to the sandbox from whence they came? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. (Why didn't I think of that? Perhaps because I've never previously split a history. Or indeed merged histories.) Thank you, theleekycauldron. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done a "history split". The versions that are about "New topographics" live on (deleted, and four minutes later undeleted); the others, I've simply left deleted. If their creator–editor couldn't be bothered to move them to Gente di Fotografia (for the earliest of the deleted edits) or User:ThomasToo/sandbox (for the rest), I too can't be bothered – at least as long as no admin censures me for breaking us admins' oath of diligent drudgery. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I would've moved the earlier revisions back to the sandbox, but given that the user is indefblocked, meh about their deletion. One problem with deletion/undeletion though is that it breaks a page's link to Wikidata, so I've restored it in this case. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC closure review at Talk:2026 Iran war

A recent RfC at Talk:2026 Iran war was closed with the effective result of A. Switching the |status parameter in the military conflict infobox to |result, and B. Having that |result be "Iranian victory".

@Locke Cole described the issue[20] better than I can:

I hate to say it, but I think the closure of the RFC was a WP:BADNAC. WP:RFC says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The closer also invoked WP:AVALANCHE (a stronger WP:SNOW), even though there was clearly disagreement, as well as disagreement with the formulation of the RFC itself (which presented as a false choice). SNOW implies a near unanimous consensus, and this wasn't that. RFC discussions shouldn't be closed while comments are actively being made, and this one was, and well before the 7-day minimum recommended at WP:RFC.
I think a better RFC would be a 3-part question: 1) Do we use the |result= or the |status=? 2) If we choose |result=, what result do we choose (the infobox suggests this should be either "X victory" or "Inconclusive"); "Iranian victory", "United States victory", or "Inconclusive"? 3) Do we want to have an X-day moratorium on future RFCs on this topic absent major developments?
Let the RFC run until there's either been no significant discussion for 48 hours or up to a week.

With a note[21] that the opinions expressed should be based on the WP:RS, not our personal opinion on whether this event is over or our personal opinion on who the "victor" was (all of that would be WP:OR).

I also may repeat that @MWFwiki seconds[22] the points raised.

I'll note that a couple of users reached out to the closer with concerns, relatively recently. There's been no response yet, but in any case I think that the high visibility of the page and the possibility of having to restart the RfC means it would be good to have broader input (i.e from here) about how best to proceed—in other words I think I am unable to resolve the issue [adequately] through discussion with the closer Placeholderer (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: At Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, it says you may use {{subst:RfC closure review}}. "May" implies being optional; I feel like the template is unnecessarily antagonistic here, and the underlying RfC is also at issue, but I've saved a reformatted version of this using the template offwiki and can convert this to use the template if that's better Placeholderer (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a better RFC would be a 3-part question why don't you start that RfC, then? Consensus can change. I maintain that there was clear consensus for an avalanche closure in this RfC (>2/3rds by raw vote count, clear by argument strength) to answer the second question. I don't think reopening the existing flawed RfC would be a productive outcome, and I don't really care about semantics, so I'd accept an overturn to "no consensus as bad RfC" or something similar if it'd make you feel better. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In your close, you wrote "Supporters point to reliable sources that call it an Iranian victory". Could you please provide these sources? In addition, you also wrote that "opposers bring up WP:NPOV". MWFwiki states that they only recall seeing neutrality brought up once, and not seeing NPOV at all. As such, can you link the comments that point toward this as the main argument of the oppose side? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Feeglgeef, I would agree that this was prematurely closed. I would also agree that this was a bad RfC because it assumed that the war was over and it assumed only two possible ways to describe the result (Iranian victory or inconclusive). There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2026 Iran war#The war isn't over yet and See Aftermath is another option per MOS:MILRESULT. There was also repeated reference to [a majority of] sources but these were not presented as evidence. Consequently, it is an opinion as to what [a majority of] sources actually say. I was in the process of looking at the sources (several which are paywalled) and find that some have not been accurately represented. This source [23] is cited in the infobox to support an Iranian victory. It poses a question, "So, who actually won?" and answers, "The answer depends entirely on who is being asked". It states that, from an Iranian perspective, it was a defeat for Washington but from Trump's perspective a decisive victory. It continues, "Independent analysts are similarly divided, and many conclude that nearly everyone lost something."

Unit the questions identified by Placeholderer are resolved, I recommend that the result should be substituted with status. The status to read: Islamabad Memorandum and Ceasefire extended until date. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

During the RfC, I referred multiple times to the Aftermath section (which another editor has since moved) and sources therein. Those sources have also been explicitly listed (by me) in the ongoing Talk:2026 Iran war#The war isn't over yet discussion, along with the paragraph summarizing them in the article body. entropyandvodka | talk 00:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Entropyandvodka: Sorry if I'm blind or something, but you don't appear to have left a comment at Talk:2026 Iran war#The war isn't over yet? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. I conflated that one with the related discussion, where my comment listing the sources is near the bottom: Talk:2026 Iran war#MOS:VICTORY entropyandvodka | talk 01:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time or energy to respond to all of these comments/complaints/questions, so I've vacated my closure. I maintain its merit, but as I won't be defending it I don't think it's reasonable to keep it. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the bigger/root problem was the setup of the RfC itself, which isn't your fault. Sorry if this was a drain Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, don't close things unless you are prepared to answer questions and/or defend your closure. If you "don't have the time or energy to respond to all of these comments/complaints/questions[...]" then you should not have the "time or energy" to make the closure. I don't think @ARandomName123, @Cinderella157, and @Placeholderer were acting in bad faith and framing their points merely as "complaints" - even just in-part - is hardly appropriate. They have as much right to question your closure as you had to make it.

If you maintain the closure's "merit" then you should not have vacated your closure and you should be able to verbalize justification for it (and to be clear, I recognize and appreciate that you acknowledge that your lack of desire to defend your position led you to vacate the closure). People disagreeing with a closure is almost universal. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong or that the closure should be vacated. If your first response to pushback is to get defensive ("[...]why don't you start that RfC, then?" - even if it's not "defensive", we're here to examine your closure) and you make no attempt to answer the questions posed to you, I have to opine that perhaps this was an inadvisable close. That's not even touching on WP:BADNAC, which advises that a NAC may not be appropriate if, per point 1: "The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial." You acknowledge that the RfC was "flawed", so I would additionally argue that a NAC is ill-advised per point 1 of WP:NACPIT.

Regardless, it's moot, now, anyways, so, I won't beat the dead horse any further. I appreciate you vacating the closure.  — MWFwiki (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• There would appear to be a number of discussions at the talk page that are working at cross-purposes, noting that we now have two open RfCs operating in competition with each other and other discussions addressing the same issues. At the infobox, there has been well intended but disruptive editing around what the infobox should say while the matter is being resolved (ie, what is the status quo in the interim). I would suggest that full protection of the infobox would be appropriate at this point. I would also suggest some admin intervention that would resolve the multiple discussions into one centralised discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Admins familiar with WP:CTOP practices might also be interested in chiming in here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#1RR_WP:CTOP_restrictions_and_templates —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hopefully most discussion that seems to fall under the new RfC can migrate there. Would it suffice to leave notes under them to direct to the RfC? I'm hesitant to suggest that apparently redundant discussions be closed, since when that was done (in good faith) for the last RfC there was stuff (namely the status v. result thing) that I thought was left unresolved—Idk if other people see stuff that would be unresolved here.

  I think it'd be worth adding a subsection under the RfC to discuss what should be up during discussion—but I'd just want a second opinion before contributing to discussion bloat I say, as I discuss how to discuss what should be up during discussion... Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  My understanding is that the status quo was"ongoing." I am assuming that the change to "Iranian victory" was what led to the RfC starting in the first place, so shouldn't it be changed back to ongoing until the RfC is over? Slava570 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: New, three-part RfC

Given that reopening the IMO-bad RfC doesn't address my own main concern (the skipping over of discussion on whether to use |status or |result) I figured I'd more explicitly propose to use start a new RfC with Locke Cole's suggested structure. Presumably this would mean re-closing the old RfC as "bad RfC" Placeholderer (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, preparing for work, so will be brief. Yeah, I think the three-part RfC is best, with hat-note to state "Replaced by below", etc. I'm in support of the new RfC, as written. (Moreover, I don't think any of us meant to distress Feeglgeef.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer (and others), I have proposed a Moratorium. If the end of the war is disputed, then I don't think we need an RfC to go back to the long-standing version of "ongoing". We can revert it, put a moratorium for two months, and then see what's what. There is no deadline. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I just tried reverting to the status quo ante, but it was now changed back to "victory" by Entropyandvodka. Regardless of any other considerations, shouldn't it just be the status quo per WP:ONUS until the RfC is over and there is a new consensus? Slava570 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted it back as the prior RFC decision was vacated by the author. I've also started a new RFC, I'm hesitant to touch the old one, if someone uninvolved would like to close it as malformed or incorrectly stated it would be appreciated. As Placeholder said, the RFC wasn't Feeglgeef's fault, it was just a false choice that basically assumed the event was over and left participants choosing how to list the outcome instead... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, could you also add the options to have something like "See Aftermath section" (or analysis/June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding in this case), and to omit the parameter entirely? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If we're talking about |result=, omit means going back to |status=. From my understanding if we use |result= the guidance is to have a very no-nonsense entry (X victory or Inconclusive). —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Omitting result doesn't mean we have to use status. These are both optional, and the infobox docs say to "Omit [the result] parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation". Regarding the "See..." parameter, the docs say that "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section").". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it, I'll go add those as options. =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me know if my changes addressed your suggestion. Also, feel free to modify it yourself as long as you aren't making significant changes (and since nobody has !voted yet). =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A yet more explicit roadmap

With the new RfC currently closed, either until the closer reverses or someone else finds consensus to do so, I suggest this:

• Close the old RfC
• Reopen the new RfC
• Start a subsection in the new RfC to discuss what should be in the infobox during the new RfC: status quo (which one?) or a compromise. This is preferable to whatever's going on at the template's page history.
• Leave notifying comments in talk sections that are covered by the new RfC to direct them to the new RfC, without closing them (for now)

Can we get an efficient consensus here so we can drop the meta-discussion and move on to actual discussion? Placeholderer (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just as a reminder of the issues caused by premature RFC closures and RFCs that present false choices, we're currently a "source" for a Newsweek piece that says Wikipedia called the war for Iran (and they're not the only one saying similar things). It's almost literally a case of citogenesis... Wikipedia should report what other sources say, not be a source on its own. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Avalanche close

(moved from User talk:Feeglgeef where it was blanked)

Hi, I had wanted to reply to the Iran War RfC, but you closed it after only one day. If I had known that would happen, I would have commented yesterday. You linked to WP:AVALANCHE, which assumes the RfC had a snowball's chance in hell of failing. I think there was more than a snowball's chance in hell. The arguments for change were far better arguments, though there were fewer of them. I also have at least three sources I wanted to cite for the change side, including the BBC. [24] [25] [26] And the standard for proving something is conclusive is much higher than inconclusive. To be conclusive there has to be clear consensus among RS. Whereas a minority opinion can be enough to prove something is inconclusive. (PS. the RfC tag hasn't been removed, so it is still listed on the RfC page.) Slava570 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it was incorrect to close the RfC, especially after one day; most RfCs go for a week, at least, if not longer. I also object to the fact that it was a non-admin closure to a controversial topic, and clearly more time was needed for a consensus to develop, or not. After all, I did note in my vote—the last one, for the record—that recent events (such as the closure of the Strait yesterday) might yet still derail the possible peace itself. Such things still might occur, so even declaring an outcome would be hasty. After all, we should be following the sources, not trying to impose our will (collective or not) on world affairs. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've opened a thread at AN discussing the close/potential things to do. Your contribution is welcome Placeholderer (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

See my comment there, courtesy pings @Slava570, Javert2113, and Placeholderer. As for some of the specific points that you made.

1. The arguments for change were far better arguments.

   No, no they weren't. At least, I found them to be worse.

2. I also have at least three sources I wanted to cite for the change side, including the BBC.

   From skimming them, it seems like the BBC article is about public perception of victory, not actual victory. The CSIS article states Iran gets most of what it wants, and it gets it up front—before negotiations on a final deal even start. The United States gets very little. The Hudson Institute is a conservative foreign policy think tank, so I'm not surprised they believe we won. Factoring in their opinion (even as "Inconclusive") in the infobox would be undue.

3. And the standard for proving something is conclusive is much higher than inconclusive.

   The standard for putting something in an article is that it's not forbidden by policy or consensus.

4. most RfCs go for a week, at least, if not longer

   What happens to most RfCs is irrelevant.

5. I also object to the fact that it was a non-admin closure to a controversial topic

   See WP:NACRFC.

Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to #4, it's actually not irrelevant. It's exactly what is described at WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. You must also consider the logistics of editors around the world, not everyone has the ability to respond and participate on short notice. Closing it less than 48 hours after the topic was opened, while conversation was clearly still continuing is the opposite of when a close should happen. Especially as you cite WP:AVALANCHE.

With regard to #5, I don't think @Javert2113 was objecting to a NAC of an RFC, but rather to WP:BADNAC #1: A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations: 1. The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial.

All that being said I don't think reopening the RFC would be helpful, but editing your closure to indicate the deficiencies described above and that the result was still in flux when you closed it would help make the transition to a new RFC better. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to #1: A majority of votes for the keep side were not based in any policy. You said so yourself in your close.

Responding to #2: the CSIS article literally says [Iran] Lost the War in the title and in the body. It also lists several things the US won. Ultimately the article says neither side had a decisive victory. Hence inconclusive. Second, it's irrelevant that the third source comes from a conservative outlet. See WP:BIASED. These sources are valid. If you are excluding a source for this reason, that is a POV issue.

Responding to #3: WP:NPOV says: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views. Even if the argument for a US victory or inconclusive is a minority view, it needs to be reflected in the article in proportion to the preponderance of that view in sources. If you want to exclude that view entirely, that is another NPOV issue. "Inconclusive" would reflect a broader array of views, while "Iranian victory" excludes the minority viewpoint. Slava570 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@MWFwiki, Slava570, Javert2113, Placeholderer, and Feeglgeef: Feeglgeef doesn't have time to justify their RFC closure, and ignored my advice in this thread taken from their talk page to simply edit their closure (instead vacating the closure and effectively reopening the RFC), but does have time to try and derail the new RFC. My good faith is getting a bit exhausted here. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 04:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, a little strange, particularly given that their first reply was "star your own RfC." However, I think what they're getting-at is that perhaps we should permit the first RfC (the one they re-opened) to conclude before touching this one. The two are slightly at-odds. That said, they should probably remove themselves from these discussions just as a courtesy now that they're involved to the level that they are; just as we would expect a closer to not be involved in the RfC or indeed too involved on the page, I would expect a closer to not turn-around and involve themselves in the discussion... but that's just my opinion.  — MWFwiki (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just weighing in here - I've been watching this discussion and both the RfCs, but yet to comment on either as I was concerned that having multiple open proposals might happen and muddy the waters, as I mentioned to TurboSuperA+ and Placeholderer. While I can understand Redrose64's closure of the most recent RfC on procedural grounds, I wonder if they were aware of this discussion? I'd be interested to hear their thoughts as an admin on the best way to proceed here. I am also concerned by Feeglgeef's intervention in the latest RfC given their previous assertion of WP:AVALANCHE as a reason for closure. But I'd like to hear their rationale before making assumptions about their motivation. As there appears to be considerable support for the notion the initial RfC was flawed, or at least that a third option is necessary, I'd appreciate some advice from RedRose or another uninvolved admin on the best way to proceed here for the sake of stopping this situation from becoming messier still! Dfadden (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Let this be a cautionary tale of the dangers of doing things too soon. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 10:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just got back from work and all—another reason why we shouldn't do things too soon. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grilledcheeseisgreat @Javert2113 I think I made this clear to them. Certainly don't close things if you're then going to assert you don't have time to defend your position. Which, again, in all fairness to them, they did withdraw their closure.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

And it looks like @Redrose64 has closed the discussion without seemingly considering everything else that has gone on... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 11:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think people are being far too hasty to call the war with Iran over. I know that most people in the world (certainly myself included) would like to see this costly, pointless and unnecessary conflict end. However the evidence we've seen so far fills me with absolutely no confidence that the war has ended until such time as American and Israeli troops withdraw from their positions. We should be waiting to see that the war actually has ended before declaring a winner. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I closed it because, as was already pointed out in that RfC, there were two ongoing RfCs at once to answer the same question. We do not need this sort of behaviour one bit. One problem, one discussion. I have no opinion whatsoever upon whether the war is "over", resolved, on hold or whatever. I'm just a schmuck who hangs around the RfC listings looking for misuse of the process. Having two RfCs on the same issue is such a misuse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Did you miss the part where there was concern over whether to include the status parameter at all? The false choice the original RFC presented? The fact that it had been rapidly closed in less than two days by a NAC, and when challenged instead of simply modifying their close they completely reversed it, reopening it to new comments despite a growing consensus for a neutrally formulated set of questions? I'm guessing you missed all of that. The original RFC is a WP:TRAINWRECK. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 14:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I will say that the open RfC is not at all good. I just went there and logged a !vote that was not an option in the poll because the options were grossly insufficient requiring a choice between Iranian victory and an inconclusive resolution. These are both WP:CRYSTAL violations until we actually know that this war has ended. Again, I understand wanting this war to be over. I also want this war to be over. But it's not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you miss the fact that when I procedurally closed it, that left one on the page that was still open? Here is what WP:RFC/POL looked like when I arrived at it this morning. The first and third entries cover basically the same issue. That is why I closed the more recent one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The broken RfC should be the one closed on procedural grounds, not the fixed one Placeholderer (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering, is it too late to procedurally close the first RFC though? I'm asking because now that this discussion has come up, I feel like I need to change my vote to Inconclusive or Remove the parameter. And what I think will end up happening is that after the first RFC is over we will have to immediately open a new RFC to clarify this. Whereas if we close the first one and go to the second one, I think it's more likely we will come up with a binding consensus... Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You procedurally closed a well-formatted, structured RfC and left the broken one that didn't address that the

war might not be over and that explicitly was described as a vote open. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. I mentioned in my previous comment I understand the rationale for your close. But I had been hoping with your experience you could provide some advice on how to resolve the situation please? As the original RfC remains open, a growing number of editors are expressing they believe it is a flawed choice. I have now joined them formally as I dont think there has been any helpful advice yet from uninvovled editors or admins yet despite extensive discussion here at AN on how to approach these concerns. I am certainly not asking you to express an opinion on the war being over or not. However I do think the opening of the second RfC, while misguided was a genuinely collaborative attempt to fix the issues with the original RfC, that was previously closed and reopened in questionable circumstances. Some advice on the correct way to approach addressing the concerns raised in this discussion would really help a lot more than admonishment. Dfadden (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we'll have to accept that it's possible we'll have to break some procedural rules. When a building is collapsing, you aren't trying to follow zoning laws or anything; you're trying to live. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 22:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

To use your analogy, I would say this is more a case of the authorities ignoring our repeated requests to send a qualified engineer to inspect the cracks and tell us if we need to evacuate. If the engineers dont come, or seem more concerned with isuing fines to the people who reported the cracks, those same people arent going to wait around to see if the cracks get worse, nor will they be inclined to ask for help in future... Dfadden (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I swear you just talked over me. Did nothing I mentioned in my reply resonate at all? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Locke Cole was that directed at me sorry? Dfadden (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, that was for Redrose64. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok sorry. Editing on mobile so the nesting looks funny, and the bit about overtaking threw me off! Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

History-merge backlog

Category:Candidates for history merging is now up to 11 entries, some of which date to the beginning of this month. I have one at Equal temperament that may be affected by an ongoing RM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still six left. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I took care of the ones that definitely merited merging. I left the others for another hist merge admin to look at since I wasn't convinced that a hist merge was appropriate. I would say that we don't have issues of people tuning in, and that if you really want to get attention you should leave a comment at WP:HISTMERGE. Izno (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Changes to the functionary team, June 2026 (4)

At his request, the checkuser permission of EdJohnston (talk · contribs) is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks EdJohnston for his service as a checkuser. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team, June 2026 (4)

Request to review talk page discussion closure

I am requesting that an uninvolved admin review the closure of Talk:Major Oak#Tense and either re-open the discussion, write a new closing statement, or otherwise intervene or recommend next steps. I believe this should not have required admin intervention but here we are.

Talk:Major Oak#Tense was initiated on June 19. Later that same day (UTC), a thread was initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Talk:Major Oak#Tense. I saw the MOS thread and posted there and at Talk:Major Oak#Tense. The temp account ~2026-34502-67 (talk · contribs · logs) closed the discussion Talk:Major Oak#Tense on 22 June stating in the edit summary "clear consensus, enough effort spent, closing this and removing tag". I then started a new section below the closed discussion at Talk:Major Oak#Post-close comment where I expressed my opinion that I disagreed with the closure. Other editors quickly agreed and @NebY reversed the close but was promptly reverted by the temp account.

After further discussion, I re-opened the original thread. At that time, I was unaware that NebY and the temp account had gone back and forth about this already in the edits. I was also promptly reverted by the temp account and warned about disruptive behavior and edit warring.

The original closure was unnecessary, incorrectly assessed consensus, and halted ongoing discussion that had moved beyond the initial question to more nuanced approaches to addressing the content issue. When I reverted the close, I believed I was enacting clear consensus among the small group of editors who had participated. As I have stated, I was unaware that NebY and the temp had previously opened and re-closed the discussion. I acknowledge that I was INVOLVED, and that I had not reviewed the edit history before re-opening the discussion, but this seemed straightforward.

We are at an impasse with ~2026-34502-67 (talk · contribs · logs) requiring "more discussion" on the meta-issue of whether or not it was appropriate to close the original discussion. This is distracting from and impeding the continuation of the original content discussion, which the rest of us would like to see re-opened. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Clerk-y note: Redrose64 was the closer of the earlier related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Talk:Major_Oak#Tense that may or may not be interpreted as part of the same overall motion. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not consider this part of the problem. Redrose64 closed the WT:MOS discussion per WP:MULTI. I believe this was appropriate but more importantly, there appears to be no controversy about that action and editors at WT:MOS have continued the discussion there without issue. I only mentioned the MOS discussion because it is relevant to how and I and other editors became involved in the original Talk:Major Oak discussion in the first place. The issue here is the dispute over the appropriateness of your closure at Talk:Major Oak#Tense and whether or not to re-open it. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that closure of that discussion, not an RFC or suchlike, was unwanted and unwarranted. It's been difficult discussing it with someone who even rejects reference to WP:WHENCLOSE, saying "Just linking to a document in WP namespace doesn't amount to an argument."[27] NebY (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Another clerk-y note: Aside from NebY, the other involved party notified by Myceteae is Martinevans123. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well spotted, clerky. My suggestion: re-open the discussion and ditch your close comments. Or, if you're too embarrassed, let an involved other editor re-open the discussion and ditch your close comments. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did notify Martinevans123, the other editor involved in the discussion to reverse your premature closure. Nothing strange about that. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that another editor, @User:BrechtBroBrechtBro, has requested pending changes or semi-protection due to disruptive edits by temp/unregistered users during the active Major Oak discussion. See: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Major Oak. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction: @User:BrechtBro made the request. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone who is tangentially involved in both discussions (to either support someone else's proposed solution or to point out when a phrase was added), I agree that the close was premature and would recommend the temp account remove their closure.
While there is a cluster of comments that lean towards using is, there are also some editors before and one after who support using was, with none of them entertaining the idea of using the former; I would hardly call that a consensus (at a really rough estimate I'd say it's closer to a 40-60 split between was and is).
It seems like the temp account was concerned that there could have been an influx of new editors to the discussion due to the use of a {{discuss}} tag in the article (with a significant risk the discussion will never end), which has since been removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this important context. Both me and @NebY responded in the thread indicating support for removal of the {{discuss}} tag.[28][29] —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Disorganized talk page archives

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

---

I discovered that the archives of Talk:Vatican City is out of chronological order, and I am trying to clean it up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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

@Voorts: Where is the correct forum for this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you can't fix it on your own, I'd try the help desk. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson, has been now closed. The final decision is available at the link above.

The following remedies have been passed regarding this case:

• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs), TheWikiholic (talk · contribs), Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs), Jimcastor (talk · contribs), and MraClean (talk · contribs) are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs), TheWikiholic (talk · contribs), Israell (talk · contribs), Episteme Aletheia (talk · contribs), Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs), Jimcastor (talk · contribs), Mr Boar1 (talk · contribs), MraClean (talk · contribs), Never17 (talk · contribs), and PinkSlippers (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
• NE0mAn7o! (talk · contribs) is warned that future misconduct in the Michael Jackson topic area will result in restrictions under the Michael Jackson community contentious topic.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 21:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

Next appeal

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

---

When can my next appeal be? And for the record, I realize the reason I kept rounding numbers because I thought I was doing it right, and I wanted to show that I could. Now I know that you’re not supposed to do that. Iacowriter (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Recent disruptive content removal in related articles, might be a sockpuppeteer

So a few days ago, I was looking on recent changes when I reverted this unexplained removal. Just now I found out that temporary account came back on another temporary account and removed that content again. After reverting them again, I realized that they were apparently doing this unconstructive series of edits for over 3 months. Most prominently on the articles Boston Strangler and F. Lee Bailey. I also found on the contribs page that all the related temporary accounts 1 2 3 have around 6-10 associated IPs, a very likely sign it might be the same IP user. I ask that the IP behind all these temporary accounts is blocked for repeated disruptive content removal and general unconstructive edits. Thank you, SHSR _{T • C} 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

All three map to the same ASIN subnet designator and same physical location. Agreed that they all seem to be from the same or very similar user location. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked all three anon-usernames for 2 weeks focusing only on the two articles that you've highlighted. This means that the anon-users can contribute to other parts of wikipedia but cannot edit either of the two highlighted articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Close review Talk:Magazine_(firearms)#Straw-poll:_Proposal_#1

I'm requesting a close review for the following close [30] related to a straw poll proposal related to the merger of the High Capacity Magazine and High Capacity Magazine Ban articles into Magazine (firearms). (This is not a review of those merge discussions). As part of the merge there was disagreement regarding the if "High Capacity Magazine" should be a subsection of the article and, if yes, should a specific proposed text be included as consensus text. The close review should focus both on if the discussion resulted in a "consensus to include the section" and if the discussion resulted in a "consensus to include specific text and sources". Springee (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Impartial on inclusion of section, over turn content The discussion had 6 participating editors. On the question of including the section, there is a 3:3 split amoung the editors with both sides making arguments why the term should be a subsection. While I opposed inclusion of the section, I can understand an argument that a merged article should have a section, rather than just be merged into other parts of the new parent. However, the proposed content was opposed by 4 of 6 editor (including one who supported including the section). It also was only drafted after the merge discussion was initiated on 8 May thus it does not represent a consensus text of the prior article. Finally, the proposed material was already the subject of extensive criticism for both UNDUE content and questionable sourcing. Since the close of the straw poll a clear consensus against some of the content was established and the sources used have also been questioned. These were all issues brought up before the straw poll but didn't seem to be considered as part of the discussion against using the consensus text. I'm largely stuck with phone edits for the next 2 weeks - apologies for editing errors Springee (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse (involved) Consensus is not a vote count. The arguments against including the content were fallacious, were rebutted and were appropriately downweighted by the closer.

In addition, the vote breakdown presented by the appellant here is confusing - which 4 participants opposed the inclusion of the content. What is the 3:3 split in question? Those are different numbers than I derived from the discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You and Lightbreather where the only two editors who supported the content as posted. Mudwater supported having the section but not the content as proposed. Tioaeu8943, Qwirkle and I opposed the text. The text was opposed prior to being added and after the fact part of the text was removed via clear consensus [[31]]. Issues with the quality of some of the sources were raised before the straw poll, I pointed to the objections during the poll and after the fact editors again are questioning using things like a business website as a reliable source for a general claim [[32]]. Making this a proper RfC with a full month duration would give more editors a chance to address these issues without having to argue to a two person business is a RS for general claims. That is what the close endorsed. Springee (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of Qwirkle and Mudwater's comments. Mudwater didn't present any explicit opposition to the addition and Qwirkle didn't register a !vote or clear expression of opinion.

Mudwater's comment was this:

The proposed text above seems pretty reasonable to me, but I currently don't have a strong opinion about exactly what it should say, or exactly what references it should use

I'm not sure how you get from this to opposing the proposed text. Katzrockso (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm uninvolved in the discussion, although I was named in the framing of the question, only because I had made one small edit to the page. I am not sure a close review is going to help here. It was a straw poll, and limited in scope. Any "consensus" here is narrow and limited. I would have thought that the appropriate route here would be to raise this to the next WP:CONLEVEL. To Springee: is it possible to draft something that shows how you think the merge should look, and then start an RfC with a single question: should the content be presented as in option A or option B? The RfC would draw in more editors, and any decision of an RfC would over-ride a short straw poll. If following that route, this review could probably still be withdrawn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support close (uninvolved) editors supporting the merge on technical basis referred to an abundance of sources that defined a technical description. The editors opposed did not cite much other than prior consensuses. There's no need to overturn this. Simonm223 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think one can reasonably claim the sources were not objected to in detail. I did exactly that in a prior discussion with I mentioned in the discussion. Perhaps it would be better to say the arguments were not transcribed into the discussion section. Springee (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  And yet I did. Reasonably. Springee: I had no part in this discussion and I have no strong opinion on firearm articles. I read the straw poll. An overturn is uncalled for. The close was appropriate to the very limited scope of a straw poll about a merge that drew substantially less than ten participants. If that's not enough then I suggest you do what @Sirfurboy suggested and hold a formal RfC which would likely draw broader participation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Do not endorse (involved) I disagree that there was a clearly established consensus at the close of the straw poll for the proposed version of the section. Several concerns about it and some sources remained unresolved both during and after the discussion. In any event, I remain open to a broader RfC to obtain wider participation and a clearer consensus on the matter. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)