Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three main reasons why I would like to appeal the topic ban: it is too broad and has unintended consequences, the measures taken by the Arbitration Committee have been effective in addressing the issue, and new information about the dispute was disclosed after the ANI discussion was closed (specifically WMrapids' sockpuppetry). I feel that a Catch-22 happened because of this: the ANI closing admin commented that the ArbCom could decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban,[11] but at the same time the ArbCom commented that extraordinary circumstances were needed to override a community decision.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support with a 1RR restriction I find NoonIcarus' response satisfactory but the proof is in the pudding. Lifting the topic ban with a revert restriction would allow them to do their planned work with some security against a return to old patterns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hello, SemperSupra,

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

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

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

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

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

Notified: Special:Diff/1300487471

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody uses an army of socks to vandalize Wiki, which is annoying, since socks make many edits before they get blocked. The article is now extended confirmed protected. What they do is they own a large number of socks created more than a month ago, they go to the sandbox of these socks and make 500 useless edits. Then the socks are extended confirmed and ready to vandalize the article. Do we have any tools to stop the inflation of sandbox edits? I understand that the alternative is to full protect the article, but may be we can do better than that? Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a couple of sandboxes, but for admins this is the most recent one: [12]. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That user's MD najmul Mia1, and yesterday I blocked the surprisingly similarly named MD najmul Mia just before they got to 500 edits. I also just now found and pre-emptively blocked MD najmul Mia2. Completing the set, MD najmul Mia3 was blocked as soon as they were registered in May, by Zzuuzz. I guess they won't be spawning more of these particular usernames now, but I'll keep an eye out anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid they are more creative than that. The sock I blocked yesterday was User:João Eduardo1, and User:João Eduardo2 is not registered. (That one was easy, because the page was only semi-protected; now they really need to do this sandbox editing). Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they figured that just changing the digits makes it a bit too easy to connect the dots. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salebot1. Not sure if we have an edit filter to log the behaviour or not. -- asilvering (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, judging by the behaviour and the locks, it's definitely SB1. A checkuser could probably set up an edit filter or something. Of note, they only started vandalising enwiki a few months ago, before that they were mostly on Commons. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really need a CU in specific to write the edit filter. -- asilvering (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Izno since he seems to be familiar with this case. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide no further assistance that I can see. Izno (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. This helps me out greatly, as I've come across this user a while ago, and it seemed like a sock of somebody, but just couldn't figure out who. Thanks! Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 00:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems United States Senate is also targeted by the same gang; same MO and again with accounts created on May 30. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one is actually a contentious topic. Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as

  All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.

  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
  • All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
  • Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a 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.
  • Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
• The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
• WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
• Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
• A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
• Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
  1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
  2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
  3. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
  4. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
  5. The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
• Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
• AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
• Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
  1. Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
  2. Human activity in India
  3. Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
  4. Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
  5. Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
  6. India–Pakistan relations
  7. Indian WP:BLPs or biographies

Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• Shubhanshu Shukla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is requested if any admin can remove the image links (two images deleted due to copyright violation from commons) at Shubhanshu_Shukla#Gallery. Thanks in advance. 14.139.127.131 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for letting us know! DMacks (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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