Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Open tasks

Unban request from PrimeNick/Jheeeeeeteegh

Hello to any admins. I have been blocked for editing English Wikipedia for 6 months for sockpuppetry with the reason of editing articles and redirecting links whether to Fascist Italy/Kingdom of Italy (please refer to the w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jheeeeeeteegh for much context). An admin has advised me to take the standard offer which I did. And also added what topic ban should I accept. Thanks. PrimeNick (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can SPI confirm no socking? GiantSnowman 13:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. But Yamla has already stated on the editor's talk page that there is no technical evidence of ongoing ban evasion. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeNick, here you say you've been editing itwiki, can I ask with which account(s)? PrimeNick's only ever edited enwiki Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not finding any edits more recent than 2024 on any of the other accounts I've checked (it:Speciale:Contributi/Jheeeeeeteegh). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeNick, do you plan to continue using KingsmanDisc on itwiki, or use one account for everything? Why not appeal here with the KingsmanDisc account? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Lean oppose, I think it'd need to be a one account restriction globally and possibly a tban Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:48, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Support unban after responses to concerns were replied to at PrimeNick's talk page. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Nearly 1000 outstanding COI edit requests

This backlog is getting pretty bad. If it's difficult and frustrating to do things the right way, it encourages people to hire the spam/scam farms we then have to chase down and block. If you've got a spare moment and can pitch in, please do! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

+1; if anyone reading this is not sure how to go about this I have a half-finished guide to COI edit requests which I can make into a less half-finished guide if there's interest. Rusalkii (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Always looking for guide pages! Valereee (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Rusalkii/Responding to COI edit requests is now at least slightly presentable. Rusalkii (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in figuring out how to do this! I'll start contributing to the COI requests. Sylv302 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I handled those that were in my general areas of knowledge from the oldest through the beginning of this month. I'll try to come back and do September in a bit. Do we have (or could we develop) something like AfD sorting? I go through Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Food and drink every few weeks usually, would be willing to do something similar for COI edit requests just to, as you say, encourage COIs to use that system. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You can use WP:PETSCAN for this, like this query - substitute the WikiProject of your choice, or any other category. Note that these are talk page categories, so any categories that only show up on the main article won't work. There isn't any more user friendly system, though if there's wider interest I could try to throw something together. Rusalkii (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Trivial category intersection can also be done onwiki using Special:Search. Izno (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, nice, thank you both! I'll save those searches in my ToDo list! Valereee (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll offer a few observations on the state of the backlog and why it's become so long. The answer is, of course, AI. I'm seeing more and more AI-generated edit requests and compared with when I started patrolling the queue years ago, the average request has become more complex and more time-consuming to review. The numbers are stark. I parsed the page histories of User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable and its predecessor User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable to count how many edit requests we're seeing each month. This August, COI editors submitted 737 new requests, while reviewers answered 646 requests and removed them from the queue. We are a little more than halfway through September, and there have already been 479 requests added to the queue, while 299 have been answered. The number of edit requests has risen dramatically in just the last few months. To me, this suggests that either AI has recently improved at generating surficially passable edit requests or COI editors have now caught on to using AI.

Month (2026)	New requests	Answered requests
January	322	210
February	268	227
March	332	287
April	394	292
May	476	522
June	532	585
July	696	482
August	737	646
September (as of 9/17)	479	299

This is not a short term blip. The average monthly volume of edit requests has been growing steadily since 2012, but the growth in 2026 is unprecedented. Frankly, the reviewers have done an admirable job of keeping up with the pace, considering how much larger the volume has grown.

	Monthly average number of requests
Year	New requests	Answered requests
2012	39	38
2013	37	35
2014	52	50
2015	70	64
2016	85	87
2017	100	109
2018	162	162
2019	170	171
2020	154	142
2021	165	165
2022	122	117
2023	148	164
2024	138	134
2025	215	201
2026 (so far)	470	394

Unfortunately, the trend shows no sign of letting up. We may need to start exploring ways to triage the queue before this gets out of hand. Altamel (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Certainly many of them are AI. Many AI agents have noticed that they're "not allowed" to edit wikipedia directly, and instead have been offering suggestions on talk pages on behalf of their operators. Since editors review the requests pretty thoroughly, this is one of the less harmful ways for AI to interact with the projects. But when it comes to the volume, we're in trouble. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Altamel You may be interested in https://editrequests.wiki/, which tries to get the total number of open requests (not individual pages with requests, as the current category tracks). It was made by one of the regular COI requestors who emailed it me. Rusalkii (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks for sharing! The median wait time being only 16 days is somewhat reassuring and better than I expected. Altamel (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Unarchiving to note that a significant factor in the backlog's growth is probably the inactivity of Spintendo. An example of the iceberg in action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Happy to pitch in! I’ll work through the backlog over the next few days. I’ve interacted with COI accounts before so I’ve some familiarity, but will go through the guidance on response templates before I proceed. Baberoothless (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I was unable to work on this for a couple of days and the backlog has gone up to 915 again. I think some sort of group drive might be needed, or if not, higher standards put in place. The current influx of AI-assisted submissions is unsustainable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

There have been some conversations with WMF folks about the AI submissions. This one isn't such a straightforward problem to solve, since the AI submissions here are often better than they would be otherwise, and increased volume in this queue is quite possibly a sign of other processes working better (ie, that more people are realizing they ought to be editing via requests). So I don't know if they'll be able to come up with something, and either way that wouldn't be a fix we'd be seeing soon. But at least it's on their radar as yet another AI-related issue.

I think it might help for someone to code up a leaderboard, like we have for CopyPatrol. Might make it feel a bit less lonely to be shovelling out that queue. Plus it lets editors focus on number-go-up (which is more motivating, and fully in your control) rather than backlog-go-down (which... is not). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I can put it on my todo list, the general principle isn't that different from WP:RFDSTATS, just gotta make it self-updating. Rusalkii (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Rusalkii/COI edit request leaderboard exists, working on automating updating it and some further checks on the data. If anyone wants any other stats on COI edit requests on that page let me know and I'll see what I can do. Rusalkii (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Its crazy that I'm #40, we really do need more people do to this. Sylv302 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii, what makes it designate the outcome as unknown? I ask because I'm noticing I have a disproportionate number unknown, which I assume means I must be doing something wrong. :D Valereee (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe unknown outcomes are ones not done with the COI request tool, I did one without the tool and two with and it recorded the two I did with the tool as accepted and the one without as unknown. Sylv302 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't use the COI request tool and it recognizes mine ok. Packrat3860 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's looking for Template:Respond? ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 20:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee The script reads the template for answer parameters like A/G/D/etc, and then falls back to looking for things like checkmark/X templates in the reply or a reply starting with "Done"/"Not done". If it can't find any of that, it's unknown. The COI request tool formats things in one of the ways the script accepts, though many manual responses will also do that. This parsing is a bit sketchy - I expect the rough numbers to be correct but for there to be some number of misses for things like split replies. Rusalkii (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah! I've just been answering with an explanation rather than a 'done' template because I'm seldom doing everything they're asking for. :D Valereee (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible to produce a modified version for a hypothetical backlog drive, as is done for NPP drives? (On a side note, it's a real indictment of the situation that I'm in the top-10 all-time having been active for less than a month, and really underlines what I said above about the iceberg effect of Spintendo's absence.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It can span arbitrary time periods and it shouldn't be too difficult to only include people who have signed up for a drive. If you want some more complicated setup with tags or something that's a little harder but not too hard. Rusalkii (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I think a backlog drive could be really helpful considering that editors do clear hundreds of COIs a month already.

Clearing COI edits is not that fun and rather thankless, but having a barnstar to work towards would give at least me more motivation to do it, and it would bring the issue to the attention to more editors (I only know about it because I use the dashboard and do semi-regular check-ins on WP:AN).

Even better, introduce the new leaderboard or some other form of WikiLove alongside the drive and advertise it on the event page. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 14:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I support some sort of measure to raise standards on low-effort requests. I just, you know, don't know enough to determine what that measure would be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I already decline most requests that require me to do nontrivial additional work beyond reviewing the text and verifying the citations, and decline if multiple sources don't check out without doing a full review. I don't know if other reviewers do the same. Rusalkii (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I find the ones I decline most often are "replace this whole article" style requests. If I find more than a couple significant issues I'm generally gonna tell them to split it up and come back.

I do want to experiment with seeing if it's easier to accept the edit and then pare it down when the article they want replaced is in poor shape to begin with. It's more time intensive but in some cases it seems like the most realistic path to actually improving the article. Packrat3860 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

If the article really needs a full top to bottom rewrite, I'd first consider whether I'm actually interested in doing so, then check whether the existing sources plus any in the request are viable for doing so. If they are I'd probably use the request as a suggestion but mostly write it from scratch following the sources, not just implement their preferred version. But usually unless there's something really problematic that needs to be removed from the article I only work simple requests that are easy to verify. If they'll continue with subsequent ones like that I'll keep addressing them as I have time and it's less daunting than a wall of changes (whether bundled into a single request or a list of them). ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 21:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea, since edit requests are there for people who suck at this and don't know how to do it properly. When they're super incoherent they're pretty easy to decline, too, so they're not huge contributors to the backlog in terms of time. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Technically that is not what COI requests are for. Some of them may be reasonably competent, although the majority are SPAs. The other requests I run into are mostly on protected articles, in which case the editors who can't modify it directly often but not always have WP:CIR issues and (depending on subject matter) may or may not also have an undisclosed COI. When I didn't know anything about editing properly I also didn't know what the heck an edit request was, and just dropped a simple text comment with my suggestions. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 06:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The most tedious, I find, are those which have twenty separate requests on one talk page which all have to be responded to individually (of course, each preceded and followed by the same AI-smoothened preambles and conclusions). I'd suggest that no more than one COI edit request be allowed at any one time on a talk page. Hopefully that leads to easier-to-review and handle requests.

However, that doesn't address the issue of the massive and fast-growing backlog. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

This will just encourage giant single requests, which would be much worse (and in fact I encourage people to break up large requests if possible). Rusalkii (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I prefer large requests so I can evaluate overall quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I would support a "one request per editor" with explicit instructions that concise and well supported requests are far more likely to get handled quickly. Make your one brief request, get it answered, make another. Try to help them understand that they'll make more progress this way than by dropping a wall of text no one wants to deal with. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 06:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I worry that by limiting them to a single request at a time will either encourage massive requests or cause impatience on the part of requesters who need to get their previous request done before they can make their next one. Also, it would need to be one request per page per editor, or we would kill every COI firm's business model and some of them are exemplars of the COIER process. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 16:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

That is what I meant - one per editor, per page. I think if they see that short simple requests do get handled faster (and are probably more likely to be implemented, if they're appropriate) vs massive ones (that we still get anyway) languishing for weeks it would help encourage them to follow the system. And with the increase in lengthy LLM requests I would encourage editors to exercise WP:AITALK liberally and summarily decline generated requests regardless of the proposed content. If they can't be bothered to say it in their own words it can't be that important. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

That's the only way I see a backlog drive having much of an impact - taking an WP:AITALK buzzsaw through the entire queue. We're getting ~50 new requests a day (based on a rough count, which doesn't include multiple requests per talk page), and the vast majority are clearly LLM-generated. While I agree to an extent with asilvering above that AI submissions here are often better than they would be otherwise, they still require more careful review for all of the usual AI reasons. (Then you have the COI editors who get impatient and decide to implement their own requests, which means AI content ends up getting into the mainspace without any oversight.)

That drain on volunteer time, combined with the ease with which the requests can be generated, equals a backlog that I don't see being knocked out even with ten Spintendos at the helm. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I'm about to run anything over a few sentences through a checker before I even bother seeing what they're wanting to implement.

My favorite recent one came back with the "I apologize for cutting off the source link; here is the full and complete URL you requested: [same home page for the wrong domain that certainly never covered the topic in question]." ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat, when you get really obvious AI failures like this, please just grab an admin to read them the riot act. Don't let them waste your time. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Their previous requests were less obvious. I did cut them off after that one. It's the same garbage a dozen other TAs have been pushing, which is why the page is protected. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 19:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I've been telling those folks that for me at least, a long list of edits in a single request is daunting and looks like hours of work. I've been recommending they prioritize and, starting with the most important, one at a time, request 'change "x" to "y" based on source Z (link) which says "quote" about that'. I know it'll mean more requests in number, but honestly when I click to an edit request that looks like it'll take hours, I just go for whatever looks like the lowest hanging fruit, make that change, provide the above advice, and mark the request as answered. Valereee (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I usually prefer if they're small and numerous. If it's one big request I generally have to spend some time splitting it up for them. I suppose I could just close with WP:CHANGEXY instead but it seems pretty hit or miss on them coming back with a request that's better (and not just longer). Packrat3860 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've been plugging away here and there at Food & Drink, and there's nothing older than yesterday now (where it had been a couple months). I'm wondering about maybe encouraging people to claim their niche knowledge like we do with adopting a typo we check on a regular basis? Valereee (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think it would help if there are folks who are interested in certain areas for sure but in my limited experience it's going to be Biographies and articles about companies taking up the Lions share of the backlog. Which means it's very possible that topical subsets of the backlog will be in good shape but overall there's still a lot waiting. Packrat3860 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, the intersection of food + COI tends to be food companies, restaurant chains, bios of food company leadership. Occasionally there will be something I'm actually interested in, but I'm willing to go through the boring ones within my wheelhouse to encourage good behavior. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think this feature request could help in that department. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 02:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oop, inactive for another weekend and we're back up by another 100 to ~950. If anyone who knows how can activate a backlog drive, that would be most helpful. I'm a bit busy at the moment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• I'll throw out a couple of ideas for managing the queue inspired by DrOrinScrivello's comment above. First, it might be helpful to have some kind of edit filter or bot for tracking whether a COI editor has edited the article after posting a request on the talk page. I am concerned that with response times growing longer, some COI editors will lose patience and unilaterally implement their requested changes. The vast majority of COI editors placing requests have been waiting their turn, but like others in this thread, I have seen isolated instances where they did not.

Second, as others have mentioned, the problem is that AI has made it too easy to generate an edit request and we can't keep up. I have been mulling over the idea of requiring large edit requests to be drafted on-wiki so that it takes longer and requires more effort, and to have the edit history provide some clues for assessing possible AI use. Maybe we could mandate that all edit requests longer than 500 words must be drafted in the user's sandbox, and the edit history must show that the drafting took a period of time and number of edits commensurate with a human effort. Requests that don't comply can be summarily rejected unless they flag serious factual errors or BLP issues. Of course, that doesn't stop enterprising users from breaking up an AI-generated draft into chunks and posting it over time, but maybe the additional effort required would disincentivize at least some drive-by requests. Altamel (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• I think we need some consensus decision on whether COIERs generated with AI should be answered (albeit with high caution) on the basis that it encourages potentially-problematic editors to do things a better way than directly editing the article, or rejected on sight per WP:LLMTALK on the basis that the community cannot handle the resulting backlog. Is this the sort of thing that will need an RfC? Or do we just go with the second path as it is strictly policy-compliant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  The first would be nice, but I suggest we do a 2-sector editing drive (of which both could be reasonably one big editing drive, but them being separated is also plausible)

  Sector 1 is filtering out all the AI-generated edit requests,

  Sector 2 is answering the ones that aren't. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 16:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all policy. An AI-generated request to correct a factual error or BLP issue should be treated differently than (in the extreme case) one of those "please rewrite this article from scratch". I frankly don't care how someone asks me to fix, say, a section about their personal life sourced only to tabloids, we should just fix it. Everything else, eh. Rusalkii (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  Agree. Someone who doesn't understand wikipedia is trying to ask for help to solve their problem. So long as they haven't given us a brand-new ai-vomit version of the article, I think declining them and forcing someone to rewrite the request itself is just going to add extra annoyance for submitters and ultimately more ERs for us. (Also, I've noticed, tracking agents about the place, that AI is often better at explaining what actually needs to be done than humans are.) In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  Some of them won't bother to try again, which is perfectly fine with me when they're trying to push unacceptable changes anyway. That's less work instead of more. If it's a simple, well formed change A to B with a solid source I'm probably not going to worry about whether or not it's generated, but when their use of it devolves into increasingly lengthy and tedious requests (to say nothing of invented sources) I run out of patience quickly. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  I have limited patience as well (as does everyone) but I don't like to feel like I'm declining a request just cause I didn't feel like giving it the attention it would require. Not that I don't understand it in a way, it just doesn't feel good to kick some request back on a technicality even though the technicalities matter and they really should be responsible for them.

  I tend to be pretty skeptical of like big red warning text because the people who are most annoying aren't gonna read it anyway, but I think it might help to explain that big tangled requests are probably gonna end up waiting a long time. Following WP:CHANGEXY, formatting sources and citing them in line, and doing at least some basic vetting for tone and source quality means you have a much better chance of someone picking your request to work on.

  I think that maybe if we were a bit more up front with that the problem would start to solve itself in a way. It's not a queue where once you get to the front you get to demand somebody's time. It's a big "help wanted" board. If what you want help with is gonna be a royal pain because you're trying to get a 5000 word draft approved in one shot then it may be a bit before somebody volunteers. Packrat3860 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that trying to stress the improved response rate to concise and well formed requests would help as a carrot to go with the summarily declined stick. Regular COI editors should be able to pick up on it quickly, and SPAs are often unwilling to accept and abide by WP standards anyway. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 06:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to start a wikiproject/revive WP:Integrity, because every drive seems to have an associated wikiproject or practically have one in the cases of GAN and NPP. It would also let give us somewhere to put discussions and guides ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 20:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

That is true, all drives are connected to a "hub" of some kind, whether that be one for a WikiProject or a formal process of some kind.

I think because this is strictly about a single formal process rather than integrity in general it might be best to make a page called Wikipedia:Conflict of interest edit requests, put information about the process on it (I think the closest we currently have to that is WP:COIREQ), then add some subpages; backlog coordination, a basic how-to for prospective reviewers, a leaderboard etc.

I will go throw together a quick example of how it could look. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a great idea, and I appreciate you putting in the effort to get it started. Let me know if there's any way I can help.DrOrinScrivello (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

While we're at it: I'm not able to commit to running a drive at the moment, but if there's technical support you or anyone else wants in organizing the project, running the drive, or just making answering requests easier I'm happy to do so. Boys, userscripts, more data for the leaderboard, whatever. Can't promise I can make any specific idea happen but feel free to give me your wishlists and I'll see what I can do. Rusalkii (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It appears the tool for responding to COI edit requests is unmaintained, as its author hasn't edited (at least on enwiki, don't know for others as my school blocks various WMF sites) since the October 30th of last year and 2 bug reports are sitting on the talkpage. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 02:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Turns out there's already a WikiProject Edit requests, which explicitly covers COI edit requests, so we should all probably just join that and write COI related docs there. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 14:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm an active editor with an outstanding request of over a month, so hopefully I can provide some useful insight, though it's obviously going to be flawed because I am experienced and not new like most requesters. My main frustration is that I have no idea why my request is outstanding; maybe nobody interested has looked at it, maybe people have looked at it and decided it's too complex, maybe they're not confident in all of it but agree with parts of it? It's a guessing game, and I can't imagine how much more frustrating that would be for someone who has no idea what the behind the scenes at Wikipedia is like. I'd personally like to make the request easier to answer – I suspect I can do something, since I'm well past the median date of 16 days mentioned above – but I don't know how to make my request easier to answer if I don't know why it's not being answered. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Update: now over 1,100. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I thiink what would be best is a quickly but efficiently organised editing drive for November or December to clear this backlog, as it is critical rather than the much smaller ones at WP:EPER or WP:SPER. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 16:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

TBF the bot not updating means those can't get cleared. I've been doing some. But yeah I think a backlog drive would really help. Packrat3860 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

It also means that new requests haven't been added, and they almost certainly outweigh the ones that have been done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm giving her all she's got capn ;_;7

Seems there is no way around more requests coming in than we have bandwidth to address with drumming up some more reviewers. Packrat3860 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

correction: without drumming up more... Packrat3860 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request from CarnaticHistoryEditor

CarnaticHistoryEditor (talk · contribs · count)

The following is a collation of their unblock request and relevant follow-up responses:

Hi team Despite being advised that this was not acceptable, I clearly understand the problem stems from the continuing AI-generated wording. I acknowledge that I am not only the subject of the draft but that I have also edited it, which is a relevant conflict of interest. In future, I will use the talk-page/edit-request process and will change how I communicate and edit. I reassure you that I shall not use AI-generated words when communicating with Wikipedia editors. Further, I will not repeat the same question once guidance has been offered.
[responding to a prompt from Rosguill to explain their past behavior:] First of all, I must confess that I took the warning lightly. I thought I could use AI as a language-corrector. I do now appreciate that Wikipedia expected my editor-to editor communication to be written entirely by me. I realise that the warning and that the repeated attempts were my mistake. Further, I will not directly edit Draft: Ravi M. Ravichandhira. I will use the talk-page/edit-request process to make suggestions. They will be supported by independent reliable sources. Any minor editing I may do will be limited to pages in which I have no conflict of interest. For example: typo corrections; updating citations or correcting non-controversial errors. I can assure you that the talk page/edit-request process will be used to propose removal or correction of unsupported material in my draft.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Original block was due to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1234#Continued LLMTALK after notices * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't indefinite unblock requests be considered only after 6 months? Gigman (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no specific time requirement for anything other than ArbCom bans. The 6-month standard offer is a convention but not a hard requirement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Wonder why no one told me that before. Then I'll support. Gigman (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. On 21 October 2026, I had declined this unblock request for the following reason:

Your comment below, Special:Diff/1380715479, appears to be LLM-generated or heavily LLM-assisted to an extent that brings into question how much of the comment was directly written by you. As you have been blocked for misusing LLMs to generate discussion comments, your continued LLM use here severely weakens your unblock request, which I am declining.

At the time, I had not realized that the unblock request is being discussed here. In light of this discussion, I have vacated the decline and modified the unblock request template to reflect the current discussion. CarnaticHistoryEditor's LLM-generated comment Special:Diff/1380715479 was posted on 17 October 2026, after their unblock request was filed. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Newslinger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Unban request from Alfdeckse

From User talk:Alfdeckse#Unblock request

First of all, I am very sorry for my actions, and I understand that using or editing in another account and trying to evade a block violates Wikipedia rules, and I take full responsibility for what I did. I promise to operate only in a single account and will not use another account to evade blocks or restrictions. I really wanted to help out in Wikipedia, and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to return. Please consider giving me a second chance. Thank you. 🙏 Alfdeckse (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User is considered WP:3X banned - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrrivjwjhv/Archive. Was originally a CheckUser block but has already been cu-cleared. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support - The appeal sounds convincing enough for me Gigman (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I filed the SPI report that led to this being split out as its own case, and I believe this user has not edited since their March appeal. However, their disclosed first (?) account JjEeEeNn was blocked for edit warring , an issue which reoccurred with multiple socks . When I asked them about this, they responded using AI . Their accounts' talk pages also have multiple warnings for other concerns . I know it is hard to appeal these things so I was on the fence about it. I'd suggest that Alfdeckse pick one account, make a few months of substantive edits to Commons (they seem interested in images) and/or their native language wiki, then appeal again using only their own words. I do want them to have another chance here. NicheSports (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now per NicheSports, suggest following the advice there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Jeffersonkendric unban request

From utrs:116271

I am requesting an unblock for my original account Jeffersonkendric. I acknowledge that I engaged in sockpuppetry, which was wrong and disruptive yet I have cooldown for 2-5 years already. As of now I am already matured, understanding the block, doesn't violate or disrupting the rules already.

User is WP:3X banned, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffersonkendric. Last known set of sockpuppets was 5 years ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• 2~5 years is a fair amount of time to reset a 3x, but I would like to see where Jeff plans to edit constructively. JayCubby 19:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support unban with restrictions - I agree with Jay. Though it's been a long time, but from my experience, guys here don't like the tone of "Release me I served the time", so I suggest you rewrite your appeal and make it more detailed, explaining why did your account got banned and how you will avoid socking in the future. Until then, I can only support the unban with single-account restriction condition. Gigman (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support unban with restrictions I understand block was for socking and creating hoax articles. Would support unban with a single-account restriction and a ban on new article creation without using AfC. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support With restriction on article creation. Lorstaking (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. After 5 years I don't see any reason not to allow a fresh start. If they are unblocked then obviously any return of unacceptable editing will lead to reblocking, but as long as there isn't any unacceptable editing I see no reason to impose any restrictions that aren't imposed on the rest of us. Why should we hold what they did that long ago against them? Which one of us did not do things at the age of 14 which it would have been grossly unreasonable to hold against us when we had reached 19? JBW (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to support but have some questions - 2-5yrs is confusing me a little. The last sock we know of is 5 years old, is that right? There's a three year gap between 2 & 5 years, so I'm wondering where this estimate came from (you'd usually say something like "2-3 years" or "4-5 years"). Even on Commons, I'm not seeing anything younger than five years. That said, two years is still a while ago, so it's not a huge concern, just a question that lingers on my mind. It could just be a language issue, that they been they've matured over the past two years - the brevity of the appeal isn't helping my understanding.

Honestly, it's a little tricky for me to assess the appeal as a whole, since we've only got a couple of sentences to help us understand whether they should be given another chance, and (much more importantly) what sort of restrictions to place on editing, if any.

I do think they should probably be unblocked, but I'm not sure if there should be a specific topic or article creation ban on top of this. Yes they've probably matured over time (most of us do), but why did they create hoaxes & socks in the first place? Can we get a little more insight from them, so we can see how much they've matured & guage what sort of guardrails & support they might need need going forwards? Why do they wish to be unblocked now? What do they intend to edit going forwards? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a restriction preventing article creation outside of AFC. Five years is long enough for this editor to have matured, they can be given a second chance. Worst-case scenario, we block them again. The article creation restriction would also prevent the original disruption that got them blocked (the hoax articles) making this even less likely to cause problems. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 23:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest VRT queue rolling appointment application – October 2026

The Arbitration Committee has received an application for the conflict of interest VRT queue permissions from Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and has reviewed it in consultation with the functionaries team. The Committee invites the community to evaluate the candidacy and comment on the talk page of this noticeboard until 23:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC).

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT queue rolling appointment application – October 2026

Spam and possible AI Bot use by DavidLevinson

I was waiting for a response from the editor, but 3 other editors preferred to bring it to AN(I) immediately, so here we are.

Admin User:DavidLevinson is (self-disclosed) the same as David M. Levinson, a professor who is among other things the "founding editor of the Journal of Transport and Land Use" and "the founding editor of Findings.

Between 10 and 14 October, they added references to their own papers, or to the two magazines mentioned above, to some 150 articles, with 90+ added on 14 October between 04:30 and 08:47. This includes e.g. adding 5 references to his journal (and none to others) in one go here or here, within minutes of other similar edits. This massive example came 2 minutes after their previous edit, followed one minute later by this.

This not only is a severe case of self-promotion (WP:COI spam at the very least, probably a WP:PAID violation as well), but raises concerns that this is being done by some AI bot.

While this seems to be the first time they did such a massive run, smaller spamming sprees also happened in e.g. August. Their recent edits have all been reverted (older ones may still need cleanup), but if other actions are necessary, this should be decided here. I don't personally see how they can remain an admin after this. Fram (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

That is very concerning, and indeed not compatible with holding advanced rights. The additions demonstrate the pattern we often see in journal spam: overly technical and specific additions to pages, which degrade the accessibility. Editorship of these kinds of journals is usually unpaid. That is: the journal itself will not give you money and your university might give you hours for it, but not always and usually doesn't have an stake in its success. So to me this feels more like COI editing than PAID, but views can differ.

If we look at David's admin actions: he's mostly stopped doing things with the tools since 2008, except an occassional undelete. The last one, in 2023, was unexplained in the logs and reverted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Fleishman (2nd nomination).

David, given you're not using the tools much, would you be willing to resign them at WP:BN? You might have a good explanation instead, but with the facts at hand, I find it unlikely there will be support for you to retain the tools and this is the kindest route. In addition, I believe a tban from these two journals in necessary. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:00, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Femke. I'm unconvinced that PAID is relevant here, but everything else is very concerning. I'd like to see @DavidLevinson's response before any discussion of next steps, including any potential sanctions, unless one is not forthcoming soon. Note that the majority of their recent contributions have been in the morning UTC (most commonly circa 02:00-09:00) and there are sometimes gaps of several days where they don't edit so a lack of immediate response isn't necessarily going to be ANI flu. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

As I stated on Fram's talk page - their last user talk edit was in 2024 - replying to someone asking if they used AI to edit and replying with what I would consider to be a non-denial denial...

Last page talk edit was 2026 and the one before that was 2022... Turini2 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Also agree that a resignation at WP:BN would make sense, although that shouldn't distract us from the matter at hand, which is the massive amount of COI spamming. Admin tools, as far as I know, have not been used for that purpose, meaning resigning them wouldn't solve the issue itself.

We shouldn't be caught in a Super Mario effect, and I would like, at the very least, to hear a clarification from David about the whole process: what their goal was, which tools were used to make edits at that rate, whether financial or work incentives from the journals they edit were at play, etc. Alongside, of course, a clear commitment to cease doing this, which could for example take the shape of a voluntary topic ban on self-citing or COI editing. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This is behaviour not compatible with holding a mop regardless of the wider issue here and even more disappointing to see from a University professor. Also a good case study for the argument that people who do not use a mop should not have a mop. I would add to Femke's suggestion that they hang up the mop at WP:BN they also do so saying they waive the right to regain on request and if seeking the mop in the future they would use RfA or ALELECT. KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, if DavidLevinson resigns now that would effectively be under a cloud and there would be no need for them to waive the right to ask for the bit back, as it seems unlikely that the crats would be willing to re-grant it in those circumstances. Just something to clarify I suppose, since the community has made its opinions clear on both LLM usage and COI editing. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I did presume it would count as "under a cloud", but just thought clarity upfront is always preferable and also would show they accepted they had crossed the line, rather than just leave it in the "unlikely" category. KylieTastic (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Crats have always been very clear that cloudiness is determined at the time tools are requested, not when they are relinquished. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but why are admin activity requirements predicated on edits within a certain time period, rather than admin actions? A basic requirement for being an admin is needing the tools, and would we really trust someone who hasn't had a logged admin action for eg. a decade (have seen this before) to make good use of them? The tools are to be used to serve the community/project, not meant to be a status thing, if someone's not using them then they shouldn't have them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, not all admin actions being logged is probably the biggest reason. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Situations like that are partly why WP:RECALL was created. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I glanced at a few pages yesterday, as this matter has come up on W-------------. I found the content being added to be non-problematic on the face of it (not having confirmed any sources). I feel this was pretty obviously an effort to insert personally-written or -published material, I didn't have the slightest inkling that this was paid editing fare and would bet heavily against that. I got the impression the poster was a subject expert, which is a good thing. I found the pace of additions to be pretty obviously LLM-driven and highly concerning. I doubt that any potential COI notices were being declared either. I find the behavior to be unbecoming of an administrator, personally. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It's incredible that an admin and veteran editor would self-promote using unapproved automated edits like this. Not only will he clearly be desysopped if he doesn't resign, but I wonder if other restrictions are needed. Fences&Windows 19:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

He's not editing right now, so no need for a block to stop ongoing disruption, but I'd be happy to pblock from main if this resumes. The break between this editing behaviour and their previous is very stark. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

If he resumes editing, and doesn't respond, I assume the next step will be a WP:ADMINRECALL petition? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

If they resume editing and don't respond then a recall petition is something that should be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The arbcom route for emergency desysops is still open, so a recall petition is not required as a next step even if someone wishes to start a desysop process. But my comment was strictly about blocks regarding the disruptive editing, which should happen whether or not a desysop process is initiated. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with those urging a resignation of the tools, and that this is an obvious case of COI editing. I endorse the reversion of the edits adding references to his articles and journals he edits in the recent runs. I have two additional concerns. Regarding admin actions, the undeletion noted by Femke, of Glenn Fleishman on 11 March 2023 (I've linked to Wayback since I can't see deleted edits), remains unexplained and judging from a talk page notice, after it was draftified in error as a supposedly new article, DavidLevinson rapidly submitted it at AfC. Yet he did not respond at the AfD in November, which he does not seem to have been notified about. David Levinson, why did you undelete that particular article? There may have been a good reason, but if there wasn't, that's tool misuse, only 3½ years ago, which isn't a lifetime even on Wikipedia. And failing to state that reason for undeleting an article deleted at AfD is not a good look in the first place. My second concern is about the applicability of the references recently added; I noticed one of Fram's examples on Fram's talk page was this to a co-authored paper at Bus stop, in support of the citation-needed-tagged point "Bus stop consolidation has been proven to improve operating efficiency and ridership on bus routes.", but the summary of the paper states an optimal stop spacing exists that maximizes accessibility; neither short nor excessive stop spacing are efficient in providing accessibility., which is not an endorsement of consolidation per se. Moreover, if the paper says anything about increasing ridership, it's not in the summary (which is all I can see); it's about "accessibility", which it defines as reachability (and which the lay reader who sees that title in the references may well interpret in terms of handicap accessibility, which is what made my eyebrows go up when I first clicked on that diff after seeing the same report at an external criticism site as Carrite, since I have an axe to grind about bus stop consolidation from the perspective of that meaning of accessibility, which is used as a common legal shorthand). The paper also generalises from train stops, which other experts may not necessarily agree is valid, but ok. Femke raises a different point (using the word "accessibility" as a matter of fact), that the citations added constitute "overly technical and specific"; I don't think that's a big concern for citations—readers don't have to consult the citations in an article, and we allow not only citations to sources like this one that require expensive subscriptions or university affiliation, but foreign-language and dead-tree citations ... and we actually mandate highly technical and specific citations in medical and medical-adjacent articles! But it's vital that citations support what they purport to support. If they don't, it's much worse than having no citation and a tag saying so. Maybe the article summary was (also) bot-authored and the authors do support the entire statement in their paper. But IMO DavidLevinson also has a point to answer as an editor, regarding applicability of the citations added. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

My point was that citing small primary studies often results in people using overly technical prose that is inappropriate for the likely audience of the articles. The recommendation is to mostly rely on secondary sources per WP:SCIRS, which also avoids problems of promoting specific small bits of research over others. Of course, using mostly scientific papers is fine. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:42, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

This would definitely be ripe for an WP:AIN report if it wasn't for the exacerbating circumstance of extra privileges. --Joy (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from making an AINB report. Admins screwing up in content spaces should not be given a pass on the normal community procedures simply because they are admins. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, my intent with that was only to the contrary. I think an admonishment in this forum is far more severe than just one on the AI noticeboard (because a combined violation of policy about not just AI but about conflict of interest etc should lead to a more severe sanction). --Joy (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Re: "..,should not be given a pass on the normal community procedures simply because they are admins", see Wikipedia:Super Mario effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a developing consensus that dual reports at AN or ANI and AINB is not forumshopping, as AINB is mainly tasked with cleanup. M kuhner (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I am responsible for the edits made through my account, including the selection of sources, the wording, and whether each citation supports the accompanying claim. I used AI assistance to organise the edits into a coherent plan of edits, which have been accumulating in my notes for a while, and for creating properly formatted citation references. I am a subject matter expert for these edits, which I was under the impression that Wikipedia wanted more of. ^{[citation needed]} My name is known (I am not anonymous, running this as a spambot, not trying to deceive or hide this by doing this one edit a day for a year, I am not using a sock puppet. I am not paid for using Wikipedia or for editing journals. The journals cited are almost entirely Open Access and non-profit). The objective was to add peer-reviewed knowledge to Wikipedia, largely in the domain of transport.

I will not restore the reverted additions, though for the vast majority I do think someone should.

Regarding the 2023 undeletion of Glenn Fleishman, the author is sufficiently notable in my view, and my general view of these processes is formed in the early days of wikipedia when "Be Bold" still mattered and bureaucracy did not exist.

I did not use any special administrator tools as far as I know for these or other recent edits. dml (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our policies on conflict-of-interest editing and self-citing? Regarding your use of AI assistance to organise the edits into a coherent plan of edits, can you clarify where it falls in our spectrum from semi-automated to fully automated editing? (cf. Wikipedia:AI agents and the bot policy)

We do want editors to be bold, and it matters today more than ever, but a certain level of care is required with administrative tools, especially for actions that go against previous consensus. If I make a bold edit to an article, and someone disagrees, they can revert it and discuss how to go forward. If I boldly undelete an article, someone without admin tools can't do anything about it, even if previous discussions established that the article should be deleted. An administrator's tools should not weigh more than another editor's voice. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:24, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

David, how would you respond to the comments @Yngvadottir: made a couple paragraphs above regarding the applicability of some of the references you added? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for responding, DavidLevinson. But with respect, undeleting an article is by definition a use of admin tools. And if you were convinced the subject was notable even after the draft was rejected, why didn't you defend the article at the second AfD? Being bold is intended to be followed by editorial give and take; that's what a wiki is. Also, I do agree Wikipedia benefits from experts, but as I see Iggy pop goes the weasel already asked, can you please respond to my specific point about the Bus stop citation? I can see addition of that citation as a definite improvement if it had been made as part of replacing the uncited claim with a claim supported by the reported study. But it's entirely possible I am misinterpreting the study based on only being able to see its summary.

Did you use AI tools to identify places to insert the citations—the notes you refer to—as well as to plan the order of edits and format the citations? As I understand current policy, that has a bearing on whether it was unallowed LLM usage as well as (by virtue of frequency of the edits) botlike editing subject to scrutiny under bot policy. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Recall. No response to the in-depth evaluation by Yngvadottir, nor any consideration regarding NEWLLM. We can go round in circles, or just get it over with, SME or not, this is not a game of super mario. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion is explictly one of the special administrator tools, and to undelete without any explanation whatsoever can very easily be seen on its own as abuse of the tools; undeleting after the article was deleted at AfD is absolutely abuse of the tools. I too feel bad that things have gotten so much tighter than they were in the early days of wikipedia...but regardless of whether that tightening is right or wrong, (a) we as administrators are obliged to use the tools to enforce the rules as the community has laid down, not how we believe they should be, and (b) 2023 was by no stretch the early days of the encyclopedia. Also looking back further, the 2021 undelation of Amcal is troubling; while it was explained in the log, and was a reversion of a speedy deletion due to spam that probably should have been simply reverted to a good version of the article...the last editor to edit the 'good version' of the page before it had been deleted was you, and as the log says only one revision was undeleted, it appears that you only restored a single revert, presumably one of the ones that was yours, while leaving all the previous history deleted - which rendered the page a copyright violation until Izno undeleted the rest of the reversions two years later. However, even more concerning, your previous undeletion before that, of Ashfield Mall in 2017, was also undoing a AfD result on your own initiative, and the explanation in the log actually manages to be worse than the most recent no-explanation one, as it's a "it's notable" assertion a mere month after the article was deleted at AfD for not being notable. Going back further would be going back to 2008, and while that is a long time ago I see again multiple examples of your undeleting pages without giving any explanation as to why. This is a consistent and persistent history of misuse of the tools over a long period of time. Given this, I must formally request you resign the tools (and please note that this is not intended in any way to prejudice additional actions against you as an editor for LLM useage). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I am uninvolved but I read, before any of the replies in this thread above, I did not use any special administrator tools as far as I know for these or other recent edits as meaning "these or other recent edits" as just about the edits adding the their own works as sources and other "recent" edits. The undeletion in 2023 was neither recent nor an edit. And so I believe the intention of the statement was accurate and I'm a bit concerned by the interpretation of other editors. Of course, I am also concerned that an editor, let alone an admin, would perform the recent edits. Skynxnex (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

This is an insufficient explanation. If you want to keep the admin tools without others taking it to recall or ARB, it is imperative that you do a better job of explaining, and if necessary, apologizing and giving a path forward to ensure it doesn't happen again. This is the same standard we have for all editors with any advanced rights, admin are not exempt. If anything, admin are held to a higher standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

How long have you been using AI to edit? I ask, given your reply to a talk message in 2024 – hey david did you use AI to make the article about AI? [...]" David reply "Interesting observation! It’s always good to get different perspectives on writing style. [...]" To me, your 2024 reply is a non-denial denial. Turini2 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

"I am a subject matter expert for these edits, which I was under the impression that Wikipedia wanted more of." To provide insight in the best authors and studies in the wider field, to check the contributions of others, that kind of stuff. Not to exclusively or predominantly add your own writings or studies from papers you have founded. You are welcome to add general knowledge about your field of expertise, but what you did is very obviously spamming. Your above reply completely ignores this. Fram (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find it strange when long-term admins (or editors) seem to want/get more slack over not intentions how Wikipedia works. Surely someone who's been here a long time would have more experience & knowledge, not less? Similarly with the whole AI thing (if it's indeed been used here) - I can't imagine any admin would be unfamiliar with the damage it's been causing & the associated P&G's that have been implemented since.

Editors should be bold, but admins should be careful.

I would expect an admin with such a long tenure to take extreme care when it comes to possible COI editing. Admins should be well aware of the problems COI & paid editing cause to the project (as well as LLM's) so it's strange for me to read this discussion.

Reinstating articles that the community decided to delete is, honestly, very concerning to me (especially without any explanation or justification). Then there's the fact that it's happened more than once...

It's a powerful statement: The opinion of a single admin is more important and worthy than the wishes of the Wikipedia community. It doesn't matter what we decide, because one person in power can just overrule the rest of us. The AFD may as well not exist.

I don't think that was the intent, but it doesn't change the impression it gives to the rest of us.

I get the same vibe from the sourcing: "As a subject matter expert, my papers and articles are more important, so they should get cited more. I know the subject better than regular editors, so it's fine for me to do this." Again I'm not saying that's the intent, but it doesn't change how it looks from the outside.

There's a serious power imbalance here, which urgently needs to be addressed.

We desperately need admins, but they also need to hold the trust and respect of the community.

I really hope this can be resolved asap. We need clarity on what happened, why it happened, and what we need to do going forwards. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Surely someone who's been here a long time would have more experience & knowledge, not less? Yes this is covered in WP:CLUE: We just expect that most of the time you'll be posting cluefully. A big part of that is admitting when you've said or done something clueless. I'm not seeing that second part yet. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

In relation to [s]urely someone who's been here a long time would have more experience & knowledge, not less?, I think it might be that en-WP's policies, guidelines, behavioural standards etc have changed a lot over the years. Newbies get slack for having no experience, and it's my belief that oldies get slack for not realizing that something they view as routine and standard may no longer be okay. Of course in both cases the editor in question should be willing to go 'oops, my bad, I didn't realize and won't do it again' and be a little more careful in the future. Meadowlark (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree - part of this is being unfamiliar with the myriad changes to policies and guidelines that have happened since David passed RfA. So I can see why he would have said that. Not that I agree (in fact, his lack of up-to-date knowledge of modern-day policies and guidelines raises more than a few eyebrows), but just saying i understand. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the older I get the easier it is to understand - your brain tends to get stuck in a certain place (I swear the nineties were ten years ago, I don't care what the calendar says).

That said, I just realised the requirements to be an active admin are one edit/admin action per 12 months, so it is entirely possible for an "active" admin to be pretty out of the loop when it comes to current Wikipedia events.

It's a little counterintuitive for me, I honestly thought it was much more than this but I guess my brain made that part up!

Anyway, I stand corrected on this part. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for explaining your workflow. I really hate piling on, but unfortunately, I think the comments above themselves show insufficient familiarity with modern-day Wikipedia policy:

• The first paragraph does not really address if you have directly edited using AI. If you have, please note that this is not acceptable per WP:NOLLM.
• As Chaotic Enby said, it may be a good idea to review our policies on conflict-of-interest editing and self-citing.
• Regarding the 2023 undeletion of Glenn Fleishman, the author is sufficiently notable in my view, and my general view of these processes is formed in the early days of wikipedia when "Be Bold" still mattered and bureaucracy did not exist. - A deletion that you think was improper would be challenged at WP:DRV, not directly by undeleting the article.

I'm really sorry, but barring additional clarification on these points, I would have to agree with others that a recall might be the best option here. Even with an ironclad commitment not to do these things again, I do not know if that would solve the issue that several users above have lost confidence in your ability to responsibly use the admin toolset. While adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and admins are just regular users with access to additional tools, WP:ADMINCOND also holds us to a higher standard, and thus far I do not see these actions as adequately meeting that standard. (Edited. 13:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Just an FYI that an administrator recall petition related to this incident has been filed: Wikipedia:Administrator recall/DavidLevinson. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

RE I think the comments above themselves insufficient familiarity, please can you fix this sentence so it makes sense? I think the word "themselves" needs replacing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Not Epicgenius, but if you mentally add a "show/demonstrate" in between "themselves" and "insufficient", it makes sense. So I assume something like that is what was met. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, that was what I meant. Sometimes I type too fast and mistakenly omit words. My bad. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The recall petition filed two hours ago was successful.

Per WP:SUPERMARIO, how would this behaviour have been sanctioned if this editor hadn't been an admin? FaviFake (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

More slowly, thoughtfully and with consideration for remedies that actually related to the issues at hand. A petition that lasted 8 hours start to finish and took place 2 days after the subject last edited is sadly more evidence that the RECALL process as implemented is fundamentally broken. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I see it as a roaring the RECALL process as implemented as a success. But that's besides the point and not what I was asking. FaviFake (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake Anything from dropping off AN/I due to lack of editing to cban/indefinite block w/ strong community source, given general exhaustion towards LLM use. No WP:FANCLUB I can see, and no real engagement with the community, so any sanctions, if proposed, don't seem like they'd have likely turned contentious unless a regular got a bee in their bonnet about some process issue. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake, please remember that there's a human behind each username. We don't say that a recall petition is successful or a "roaring success" but only that it's certified or reached 25 signatories.

I suggested a tban on self-citations and the journals David is involved in above. I hope we can end it with that, if David gives us a commitment not to use LLMs to write article content. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 10:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh no that's not what I meant. I was referring to the RECALL process as implemented and the general history of usage of RECALL, not this specific petition. On second thought, I see why my expression could be misinterpreted, I've edited that. Sorry for the unclear wording.

Sounds good. FaviFake (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake The RECALL process as implemented is absolutely not a "roaring success" because the goal was not to give 25 self-selecting auto-confirmed editors the power to desysop editors for any or no reason without the subject even necessarily being aware that their adminship is being discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm allowed to have my own opinions. And, again, this remains unrelated to my original comment and not something that I wish or wished to discuss here. FaviFake (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

And they didn't desysop an editor - they merely forced the editor to answer for their acts as a sysop within a month if they want to remain one. It's a completely reasonable demand, given how much acrimony we have here about what they did. --Joy (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I would have agreed, except the admin:

• Was aware of our concerns
• Responded in a way that didn't assuage/address them
• Instead, the response exacerbated our concerns.
• All of this happened prior to the petition being raised.

If a single one of these elements were missing, I don't think I would have signed.

It's difficult when a respondent doesn't edit for days after concerns have been raised, since noticeboard threads get forgotten and archived over time. This thread had already mentioned the recall process and David had been asked to voluntarily resign the tools before responding, so it's logical to consider that someone would initiate the recall process as a next step.

We have had frivolous recall petitions in the past, thankfully all the ones I've come across died almost immediately.

There's no set waiting period for this sort of thing right now though; if anyone feels there should, perhaps this should be suggested at an RfC or similar? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

As the filer, I feel that should address why I started the petition. DavidLevinson had addressed the discussion over 24 hours prior, several users had asked for a resignation/discussed a recall, and I felt that the conduct was enough to merit an RRFA at a minimum. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It reached the signature threshold in a matter of hours, so I would say this was a perfectly reasonable action. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 02:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake If the editing continued without appropriate explanation, the editor would be blocked to prevent disruption; that's still on the table here, but I assume that the message has been received and we won't need to do that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see anything in their reply that "the message has been received" and a topic ban from any COI editing in the mainspace might be better at preventing further disruption without needing to block them. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

As the situation stands now, I don't think there's going to be anything to prevent. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Varoon2542 engaging in blatant Islamophobia, name-calling, hostile conduct, battleground behavior, and repeated slow edit-warring despite repeated warnings and previous block

Concern about new User:Impatin

Repeated tag removal and source-verification concerns

• Zunkir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Mari texts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across Mari texts during NPP. The article covered an interesting historical subject, but I noticed writing patterns that raised concerns about possible large language model use. Some source links also appeared to be broken, including this PDF link, whose accessible URL appears to be this one. The claim in Archaic Texts was cited to "Charpin in SDB 2008, col. 222–223", but the cited passage does not fully support the claim. I tagged it as potentially AI-generated.

Zunkir removed the tag, stating in the edit summary: not AI-generated: translated from a French article I wrote (checked machine translation, see my sandbox). I checked the sandbox history mentioned in the edit summary. Even if the text was translated into English in the sandbox, its claims still need to be fully supported by the cited reliable sources and verifiable.

I added the tag again per WP:AIDISCLAIMER, with a more specific rationale: The Sallaberger source does not fully support the claims in the paragraph beginning with 'These are administrative documents...'. There is also a disambiguation link. The tag was removed again.

In the edit summary, Zunkir wrote: "Their administrative background" p. 342 "texts from the administrative quarter" p. 346 and so on ... I read the article, obviously you did not; this accusation is ridiculous and insulting if it's based on such assumptions. For example, the paragraph says It is unclear to which administrative body they belonged, as there is no clear indication of a connection to the royal palace, but they do provide some information regarding the institutions common at the time.

After I left a {{Uw-ewsoft}} warning on Zunkir's talk page, Zunkir replied on the same page:

For what I can see, you're the one who modified the article without valid justification, and without attempting to discuss beforehand, accusing me without further elaboration. I know the subject, I've read the articles and books I quoted, I wrote the original article according to Wikipedian standards. The translation is based on a machine translator, I checked it and modified it on my sandbox before submitting it. It's probably improvable, but the article is not AI-generated. I will have no difficulty proving it if your accusation goes further. You should move on to something else so you don't waste any more of our time. Regards

I am bringing this matter to the noticeboard to report the repeated removal of the tag without addressing concerns that some paragraphs are not fully supported by their cited sources, as well as concerns about the response to routine editorial review under WP:CIVIL. AriuCH (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to my reply already quoted above. It's a translation, I wrote the original for a French article on a broader topic, then extracted it, reworked it, and translated it using machine translation. That may explain the issue with the writing pattern. But I checked it on my sandbox and made some changes before creating the article. This process should be easy to verify.

As for the issue regarding the "administrative" nature of the archives studied by Sallaberger, according to me it's obvious that they are treated as administrative sources, and it should be to anyone familiar with cuneiform documentation. Anyway I don't see how the issue to whether I'm right or wrong on this specific point (a single paragraph) is related to the use of generative AI. Zunkir (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir can I please confirm you've followed all five steps at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation when creating this article?

It's important to remember that different Wikipedia's have different requirements, so you need to ensure your English Wikipedia article meets English Wikipedia policies & guidelines. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It's the same on French Wikipedia. And obviously machine translators are not well versed in Ancient History, so their translations require strict control. 1/ I think so (this is not the first article I have written in the English Wikipedia; before this one, no complaints) 2/ I wrote the original article myself in 2023 and selected the parts to be translated in my sandbox on French Wikipedia 3/ I checked the translation in my sandbox on English Wikipedia 4/ see 2/ and 5/ I added the attribution link to the talk page; I can add another one directly to the article if necessary. Zunkir (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The recommended required place for the attribution is an edit summary (though this can be supplemented with a talk page or article notice) because that is the only place where it can't be deleted or overwritten. You can make a dummy edit in order to place the needed edit summary: be sure to give the specific article that was translated. M kuhner (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC) corrected 16:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Zunkir (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner; edit summary attribution in the article history is required per our licenses, the talk page/article notice is a nice to have, as an FYI. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll phrase that more firmly next time: I agree I wasn't clear. Thanks. M kuhner (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Help needed with article

Block Squidman245

Delete my common.js

request for review of user conduct

Hello! I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue for this or if posting this here is premature, but it seemed appropriate based on discussion at the Teahouse.

As I alluded to in Wikipedia:Teahouse#reporting behavior, I have concerns about the conduct of Wamalotpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as transpired in the recent edit history of Justice Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (the diffs themselves are not relevant; the edit summaries are) and in Talk:Justice Democrats#judicious capitalization of "Representative". An extensive (arguably whiny) accounting of my grievances appears throughout those locations, and is best condensed in the third paragraph onward of this specific comment (including the endnotes). A summary, for convenience, follows.

1. I believe this user is engaging in good faith to improve Wikipedia.
2. I do not strongly believe this user engaged in personal attacks on me or cast aspersions on me.
3. I am concerned that this user does not try hard enough to assume good faith and competence of other editors.
4. I am concerned that this user does not try hard enough to thoughtfully consider the usefulness of other editors' contributions.
5. I am concerned that this user is insufficiently careful in determining the content of other editors' contributions (a prerequisite for #4).
6. I am concerned that this user generally engages with other editors in an insufficiently respectful manner.
7. I am concerned that this user is too quick to dismiss opposing opinions.
8. I am concerned that this user is too quick to come to view editors as obstacles rather than collaborators.

All in all, I am concerned that @Wamalotpark acts with a lack of humility (including self-reflection) and respect that, while not egregious, is still not acceptable for a collaborative project. That is how this editor behaved with me, in my view, and while I have only that to go off of, my concern is that this editor may carry this attitude forward into continued interactions on Wikipedia. I would like an uninvolved administrator to 1. take a look for themselves (and I encourage you to look at the edit history and then the full talk page section, plus perhaps the Teahouse discussion for further context of my thoughts on the matter, although I understand if you would rather not go through all of it given its length) to judge whether this merits action, and 2. guide Wamalotpark toward better behavior, if appropriate. Blippy1998 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I think you have jumped the gun a bit here. A 3O editor came in and said that Wamalotpark should try to be more civil in future.

In most cases, a reminder from an uninvolved party and some time away from editing to cool down is sufficient to resolve matters.

Regardless, this edit summary isn't acceptable.

Wamalotpark, you've got many more edits than I do so I'm sure you're already aware that this wasn't really appropriate.

Please, stop editing if you feel that you're becoming stressed and avoid the temptation to comment on other editors in this way. I don't know what was happening on your end at the time, but it's honestly not worth the few seconds of catharsis that you got when posting that edit summary! It's far too easy for things like this to escalate, if you don't nip them in the bud.

As far as the rest of the discussion goes, I'd say they were being curt but not uncivil - unless there's something else that hasn't been brought up here, I don't think admins need to get involved.

@Blippy1998, a kind reminder (since you're relatively new and might not be aware of this), shorter posts can be infinitely more productive than longer ones. We're all volunteers and it's hard to read through all of your posts, especially your "condensed" one. The longer a post gets, the less engagement yo you'll get from others. I'm also prone to long posts, but I try to keep them as short as I can in order to be respectful of others' valuable time.

I'll look forward to seeing you both improve and work to become great editors in the future. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV-pushing by 10mmsocket

Permission to edit this page

Hi,

I am in a class in which we are to edit and improve a Wikipedia page, I was having trouble with the permissions for the editing, and I was wondering if it would be possible to grant me permission to edit this page. Anonymouseditor11111 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I think you left out the page you are having trouble editing (unless you mean that you want to edit this noticeboard, but you started a new thread successfully so you have that permission already). Which page is it that you cannot edit? Packrat3860 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

The article is "online casino" Anonymouseditor11111 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Anonymouseditor11111, the article Online casino is semi-protected, meaning that you won't be able to edit the article directly until you have an account older than 4 days and have contributed at least 10 edits. That is a relatively low bar to pass but don't rush it, take your time editing. In the mean time, you are free to request a change on the talk page at Talk:Online casino. You can use the {{edit protected}} template or the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to automate the steps. You may want to practice your edits in your sandbox, try User:Anonymouseditor11111/sandbox. Happy editing! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

That page has edit protection set such that only "confirmed" or "autoconfirmed" accounts can edit it. If you check out WP:AUTOCONFIRM you can get to that point without an administrator by editing other pages for a little bit. Packrat3860 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Permission to edit pages is not given per-account. Is your instructor working with WikiEd? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 17:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, as this page choice will make your experience harder than other students able to directly edit their pages (assuming they don't all have semi-protected articles), you can tell your teacher that an administrator advises them to pick another article that isn't protected from editing. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymouseditor11111 -- I've granted you the confirmed flag for the duration of your course, which should let you edit the article; please reach out to me if you are still having issues. To others -- I think this is a case where I am willing to invoke IAR such that a student, under the supervision of an instructor, can make improvements to the encyclopedia. And @Jéské Couriano -- yes, I have confirmed that this student is enrolled in WikiEd (see their userpage). Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably the simplest solution, very neat! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

This was a good solution, but I assume that any instructor working under WikiEd's supervision would have WP:Event coordinator, which in turn would enable them to grant wp:confirmed to their students. Is this not how things work? RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I attended an edit-thon where the coordinator had forgotten he had the event coordinator right. Stuff happens. - Donald Albury 15:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Apparently not. Staraction (talk · contribs) 15:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

WikiEd doesn't have any policy of giving instructors event coordinator AFAIK. Normally students don't edit protected articles, or if they do create their account early in the semester and end up making 10 edits to their sandboxes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

De Beers, non-admin RFC closure, etc

There's been an RFC at Talk:De Beers#RfC on the use of the word "manipulate" to describe advertising for a while. The RFC has sprawled across noticeboards at least once or twice. It's been closed twice, most recently by an anon account. I reverted per WP:NACTA. I don't think there's any consensus on the problem, let alone an outcome. I'm noting here because I'm named in it and I reverted the closure- not that I have any idea what should be done about it. I'm not using my admin bit nor do I think admin needs to be used anywhere- just wanting to surface this to others. tedder (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

And it was now that I learned about Template:RfC closure review. I should have known about that. tedder (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I had my eye on this as well, I've been pinged a couple of times for answering a {{admin help me}} and then subsequently in a description of the timeline in aforementioned sprawling noticeboard discussions. In addition to WP:NACTA, I think you were fine in reverting the close under WP:BADNAC as the closer was self-described as involved, no. 4: "The non-admin is involved in the discussion, or otherwise has an actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest that could cast doubt on their closure" (emphasis mine).

I don't think you need to worry. As for what to do with the RfC, I don't know either. "I don't think there's any consensus on the problem, let alone an outcome" is pretty spot on for this whole thing. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm also looking at this discussion and I agree, this is a proper revert of an inappropriate NAC. Iff I were to close it, it would be as "no consensus", but maybe a fourth pair of eyes ought to step in. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I've closed it. Also a reminder that BADNAC is an essay that has failed to gain consensus every time it's been proposed to promote it to a guideline or policy. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich: I can't believe that this RFC is so difficult to close, but this is also not a good closure that seems to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. "Well most voters said this, but I disagree with them, so I'm discounting their comments" is not how this is done. WP:NPOV is one of the three most core policies on Wikipedia. WP:WTW is a widely respected MoS guideline that was directly cited in the discussion. Saying that you're discounting votes because Wikipedia isn't allowed to weigh in on neutral phrasing would make NPOV dead letter. It's possible that this RFC should closed 'no' - I don't want to supervote myself - but doing so on grounds of "I discount !votes that care about neutrality" is not the reasoning if so. I also find baffling the "votes don't mean what they say" comment. If someone says there's a problem on the sources provided, the closer doesn't get to say "they didn't mean that because there's incredibly marginal other sources that don't matter." The Atlantic was the only good source provided. And even though it uses 'manipulate' in passing, who cares? Wikipedia is under 0 obligation to precisely quote 1 random source on a topic with entire studies written about it. I would request you vacate your closure and make a !vote instead. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

(This is a discussion we should be having on my talk page rather than here. FYI I won't be able to respond for hours after making this post.)

It's not "I disagree with them," it's "policy disagrees with them." NPOV in particular is about maintaining a neutral POV vis-a-vis the reliable sources, not vis-a-vis editors' personal opinions. If sources use "manipulate" to describe something, then Wikipedia should use that word, too, per NPOV, even if editors think it's not a neutral word. Sources aren't required to be neutral, and Wikipedia follows the sources.

It's absolutely not true that there was only one source discussed. The Atlantic source wasn't the only one. There were close to half a dozen (I think 5 or 6?) sources using "manipulate" (or variations) and zero countervailing sources. That's enough to establish that "manipulate" is NPOV per RS.

I'm happy to reconsider my close, but I don't find the arguments you've made here persuasive. Suggest further arguments be posted on my talk page (though as I said it'll be maybe half a day or so before I can respond again). Levivich (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since this matter was posted here, I believe that this is the proper venue, since you posted as if the matter is now finished, when the mess continues.

I will post on your talk page in more detail. (EDIT: See diff for details.) But a close is intended to be a close of the discussion as it happened, not a vote with new stances. Your "close" was actually a vote. I'd say that even if we were on the same sides here. If you close, you need to do a close, which means taking voters seriously at what they say. "Discounting" votes is done for, like, a Reddit brigade. It's not done for good faith !votes that obviously, obviously are not saying "Yes because this my personal opinion", a basic AGF assumption that applies to any consensus discussion. SnowFire (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

A !vote can be good faith, attempting to cite policy, and not a personal opinion, and yet still be entirely misguided and needing to be discounted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The final tally was 6 “Yes” !votes 2 “Yes, with context,” 1 “Tentative yes,” and 4 “No.” I understand that consensus isn’t determined by counting responses, but when there’s such a lopsided tally on one side - especially in an RfC with wide participation - there needs to be a very good reason to discard all “yes” responses. Please note my disclosed COI as a paid consultant.

The central issue in the RfC was whether using the word “manipulate” to describe DeBeers advertising in the voice of Wikipedia violates WP:NPOV. According to Levivich, “Editors' opinions about whether "manipulate" is a neutral way to describe the company's advertising are not relevant; what's relevant is whether WP:RS describe the company's actions (advertising or otherwise) as "manipulation" or "manipulate" or similar. Votes that were not based at all on RS were discounted.”

The closer was incorrect to find that NPOV should not have been considered as a determining criteria by any editors. Assuming other editors agree with this, there’s no need to further discuss why the evaluation of RS by the closer is faulty.

There was consensus that “manipulated consumer demand” should not be stated in the voice of Wikipedia. That said, there was no consensus as to what language should be substituted. I think that would require a new discussion. I also think the closer is incorrect in interpreting RS policy to require that sources must be produced that explicitly state De Beers’ practices were “not manipulative.” Countless secondary sources have described De Beers’ famous advertising campaign “A Diamond is Forever” since its launch in the 1940s. It’s among the most well-known advertising campaigns ever conducted.

Many of these sources describe the campaign in overwhelmingly positive terms. An article in National Geographic, for example, called it “savvy,” “ubiquitous,” and “widely considered the most successful of all time.” An article in the academic journal Business Horizons stated that De Beers’ campaigns “have been nothing less than brilliant--and triumphant” Yet it would be incorrect for Wikipedia to say in its own voice that DeBeers advertising was “savvy” or “brilliant” just as it should not characterize the campaigns as "manipulative." On Wikipedia, such POV, if relevant, are supposed to be attributed WP: ATTRIBUTE, and proportional WP:DUE.

I would suggest the exact replacement language still needs to be hashed out, inclusding how to account for opposing POV. But the preponderance of responses in the RfC didn't support stating the POV in Wikipedia's voice. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll start by stipulating that Levivich does not like me, and may not like my commenting here. I've been looking very carefully at this discussion and the RfC, and I have a suggestion. Within the close, there are significant policy-related questions that include, but are not limited to, how editors should balance NPOV with what RS say. Within that there are questions as to what the cited RS actually do say, and to what extent those RS might be opinion pieces that have POVs of their own. (And all of that occurs against a backdrop of editors who may have strong opinions about the company's other business practices, and how that, in turn, affects their views of having a paid editor taking part in the process.) I'm guessing that admins may not feel comfortable overturning the current close without overwhelming community support for doing so. So my suggestion is, unfortunately, to open a new RfC, but put a lot of thought into how to craft it. Editors could discuss at the article talk page how the new RfC should be crafted. And the RfC should ask participating editors to address the issues that are raised in (and by) Levivich's close, such as those issues of sourcing and POV. I don't think that arguing with Levivich about his close will really end up satisfying anyone, so it's probably better to put some serious thought, and serious discussion, into making an RfC that won't be another trainwreck. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Although if that seems like too much effort and drama, I've also suggested this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Steve "Boomstick" Wilson

Can the histories of Steve "Boomstick" Wilson and Steve Wilson (drummer) be merged? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jax 0677  Not done, these histories are unrelated. I don't see overlap between the new article and the BLAR'd version, so even though there are two versions of the article, there isn't any history to be lost (which is what a history merge repairs). In the future, you can use {{history merge}} to request these. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Miss Teen Thailand

Draft: Shri Anand Yogi Anandmay

I am submitting a spiritual article on Saint Shri Anand Yogi Anandmay in neutral and standard formatting as per manual of wikipedia for the review. Om Anandmay Om Shantimay (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Om Anandmay Om Shantimay, you don't need to let administrators know that you're submitting a draft. I've taken a quick look and I don't think it will be accepted, however.

• You've not provided any in-line citations
• There's no indication that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I see you were told about this problem last year.
• I'm wondering whether you used AI, LLM, a chatbot or machine language generation/translation to write this article? If you did, please read WP:LLM before editing further.
• If you have any relationship with the person you've written about, or the academy, you'll need to make the relevant conflict of interest disclosure. Your username seems to be the same name as the moment you're writing about, so it might not meet our username policies - your username needs to refer to you as an individual.

If you need help or have questions, the best place to ask for help is the Wikipedia:Teahouse. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

HIP 99770 b

• HIP 99770 b (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Related:

• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 58#HIP 99770 b: repeated NOR/SYNTH in recent lead description edits
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 126#HIP 99770 b: repeated POVDELETION in recent lead description edits
• User talk:EducatedRedneck#HIP 99770 b classification — material you removed based on dispute resolution has been reinstated

Posting this to AN rather than ANI because I am pretty sure that a comment on the article talk page by an admin will fix the problem without having to single out individual editors.

The problem is that a technical dispute is being largely fought through edits to the page and through long edit summaries that really should be talk page comments.

I am also seeing bludgeoning on the talk page, complicated by the fact that when someone writes far too many words to a bunch of astronomy nerds they get replies that have far too many words.

As I said, I think a general warning will cause everyone to straighten out and fly right. If that doesn't work, you might want to consider reverting to  meta:The Wrong Version  a stable version from before the fight and fully protecting the page.

If any admin thinks that I am approaching this the wrong way and that I should start gathering diffs and reporting specific user behavior, feel free to close this and I will do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

+1; attempts to explain have been met with WP:IDHT. A warning from someone with more perceived authority might help. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I left a stern message. I appreciate that you and EducatedRedneck are working to mediate. I hope it goes well, and we don't need to use any tools here. Up to the editors I guess. — Wug·a·po·des 04:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Want to edit Gabriella Olivo page

Wanting to create a page for Gabriella Olivo who is a Québécois singer-songwriter. The link for the page is Creating Gabriella Olivo - Wikipedia. For a Wiki School Project Lrobg6 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You should be able to do create that, once you've established they meet WIkipedia's inclusion criteria. You can ask for help at the WP:Teahouse. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lrobg6, in addition to what Femke says above, please note that the title shouldn't include "Creating ... -Wikipedia". The title you should use is just Gabriella Olivo. I recommend drafting an article at Draft:Gabriella Olivo and making sure that it meets the notability criteria, in addition to other policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the topic has any protections and you should be able to create a page for her without issues as long as you are in line with Wiki policies. Just make sure to follow the instructions mentioned by @Accessedgrant. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

NOTHERE

Permissiveactionlink (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Nearly no mainspace edits, all their contributions are monologues on talkpages of certain topics. Compare dewiki behaviour, which is just the same. NDG (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Now blocked as discussion-only account at dewiki NDG (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

AI bot? Hasn't edited since 17:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC) but if they were to resume without addressing this discussion, I imagine similar actions can be levied here on enwiki. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Not a bot IMO, their writing style is human. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Ban appeal of Davidbena

Twenty-four hours in, it's fairly obvious that this isn't going pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Ban appeal of Davidbena

The following is the appeal of Davidbena of their ban. I post this here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

A complaint was brought before this board about 18 months ago for my having made use of euphemisms in an article created by me, viz. in Beautiful captive woman, hoping to find a less offensive word for the word "rape," and which, at the time, I was unaware that its usage contravened MOS:EUPHEMISM. It was only in February 15, 2025 that I became aware of this prohibition (see diff), when, after writing a euphemism, my edit was reverted and I was given the reason why, at which time I duly refrained from using euphemisms, except for once when I copied a source taken from Maimonides who actually made use of a euphemism / synonym himself for sexual intercourse (see diff). I took the liberty to make use of synonyms for sexual intercourse throughout the article, in order to avoid redundancy. By this time, it was too late, as my actions were reported to ANI, as shown here. I appealed my ban, and my appeal was rejected for failure to explain some of the concerns of our fellow editors, which I will now endeavor to do by answering honestly and thoroughly the concerns of my fellow editors. A record of my misplaced appeal can be seen here.

Statements made by me made some editors think that I was advocating rape from a religious perspective, may God forbid. The way in which the topic was broached to the public left room for many doubts as to the Torah's intention, and which I failed to clarify. For example, I failed to show unequivocally that there is no condoning the act of rape as a norm in society. The Torah itself makes rape tantamount to murder, whenever a betrothed virgin is raped by another man! See Deuteronomy 22:25–26. The rapist is punished with death.

In biblical law, a Jewish soldier that had had relations with a captive woman has acted out of passion and he causes a blemish to his own family. He acted contrary to Jewish custom. The 14th-century rabbi, Nethanel ben Isaiah], wroteon this subject, saying, "…And you desire to take her to be your wife [Deut. 21:11], [meaning], there should not be in his thought coitus for the sake of prostitution." We know that the Jewish soldier had sexual relations with the woman, based on (Deuteronomy 21:10–14). What we don't know is whether he "raped" her by force, or "seduced" her into the act. The Torah is ambivalent in its description. By all accounts, "seduction" – though criminal in nature – is a less punishable offense. In some cases, the captive woman may have even agreed to consummate a marriage with her captor, which might explain why he goes unpunished. We do not know. Rabbi and philosopher, Maimonides, wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part III, chapter 41), "For although the soldier may be overcome by his desire which he is unable to suppress or to restrain, he must take the object of his lust to a private place, 'into the inner of his house' (Deut. 21:12), and he is not permitted to force her in the camp." (see p. 350). That, then, is the gist of the biblical episode being described in this article.

In retrospect, I should not have broached the public with this complex and difficult piece of Jewish history.

Contrary to what one editor wrote that I might be advocating this practice in the ARBPIA area of responsibility, I can assure him that these rules do not apply in the modern, secular State of Israel, and I would NEVER encourage such actions. Israeli soldiers who rape prisoners are duly punished in Israeli courts of law.

With all due respect, I am kindly asking of my colleagues here to be brought back into the fold, and to volunteer my services on Wikipedia. My lack of clarity in this particular article has justified my having to bear all the blame for my ban, and I do admit that no man is unassailable. Again, I would be willing to be placed under probation for six-months, if my fellow editors should deem that course of action fitting, during which time I shall submit all edits to an administrator for his approval or disapproval. Or else I can be placed under a Topic ban which will prohibit me from writing anything about sex, with the one exception of making the clarifications needed in this article (Beautiful captive woman), namely, that it is strictly forbidden as a first resort for an Israelite to engage in a sexual relation with a captive woman during war.Davidbena (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Link to ANI thread where Davidbena was CBANNED: AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

David already linked it in his unban request. In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak support with option 2 (topic ban) David has learned his actions since his cban a year ago. Although I think he should be unbanned from the English Wikipedia, I suggest a topic ban from PIA (once more), and p-blocked from the page he made for the WP:NPOV violations he made (Putting one sect of a religion's definition on one page). In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak support on condition of TBAN from gender, religion, and the state of Israel, broadly construed, per User:Daveosaurus' original suggestion in the CBAN thread. I'm not convinced that they really understand what they did wrong, but if they don't edit in the topic area, it should limit or eliminate any disruption. If Davidbena does disrupt, reblocks are cheap, and it's unlikely they'll be given a second chance. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Given the last sentence in the wall of text above, I'd have to suggest that the CBAN should remain in place. it is strictly forbidden as a first resort for an Israelite to engage in a sexual relation with a captive woman during war. Really? There are no circumstances whatsoever where it would be appropriate to add an exclusion to a topic ban with regard to the very article that led to the ban, and whatever that unsourced and mealy-mouthed waffle is supposed to mean, it doesn't belong in the article. Davidbena appears to be asking to be unblocked in order to continue with the cluelessness that caused the problem in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Fair enough. For clarity, would you oppose even with a TBAN from gender, religion, and Israel (which would include that article)? It sounds like you would still oppose, but I'd like to clarify for the closer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

As noted in the close of the ANI thread, Davidbena's history of sanctions was one of the factors that was taken into account. I think it still should. If the community does decide to unban, I'd have to suggest that the Tban should not only include 'gender, religion, and the state of Israel', but be extended to also cover the history of the middle east. We shouldn't be presenting the slightest opportunity for similar issues to arise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose This seems like an attempt to weasel out of culpability rather than admitting that what they did was straight up wrong. I think there is no place for citing Deuteronomy in a discussion about when coercing sex from your captives is permissible, and the requester still seems committed to that idea. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. You write:
• "Contrary to what one editor wrote that I might be advocating this practice in the ARBPIA area of responsibility, I can assure him that these rules do not apply in the modern, secular State of Israel, and I would NEVER encourage such actions. Israeli soldiers who rape prisoners are duly punished in Israeli courts of law."

What they actually put in the article:

• "The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law and whether violators should be punished for any breach thereof when it comes to conquest by war, or can it be said that these laws override international law, since they themselves are a form of legal jurisprudence?[17] Moreover, can laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws? According to Quincy Wright, there have been legal precedents where, in a conflict between a newer statute having international implications (such as a law enshrined in 19th-century law and an older, more provincial law), the older and more provincial law prevailed"

You further write: "It was only in February 15, 2025 that I became aware of this prohibition (see diff), when, after writing a euphemism, my edit was reverted and I was given the reason why, at which time I duly refrained from using euphemisms, except for once when I copied a source taken from Maimonides who actually made use of a euphemism / synonym himself for sexual intercourse"

And yet, two months after February 15, and after you used the euphemism "once", you reverted twice and claimed in edit summaries "A man, indeed, has connexion with a woman, and this word is not a 'euphemism' for sexual intercourse, but is rather a 'synonym' for sexual intercourse, just as it is explained in the wiki-link. The word here is used to avoid redundancy or over-use of word 'rape'". Fram (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is that Davidbena is not familiar with--or possibly just doesn't care about--the modern standard of what rape is. The paragraph starting with In biblical law, a Jewish soldier... illustrates this. To cut through the pseudohistorical waffle, the problem here is: What we don't know is whether he "raped" her by force, or "seduced" her into the act, when talking about a soldier and his captive. Regardless of whether there has been physical force employed, this situation is still rape, due to the massive power imbalance between a captive and her captor. A woman "agreeing" to have sex with her literal captor to avoid the stated, implied, or even just imagined negative consequences of refusal is still being raped. And my most charitable read of Davidbena's thought process about pushing this nonexistent distinction is that he doesn't care about that because it wasn't the prevailing view in the 14th century, which is true. But we're not writing Wikipedia in the 14th century, and we shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice as though we were, especially when the article is concerning 14th century apologia for sexual assault against vulnerable women. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Very weak support and only with firm and broadly construed topic bans on gender, religion and the state of Israel. Nothing in Davidbena's appeal shows that their thought process has changed, although they're better at saying what they believe we want to hear because they want to be free to edit. There's far too much passive voice and insufficient taking ownership for why the edits are an issue. Star Mississippi 14:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Change to oppose per bonadea. I was hoping to give them a chance given I've opposed prior, but that's beyond concerning. Star Mississippi 19:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be at AN not here? Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support with topic bans per Star Mississippi, if disruption won't continue then bans can be appealed later separately. Gigman (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This smells to me very strongly of waiting out the six-month clock and then trying to say what they think we want to hear to get them unblocked, and this is a history for them: banned in April 2025. Unban request in October-November (six months). Unban request in May 2026 (six months). Unban request now (six months). If they were builing a history elsewhere to demonstrate that the ban is no longer necessary, this could be understandable, but it appears they have not been: note that while the global contributions page only goes back 90 days, in that 90 days they have one edit on another Wikimedia project. Also, what Fram said. I have no confidence whatsoever that anything has been actually learned here, especially as the unban request here frankly continues along the same lines that got them banned per Writ Keeper. Also this should be at AN, can somebody with more spoons at the moment move it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and moved it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. So, let's get this straight. It's OK for me to rape a woman as long as I marry her afterwards. It seems that I have spent a long time exercising self-control when I have had no need to. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• • Phil Badger, I know you're being sarcastic and pointing out the wrongness of the arguments by the appealing editor, but I think there's a better comment you could make - this is a very sensitive subject after all and not everyone will be comfortable with that comment even if it's obvious sarcasm - and some may miss it's sarcasm at all. ~2026-56645-71 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the mistake with your name Phil Bridger, although at least someone's posted a cute image of a badger in response! To the person who added it, I just want to say thank you very much, it's a nice image! ~2026-57013-58 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Davidbena made an earlier unban appeal today, declined for being too long, which is still on his user talk page. Here's a quote from that: What I failed to address in my first ANI complaint, when I was told by User:Cullen328 (A) that "coitus and sexual intercourse are not synonyms for rape", is that based on Deuteronomy 21:10 – ff. it is still unclear whether or not the soldier forcibly raped her (the victim) or seduced her (the victim), or that the woman herself lured the man (compare Rashi's commentary on Deuteronomy 21:13 here]), "… for the women of enemy nations beautify themselves when a war is being fought in their city in order to lure the soldiers of the other nations into being with them." This ambivalence then would have given us more liberty to make use of those other words, including the use of the word "rape". I'm sorry, but I couldn't support unbanning Davidbena even with a broad topic ban on gender and sexuality. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  wow, I didn't even see that. that is disgusting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• For example, I failed to show unequivocally that there is no condoning the act of rape as a norm in society. The Torah itself makes rape tantamount to murder, whenever a betrothed virgin is raped by another man! See Deuteronomy 22:25–26. The rapist is punished with death.

  But not when she's not a virgin, or not betrothed. The position written in Devarim is that rape is bad/worse because it defiles one who was thought to be the property of a man. That is not a perspective I would I would ever want Wikipedia to write from, much less endorse.

  We know that the Jewish soldier had sexual relations with the woman, based on (Deuteronomy 21:10–14). What we don't know is whether he "raped" her by force, or "seduced" her into the act. The Torah is ambivalent in its description. By all accounts, "seduction" – though criminal in nature – is a less punishable offense. In some cases, the captive woman may have even agreed to consummate a marriage with her captor, which might explain why he goes unpunished. We do not know.

  A soldier cannot "seduce" a captive; a captive cannot freely consent to sex with someone who is physically holding them prisoner. That a prospective editor would be willing to call any of this something other than rape is deeply troubling, and so I oppose. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• That's the problem with Davidbena's position. Everything that he writes seems to treat a woman as potentially the property of a man rather than as a human. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per above NightWolf1223 <Howl at me • My hunts> 03:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Proposing, in light of the...revelations above, that we need to put further brakes on this lest we just come back around in six months to say no again: Davidbena is prohibited from appealing his community ban for a period of one year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose What I've been struggling with is that we have lots of articles talking about practices that once were acceptable by a significant percentage of the population then, but are not now. For example, chattel slavery in the United States. Somehow, Davidbena is unable to talk about the treatment of women as expressed in ancient texts with a similar approach: his judgment as to right or wrong seems to be fixed at the state it was when initially described many years ago. That cannot work here. I wonder if he has difficulty assigning a negative judgment to actions apparently endorsed by the Torah. In any event, his approach seems unchanged from before and still unacceptable. I do think that future appeals will be similarly problematic, so I understand The Bushranger's proposal, but currently have no opinion on it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I've tried in the past to be somewhat friendly and supportive of Davidbena since he has experience-based knowledge of ultra-Orthodox Judaism that has been and could be of value to the encyclopedia. But at this point, I have concluded that he is just too twisted up in bizarre Talmudic games that he cannot comprehend how horrific that rape of prisoners of war is, and seems compelled to treat it as an abstract intellectual exercise. Frankly, I have lost my patience with him, and cannot support his return to editing. Cullen328 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Ban appeal: Wwew345t

Request copied over on their behalf. @Yamla: has cleared them from a tech/CU perspective. The accidental TA use for the unblock was clearly that and immediately owned so is not a factor. Both Yamla and I believe this needs community review. I make no endorsement in copying over this request and will probably not weigh in as I'm very Involved. Courtesy @Bobby Cohn: who restored TPA. Star Mississippi 16:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC) Wwew345t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --

• I was a very emotionally charged editor. I let my sense of injustice cloud my judgement and it led to me harrasing a user who I mistankley believed was targeting pages I liked on purpose. Intsead of going through the proper channels like drv to argue my case I tried to override a consensus by removing the redirect myself and engaging in edit wars. I also wasted afd votes on insulting and accusing the editor instead of being productive with them. When I was rightly banned for this behavior my own arrogance led me to think that, since I was "unfairly" banned (which again, my ban was totally deserved), I made multiple socks to try to evade said ban. This was incredibly wrong and is also why what could have been a 6 month ban has now turned into a year and a half. I have thankfully eventually reliazed the error in my ways and have avoided Wikipedia for 8 months (since my last pathetic attempt at socking) to reflect on my actions. I deeply regret what I have done and understand that this appeal might be rejected because of my actions. Should this appeal be accepted I am more the willing to take on any sanctions you might impose on me, wether it be a interaction ban with the editor I sparred with (George Ho) or a tban on the topics I engaged edit wars on (supercentenarians and survivor winners) or both (or any other santions you deem appropriate). Wwew345t (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was not in favor of them being unblocked in 2024. I provided private reasoning for why they should not be unblocked to two admins responding to the case; a third admin decided that, as neither of those admins had taken the step to decline the appeal outright, they should accept the appeal without conferring with me. Water under the bridge if disruption didn't resume, but apparently that has not been the case and they were soon re-blocked for edit warring and IDHT, followed by sockpuppetry, again. Ask yourself, if they weren't a sockpuppet when first blocked in 2024, after suffering that ordeal, why on earth would they try to start sockpuppeting? Asilvering's decline of an unblock request in February 2025 included the statement To be blunt, your editing has been so disruptive I don't even think I can give you the standard offer. It's not that one edit to ANI. It's everything., which was reaffirmed by the following admin to respond on the case. Having been able to review nearly 4 straight years of disruption and disingenuous unblock attempts from this editor, I am more convinced than ever that they are NOTHERE and never have been, likely being a sockpuppet from day 1. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
• I haven't yet made up my mind about the substantive issue here, but, Wwew345t, if you are unblocked please be aware that your editing will be under intense scrutiny, whatever the unblock conditions might say, so if you are the tiniest bit disruptive you may be blocked again. The only possible positive here is your age, Please don't tell us exactly how old you are and don't feel obliged to even give a hint, but some editors may be more inclined to give you a chance if you are one of our younger editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support: I didn't dive in this situation too deep, but the appeal sounds convincing enough for me, so I'd be the first one to support unban per WP:ROPE. User hasn't edited in a long time so it's appropriate to take a chance and see what changed. Gigman (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Closure Review Request

Sanity check requested (possible LLM-generated article)

I came across an article this evening that gave me “written by an LLM” vibes, but I don’t want to unfairly accuse anybody of anything and I have not yet tried the AI noticeboard, so I was hoping that another administrator (or other editor with experience dealing with LLM content) could tell me if I’m being paranoid here or if this is something that should be looked at. Thanks in advance and apologies that this is probably not the best place to ask this. 28bytes (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

• Just for fun, I asked Google's AI and ChatGPT if it was LLM generated, they both agreed it was. I couldn't resist the irony. Reviewing it myself, my judgement says it is likely that it was LLM generated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The rewrite is definitely AI generated. The author's other drafts are as well. I'd suggest making that AI noticeboard report. InfernoHues (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both. I appreciate the feedback. I’ll go ahead and do that. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You can also ask the AI cleanup regulars at WT:AIC for a sanity check if you're not ready to start a report at AINB. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 12:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

ZDRX's username struck out when they're not blocked

This edit showed up on my watchlist with ZDRX's username struck out, indicating that they're blocked. However, they're not in fact blocked. Does anyone know what's going on here? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps answering my own question, I now see thanks to Special:GlobalBlockList/ZDRX that they're globally blocked with an exemption for their home Wikipedia. Surely the strike out gadget shouldn't be striking out their username in that case though? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am fairly certain this has come up on that gadget's talk page already. Izno (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

It took me a while, but I've now found that page, and indeed it has been raised there (with ZDRX mentioned): MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js#Globally blocked users with enwiki set as an exclusion still show with a strikethrough. Thanks for the heads-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

About the deleted Rosuuri page

Massive backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam

Sorry about this, but I found over 500 different spam userspace "articles" that need to be deleted, and they're all in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam. Can someone help clear this out? Sorry for the inconvenience, I know it's a lot... TheAwesomeHwyh 01:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I note candidates like User:Christopher Poulson which I'm declining. Is there a reason you went looking for 2009 user pages? Star Mississippi 03:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

some of these are valid, but are mistagged. @TheAwesomeHwyh please don't flood CSD like this and don't take declines as a license to file MFDs. WP:Ragpicking is relevant here and there's no "need" for these to be deleted. Star Mississippi 03:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh 03:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't file any MFDs as a result of declines. I'm not sure what you're referring to. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm vaguely disappointed in myself that I had never heard of the WP:Ragpicking essay before. I had been nominating userspace articles for deletions for basically the past ten years, and no one has pointed out this essay to me until now. I feel dumb. Mea cupla! TheAwesomeHwyh 03:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that over half of my total edits to this site basically run afoul of WP:Ragpicking. I'm stupid. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It was just a word of advice in case you decided to try MfD. We do not have the bandwidth of active editors or admins to process these in any forum.

Leave these ancient userspaces alone please @TheAwesomeHwyh. They're not harming anything for the most part although I spotted a few G12s. Some might have been U5s but that was deprecated so they cannot be speedied.

Would you be willing to revert your tagging? A 500 count flood is not particularly fair to anyone patrolling. Star Mississippi 04:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not in a mental state to do that right now. I just found out today that one of my loved ones has Leukemia so I did this, stupidly thinking it was going to be helpful. I nominated this many articles because I had been thinking about my contributions to society (or lack thereof) and was trying to help. I feel so, so sad. I'm going to log off now. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to question the value of my contributions to Wikipedia. I'm really sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yikes. Looking at my editor statistics, this type of edit accounts for at least 2,000 of my edits since 2017. I cannot believe I didn't know this wasn't an acceptable behavior. I thought I was helping. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Take it easy on yourself. You thought you were doing good things and didn’t know better and no one told you. You are under personal stress too. Take a break. This is not a big deal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh anyone who is taking actions in good faith is fine. Wanting to be helpful and thinking about your "contributions to society" is a very admirable thing. Clearly if this had been a major issue before someone would have said something to you and this flood of actions was done at a time of stress. Take care of yourself and your loved ones, and just take this as a learning experience and no real harm done. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Logging off, apologies to any overnight admins for whom I'm leaving 470+. Star Mississippi 04:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

support mass revert: picking through 500 noms that seem to mostly be in this same vein for a few possible good ones will take a huge amount of admin time for only a few deletions. The sooner the better, because reverts will become more and more difficult the more intervening edit history there is. @TheAwesomeHwyh: don't beat yourself up. You are thorough and prolific and you want to be helpful, so I think you'll find a new niche in no time. We all get into goofs when nobody points us in the right direction. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks like someone got to about 400 of them overnight (Eastern US time ) in some form or another. Thank you

And thank you @TheAwesomeHwyh for trying to address what you saw was a problem. There is no need to question your worth. Spend time with your loved one. Wikipedia will be here. Star Mississippi 12:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Just because nobody has pointed this out yet, TAH, that ragpicking essay is only a few years old and is indeed only an essay. It's an essay I happen to agree with, but you haven't done anything that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. No need to beat yourself up over it. The big thing about userspace is it's not indexed, which means realistically nobody outside of the person who wrote it (and anyone doing maintenance work in userspace) is going to see it. But even though we don't need to dig through it, we do still delete egregious spam in userspace when we happen to come across it (as well as e.g. WP:COPIES, BLP violations, and when people who don't otherwise contribute use it for things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, like alternative history nonsense, which is surprisingly common). I will say that your contribs history is full of redlinks, which means some admin agreed with you that it qualified for speedy. A lot of people would see that as an edit worth doing, then. What we most want to avoid are the big timesinks like mass tagging or taking something that doesn't qualify for CSD but is still maybe a little promotion to MfD and requiring a bunch of editors plus a closing admin to evaluate it. So perhaps we can leave this at: this was a net help, but in the future userspace is typically not an urgent space to patrol, especially to do many at once. :) Thanks for helping! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest VRT appointment, October 2026

Following private and public consultation, the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint Rosguill (talk · contribs) to the conflict of interest volunteer response team. The VRT administrators are asked to grant Rosguill access, pending signatures to the required confidentiality agreements. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 21:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT appointment, October 2026