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 have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Edit_requests on setting up such a drive. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

For the record I decided to not do that example after the WikiProject was pointed out. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:00, 27 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)

@Skarmory, at what article is the edit request? Not promising to deal with it, but maybe I can provide some insight on why it's been left waiting for attention. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The request was on Niftski, it's been implemented now. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 14:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, MBAB. Skarmory, FWIW: For me, assessing the edit request would have been basically me just taking you at your word that the suggested content is what the source supported, as I have no expertise in the area/sources. To be clear, that's not necessarily problematic, and in the case of an editor like yourself who is experienced and clearly well-intentioned, I might have! But if I'd clicked in and didn't want to take the time to investigate you to reassure myself you were quite likely well-intentioned and knowledgeable, if I were just trying to respond to as many completely easy ERs as I could, I might have just moved on to the next request and left yours for someone who knew the topic. Valereee (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. What I got told on my talk page was that it was formatted in a way where it was hard to see what changed in two big blocks of text, which was probably the bigger problem; I would have used {{text diff}}, but I gave up after I couldn't get it to display citations. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 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)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Edit_requests on setting up such a drive. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:35, 27 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)

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)

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)

@Bobby Cohn As the closer who was reverted, I think it's important that "as the closer was self-described as involved" is pretty much the opposite of what happened there. I had no involvement in the discussion that the RfC was about at all, other than being declared an opposing side by the COI editor in an argument I was never involved in and directly asking, repeatedly, to be left out of it. I closed it because the premise of the RfC was inherently flawed; if you read the RfC, its being presented as a dispute between two sides where one side doesn't actually exist, and the evidence is presupposed by the "pro" side, and the actual dispute itself seems to be "the edit to remove 'manipulate' didn't go through fast enough" rather than any issue with the phrasing raised by the RfC (I don't think there was any objection to removing "manipulate" prior to the RfC, for example).

As @Levivich pointed out, BADNAC is an essay. I had nothing to do with that change not happening and my only mention of this topic was to agree with the COI editor about the phrasing in a prior COIN filing about Brucemyboy's company. I said I won't undo the revert, but I would much appreciate the substance of my closure being discussed beyond citing an essay and ignoring everything said in the closing statement that was reverted. I don't think "This is a flawed RfC and there was no underlying dispute" is an unreasonable close, mechanics of the closer aside.

I'm concerned the RfC is being used to over-extend the question to keep criticism of De Beers out of the article per the cited Atlantic article (I cannot imagine why that article came up as part of this RfC otherwise, an explanation we still haven't heard from the filer). Brucemyboy is already advocating to exclude the broader discussions around market manipulation in Wikivoice on the basis of an extremely narrow, non-controversial question where he pre-selected the evidence for the "oppose" side which clearly did not make the claim any "oppose" side would rely on it for:

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.

Which is not at all what people were saying, considering how careful editors were to be narrow with their conclusions about the specific statement being made. ~2026-56175-05 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I will say, I do think it's poor form to rely on an essay to revert a closure that someone actually put time into the reasoning of. For all everyone is free to agree on the revert as they do above, that shouldn't have completely shortcut any discussion of substance entirely. If it was a bad close with a shitpost reason, that's a different thing, but clearly that was a good-faith attempt at engaging with the broader discussion that had taken place while acknowledging the inherent flaws.

I don't see essays treated as WP:POLICY very often, however, and it's not a great feeling as an editor engaging in good faith to have that effort completely erased and never discussed, especially as a lot of the discussion here on how best to proceed seems pretty in line with the reverted close. ~2026-56175-05 (talk) 01:45, 28 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)

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'd be interested to hear from @Asilvering on more specifics, if they can share. Katzrockso (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso, I think you can get a pretty good impression simply from scrolling down their talk page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins (2nd nomination) may be of interest as well. I would not outright oppose an unban, but I do not think it would be wise to unban without, at minimum, a tban from Survivor and from supercentenarians. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:38, 27 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)
• I'm of the opinion that should Wwew345t be let back, there must be some sort of conditions, hence my suggestion they copy the UTRS request, I appreciated their suggestion and recognition of that fact in their unblock request. I can't say I share the SPI concerns from 2024 that Rosguill has without hard behavioural evidence beyond acting poorly. All of the behaviour evidence from their own subsequent SPI doesn't overlap with the archives from the other case. I can't say I'm holding that first block against them when considering my !vote, but I'm open to hearing why I should. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 28 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

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

Djflem: Battleground and ownership behavior across multiple election articles

• Djflem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2026 United States Senate election in South Dakota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2026 United States Senate election in Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2026 United States Senate election in Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2026 United States Senate election in Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the past week, User:Djflem has been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behavior across multiple election articles. Specifically, their actions include:

• Imposing bold edits on content that had been in place for months without a consensus to support these bold edits. ()
• Claiming they have a consensus for these bold edits when no other editors have expressed support for them. ("restore consensus established on October 22, 2016")
• Claiming consensus rules apply to everyone else but them. ("do not remove the relevant well referenced material until you have gained consensus to do so. Adding this material does not require consensus, but removiing it would").
• Insisting the older versions that were in place for months need a consensus to be restored while being the only editor who opposes the older versions. ("If you would like to change that placement, seek consensus do so.") ("There NO consensus to move the material. If you sant to move the NEW material then seek consensus to do so and do not revert until you have gained it.")
• Making a new talk page section every time there's a dispute to belittle edits they don't agree with. () While this is normally encouraged, they make separate sections for every little dispute and these sections are often insulting in nature. On the South Dakota election talk page, they have made five separate talk page sections about similar subjects. Notably, they made two separate sections about the exact same thing - how candidate Brian Bengs should be described in the lead. ()
• Digging up my past comments and taking them out of context as a "Gotcha!" to discredit my edits. ()
• Demanding sources for non-controversial content and then claiming the sources failed verification without any explanation for why. ()
• Accusing me of not understanding Wikipedia and implying or even outright stating I am not acting in good faith. ("Is the editor there or Wikipedia:NOTTHERE?")("You are promoting a falsehood that disparages him. why are you doing that? It directly contravenes Wikpedia:NPOV and is lie.")
• Belittling an administrator for not agreeing with them. ("I find it rather disappointing that the above policies and guidelines have to pointed out to an administrator who should be familiar with them.")
• Ignoring an administrator's warning to stop disrupting an article and going back to making multiple edits when the dispute wasn't resolved. ()

Earlier this year, Djflem was indefinitely blocked from editing a draft page because of this same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. They responded by going to the administrator's talk page to demand the block be immediately lifted and accusing others of granting ownership of the draft to a different editor. This response demonstrates they did not learn their lesson and their continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior over the past week solidifies this.

I've made mistakes too during all of this, but I take responsibility and I try my hardest to collaborate with others. Djflem wants to prove they're "right" and expects everyone to accept their edits no matter what. Bluerules (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1232#Battleground and ownership behavior by Djflem for a previous dispute between these editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this belongs at ANI or, given the AMPOL CTOP, AE. In any case, I'm commenting here because it was me who filed the complaint leading to that pageblock: . I'll confirm that the description of that previous pageblock given above by Bluerules is accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked Djflem 48 hours for ownership and non collaborative editing. It may be time for a topic ban. Star Mississippi 00:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I know neither of these editors well but have seen all of the reverts and talk page messages. I fully support a topic ban from US politics for Djflem. Bluerules has demonstrated exceptional levels of patience and goodwill with an editor who is very overtly engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and is not at all interested in collaborating or compromising whatsoever. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll also support an AMPOL tban. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Procedural note; any restrictions placed here would not be a WP:CT action, they'd be community editing restrictions. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Help a clueless (me)

(There may be a better venue to take this to, in which case please signpost.)

The new user CitationNeededNuAfrika (previously as TA) claims to be the subject of Ghais Guevara, and is wanting to remove information from it, claiming that it is "their" article and that this information is damaging their career etc. I got involved at the point where they were edit warring and refusing to accept that as a (likely, although not 100% certain) COI editor they shouldn't do that and should instead make edit requests. I blocked them from editing that page to stop the disruption, and soon after that extended this to sitewide o/a/o legal threat, which they subsequently withdrew.

They are now requesting on my talk that I process their edit request or delete the article, and acknowledge back when done, and that this must be done ASAP. I've so far removed from the article their DOB which was unreferenced, and some other edits have been made, but I've not gone through it with a fine-tooth comb to see what else might need removing. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do what they want me to, because I don't quite understand what exactly that is.

I'm drawn between on one hand respecting an (assumed) article subject's right to privacy etc., on the other Wikipedia's right to publish referenced articles without the subject's permission. I was at one point considering taking the article to AfD for the community to decide whether it should stay or go, but given the urgency of their requests I doubt they'd be happy to wait the week(s) that would take.

The relevant discussions are at User talk:CitationNeededNuAfrika, Talk:Ghais Guevara, and a few user talks that they've taken this to: Special:Contributions/CitationNeededNuAfrika.

I tried to deal with this, but either I'm not saying things right, or the user is not willing to hear me, and since it's also not impossible (!) that I may have yet again caught the wrong end of the stick, I thought it better to bring this here for wiser folks' consideration. Any advice on how to proceed? Or if anyone wants to take over, it's all yours! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes please thank you for escalating this.

It's absolutely no reason why I as the identity behind the article must face harsher processes than the people who lied on the article.

It is an extremely frustrating endeavor for minor edits and I'd love to move forward with my day. I understand there are rules. Those rules go out the window in the question of my right to identify how I see fit. My edits aren't harmful or suspicious, its a right to privacy and precision. CitationNeededNuAfrika (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Our WP:RULES are tweaked for respecting any person's legal rights. But according to WP:PROUD, there are situations wherein the subject of the article no longer has a say about the article about him. Morals: you can report errors, but we are not a PR venue. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not spending another several hours learning your rules surrounding myself. I'll be back with sources for the edits I require. Just know I fins the stipulations behind this all absolutely asinine in many regards. CitationNeededNuAfrika (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I have removed your discography as it was unsourced, your real name however is sourced to an interview you gave, as is other content. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It might be better for this to be posted to COI noticeborad since the person themselves commented that they are the subject of it, idk though im just a TA. ~2026-56466-23 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Given that User:CitationNeededNuAfrika claims to be Ghais Guevara, would it be reasonable to request he validate his identity through the volunteer response team? — ERcheck (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It would be ideal especially since it's technically required for BLPREQDEL to be considered. I'm fairly sure we've honoured it before without confirmation but some editors and admins will be more fussy about that than others. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

IMO it would be best to discuss most of this on WP:BLPN. Based on the editors comments, WP:BLPREQDEL should be considered. While it may seem there are too many sources for that, the title of many of them suggests they're interviews which probably won't count much for notability. That said I haven't done WP:BEFORE edit: or evaluated the sources beyond their titles. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC) 18:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

In terms of the dispute itself, it sounds like a big part of this may concern the subjects current or former real name and also their old pseudonym which included what seems to be their current or former first given name. We've had discussions before when subjects seem to be primarily known by a pseudonym and attempts have been made to hide their real name but where reliable sources publish it anyway. A particular case was Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex although we've never had an article on the person themselves just a section in the SSC article. There have also been suggestions our dead name guideline should be expanded to cover former names a subject no longer wishes to use which came before they were notable even if they aren't really what would be considered dead names, but never any consensus for that. BLP does suggest excluding the full name if it isn't widely published but this is unlikely to cover the first given name the OP objects to IMO. Also for clarity is there an interview where the subject gave the J name? While it's in the Vice interview, it's presented as information from Vice rather than the interview. That said User:CitationNeededNuAfrika if you are claiming your real name is not what Vice said it is and perhaps you didn't even give an interview with Vice, you really should take this up with them. Vice is a good enough source that we'd generally take their claims about names to be correct especially when it comes to pop culture. I'm sure they have processes in place for corrections of such misinformation. Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the suggestion as I’ve contacted the writer of the article to have it edited.

I’d also like to make clear that my urgency on the matter was a matter of concern and would like to apologize to bringing you all into that concern in the ways I did!

I just would love if the escalation process was a bit more hasty for scenarios such as these! 🙏🏽 CitationNeededNuAfrika (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no reason why interviews wouldn't count for notability, as long as the source is reliable of course, and the subject of the article is the subject of the interview (i.e. a spokesperson doesn't become notable for being interviewed about the subject they are a spokesperson for, a witness doesn't get notability from an interview about something they were a witness of, but an artist surely gets notability from an interview about their career, their output). Articles like this Vice interview and this NME interview make it clear that the subject is obviously notable and our article won't normally be deleted even at the request of the subject. Fram (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

And also note that both of these interviews include his former name which he is asking us to remove from the article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I will have it removed from NME article as well CitationNeededNuAfrika (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about Good Article reviews conducted by Camilasdandelions

Following the ANI discussion in September, Camilasdandelions was indefinitely blocked from editing mainspace due to concerns involving his use of AI-generated content and copyright violations. My concern is that Camilasdandelions also acted as a Good Article reviewer, having reviewed 33 nominations and promoted 29 articles to GA status, including Abracadabra and Disease. This raises the question of how thoroughly these reviews were conducted and whether the articles in question actually meet the GA criteria.

I would like to single out Abracadabra (Lady Gaga song) as an example. In October 2025, Gnomingstuff opened a discussion on the article's talk page, raising concerns about apparent AI-generated content. Gnomingstuff identified several instances of wording characteristic of LLM output, including descriptions and interpretations that were not adequately supported by the cited sources. The article's principal contributor, CHr0m4tiko0, responded to Gnomingstuff's concerns, denying that AI had been used and maintaining that the identified problems had been corrected. (As a side note, similar concerns about possible AI-generated content by that user have also been raised at Talk:Zombieboy#False, AI Generated Information and Talk:Die with a Smile#AI.) Despite these earlier concerns, "Abracadabra" was subsequently promoted to GA status in December 2025 following a review by Camilasdandelions, the editor who has since been blocked for issues involving AI-generated content.

When I went through the article earlier this month, I noticed that its Critical reception section was full of repetitive, formulaic wording. In particular, the word "highlight" appeared eight times, with sentence after sentence following essentially the same pattern: "X highlighted this, Y highlighted that, Z highlighted something else". This kind of repetitive phrasing is particularly common in AI-generated prose, something I pointed out in my edit summary. While this does not prove AI usage, it immediately raised suspicions for me, especially given the concerns Gnomingstuff had raised almost a year earlier. It makes me question how these issues went unnoticed during the GA review.

To be fair, Camilasdandelions's review was not devoid of substantive comments, and he did identify several sourcing issues. However, given that he has since been blocked over problems involving his own use of AI-generated content, I wonder how much confidence we can place in his assessments of other editors' work, particularly when some of the problems identified in those articles resemble those that led to his block.

I am not suggesting that every article reviewed by Camilasdandelions should automatically lose its GA status. However, I believe it would be worthwhile to identify his completed GA reviews and consider whether the resulting promotions warrant independent scrutiny. Where significant problems with prose, source verification, or compliance with the GA criteria are identified, formal Good Article reassessments may be appropriate.

I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on whether a coordinated review of the GA promotions carried out by Camilasdandelions would be appropriate, and how best to proceed. Pinging editors involved in the previous ANI discussion for their input: @Gnomingstuff, Elephantranges, Binksternet, and Star Mississippi: Sricsi (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Rolling back the pages to their pre-LLM status would be out of process now that they have passed GA. At this point the process is to start a WP:GAR for each topic, raising the concerns, with the goal either being to replace the AI-generated content and retain GA status, or to revoke GA and remove the offending text. Which way to go would depend on whether at least one editor was willing to do the work. My stance leans toward the punitive: remove GA status and roll back the page. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you Billsmith60 (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

At this point we should consider all of their reviews rubber-stamping and at the very least revoke GA for them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

update: took me less than 15 minutes to find a hallucinated quote in one of CHr0m4tiko0's articles (see Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/CHr0m4tiko0, which I just opened), so at the very least anything of theirs needs to be revoked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sricsi, I'd also cross post this to WT:GAN as they might be interested in this discussion. In the past, what we've done for similar cases is to open a good article reassessment to ensure that the article is indeed in compliance with the GA criteria, rather than sending articles back to the GAN queue. This is especially relevant if the problematic GA review happened some time ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I've now cross-posted the discussion at WT:GAN and linked back here. And thanks for the clarification regarding the GAR process. Sricsi (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Leave the articles alone. That is not what GAR is designed for. GAR is for nominating articles that have been promoted and no longer meet the good article criteria. Not because the original GA review was inadequate in any way. GA's original concept was basically to be a "barnstar for articles" instead of a barnstar for editors, a lightweight way to recognize good content that meet basic criteria without the highly granular and critical analysis of FA, a way of saying "hey, this article is pretty good, it should be flagged as a good example for others". Over the years, it's morphed into a process-focused "FA-lite" full of aggravation and bullying which is a shame. If a problematic editor had gone around and left barnstars for editors on their talk pages, you wouldn't go around and revert those barnstars, saying "sorry, but you actually shouldn't have been complimented because the person who said you did something well broke some other rules on Wikipedia". If the articles were promoted to GA status and they they don't meet the basic criteria, then either fix the problem, highlight the specific problems so they can be addressed, or nominate for GAR if the article clearly does not meet the standards with specific reasons why, just like it says on the GAR page. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Articles that were filled with LLM slop cannot meet the GA standards and never did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, just to clarify something here: It was the reviews, not the articles themselves, that were filled with LLM slop. We don't know if the nominations themselves have issues, because a proper review was never conducted for any of these.

@RecycledPixels, I'm not understanding the resistance to this process. The articles were not given a proper review, so we don't know if they even do meet the good article criteria. From the GAR page, Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (emphasis mine). A reassessment in this case would not impugn the quality of the page or the nominator; it would just confirm whether or not the article does meet the criteria. But thinking about this, asilvering's idea of sending these back to the GAN queue might be the best path forward. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken it seems to be the other way around: it's unclear whether the reviews were AI or not, but some of the articles reviewed (e.g., CHr0m4tiko0) are almost certainly AI-generated, so absolute best case scenario the reviews were not thoroughly done. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I was reading too quickly. Glancing at it again, there seem to be a couple concurrent issues: (1) The reviewer has been indef-p-blocked for persistent LLM use. (2) The user in question did some GA reviews that may not have been done properly, so the GA noms may need to undergo GAR or be sent back into the GAN queue. (3) Some of the GA noms Camilasdandelions did review, such as those by CHr0m4tiko0, are almost certainly AI-generated and need to be reassessed anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, bad reviews not involving LLM use are a dime a dozen at GAN. Sometimes you get really good reviews, other times you get a review that isn't much more than a drive-by, and you get everything in between. Is this presumably LLM-generated review much worse than this, this or this? I'm not going to go back and revert all of the articles that reviewer promoted to GA simply because they were inexperienced or didn't do it right (although I did vacate the promotion of my own nominated article), because there is a presumption that the nominator themselves checked whether the article met the GA criteria before they even nominated it, and my point is that to the person who spent the time writing and nominating the article, reverting the promotion is very demotivating. @The Bushranger, I was also referring only to presumably LLM-generated reviews, not LLM-generated article content. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point (regarding the demotivation for the nominators). I don't think the GA promotions need to be reverted per se, just that these articles might benefit from extra sets of eyes - which is why GAR might be the best place to get these sets of eyes. I'm not going to do anything about these noms myself, since that would make me involved, but I just wanted to put that idea out there. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, I don't think GAR can handle an influx of 29 articles. Better to vacate the reviews and return them to the queue, either by deleting the old review (if it's particularly poor) or incrementing the counter. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, normally I would agree with returning them to the queue. However, some of these are comparatively old and were promoted almost a year ago (e.g. Talk:Suit & Tie/GA1 was reviewed in December 2025). The answer then becomes no longer as clear-cut. We'd have to decide:

• Whether to return them to the queue as of their nomination date, which means that we suddenly get an influx of late 2025 and early 2026 "new" noms at GAN;
• Whether to return them to the queue as of today's date, which inconveniences the nominators because they now have to wait weeks or months for another review; or
• Whether we should we just put these through GAR to prevent flooding the new GAN queue (the easiest option, which is why I proposed it above).

– Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Unless they are relatively recent, I recommend sending them to GAN. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

When it was determined that many of Esculenta's good articles heavily used AI in their creation, they were sent to GAR, and many had minimal participation for months. I don't know if this is the way to go but I don't see a great alternativef either -just providing an example. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Acknowledging ping. I blocked the account as a patrolling admin based on the ANI report but am not otherwise intimately familiar with their work. In support of whatever action the community/GA regulars think is needed. Star Mississippi 01:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Unban request for GordonWatts

Unban request from Sbb1413

From User talk:Sbb1413#Unblock request 22 October 2026

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

My editing behaviour fell below WP standards in 2020, creating redirects en masse, which led to a topic ban on creating redirect. In December 2020, I made a biased remark concerning the reliability of Chinese sources, which violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV, leading to my community block in February 2021.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

I do not have intentions to deal with redirects or work with China or any contentious topics. My intended scope is to focus on non-contentious topics like science, technology, transport, AI, etc., as well as to improve citations with reliable sources as listed in WP:RSP.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

Since my last unblock appeal in October 2025, I have channeled my efforts into productive, policy-compliant contributions across the broader Wikimedia movement, including Wikimedia Commons and English Wikivoyage. As you can see in my global edit history since 2025, I can now collaborate neutrally and adhere to policies as much as I can.

To reassure the enwiki community, I agree for a voluntary, indefinite topic ban on redirects, China, and any related contentious topic (broadly construed), as well as any edit limits or formal mentorship the reviewing admins deem appropriate.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

User was blocked from enwiki under the name "Soumya-8974". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support per their own comment on their talk page; I agree for an indefinite topic ban on any contentious topic related to China, and South Asia is a related contentious topic broadly construed. Zalaraz (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
• Conditional support so long as there are topic bans for both redirects and Asia, broadly construed, given the past editing issues regarding Kashmir. I'd feel better without the repeated unblock/unban requests over the years, as well as the somewhat recent (2025) issues on Commons, but it has now been almost 6 years, seems time for WP:ROPE so long as the tbans are in place. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

AfD Backlog again

Some really complex discussions still open from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 October 19 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 October 20 that would benefit from some experienced closers/admins. Thank you! Star Mississippi 02:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I've closed all the discussions on the 19th except one, which I left a comment on to (try to) make a consensus clearer. Legoktm (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Editwarring and POV pushing by HistoryOfIran

User @HistoryofIran: deleted three reliable sources I added regarding the ethnicity of Abu Hanifa Dinawari by reverting my edit here and restoring erroneous sources do not support his claim. I engaged in disucssion and provided peer-reviewed references but he continues to push his point of view and unilaterally claim that it represents consensus. This is ignoring WP:Neutral point of view. Can someone please look into this? Thanks. Pirehelo (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Per the edit notice on this page, you're obligated to notify HistoryofIran on their talk about this discussion. I have done so in your stead. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

By your description, this is a WP:Content dispute. You should follow the steps described in WP:Dispute resolution. CMD (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I tried thrice to make you address an argument (which wasn't in favour to you), you had 2 months to answer it. The second I revert back to original revision you report me for "editwarring and POV pushing"? This just shows that you were WP:STONEWALLING all this time. As for the erroneous citations, I agreed with you on that part and removed them , so why lie? If someone should be reported, that should be you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Gang stalking

As a victim of gang stalking I find it extremely harmful that the definition of the crime itself is that it’s a delusion! That makes no sense at all! Gang stalking happens 24/7. On the street, at school, work, home... It’s a very very real thing that is simply group stalking and harassment. Why on earth would it be described as a delusion!??? Stefanieaf (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not a matter for admins, I'm afraid. That is, there's nothing admins can do for you here. However, you do seem to be mixing up Gang stalking with Stalking#Stalking_by_groups. Regardless, if you have specific reliable sources to bring up, please use the article's talk page. For example, Talk:Gang stalking. WP:RS explains what we consider reliable sources, while WP:NOR explains how we can't accept personal knowledge. --Yamla (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

StructuralSIMilarity(SSIM)

Hi, I saw this user, and I think that their contributions might not comply to the username policy. (contributions) Cheers, Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 17:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Bennett Li11 The username is not a company or person so I don't think there's an issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir,

OK.

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 18:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)