Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

I wonder if any uninvolved admin could have a look at the work of User:Bhdshoes2, spread out over a few talk pages and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! I am getting absolutely dogpiled by superfans who keep smearing me like i am editing in bad faith (I am not) . We are still "doing it" because five new accusers just surfaced in the past week in the mainstream press (they filed a civil lawsuit), and the Leaving Neverland suit is the subject of new estate litigation. Certain single issue editors want Safechuck v. MJJ Productions deleted as well as Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bhdshoes2: As an uninvolved editor, I do believe that you're participating in good faith. But I also believe that you're causing yourself a lot of unnecessary grief by doubling down and assuming everyone else is acting in bad faith. I don't see any single-issue editors there, I see long-time respected members of the community citing legitimate deletion rationales. People are going to be understandably suspicious of your motive if you're so insistent on including content that's critical of someone, especially if you argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Wikipedia is hostile toward people if it seems like their edits are meant to "expose" someone or spread awareness about a scandal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK but they started it. (That was a joke- please don't ban me). I will be less snarky. I would just ask folks to engage with the content of my edits and not me personally like I'm some kind of suspicious character! It feels like "hey look over there" and an excuse to revert good edits. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bhdshoes2 what's up with [1] Did you intend to give yourself a single topic notification or someone else. If someone else I do hope you didn't intend to put that notice on Drmies talk page since that's a laughable claim. If you intended to give it to yourself that's fairly weird, there shouldn't be anything in there you need help remembering and this isn't CTOP alert it seems pointless to give yourself a notice so no one else needs to. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No to my page to ward off the superfan dogpile who post on my page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, Bhdshoes is a cold man. Michael's dead. ~2026-15034-31 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is not helpful. Either engage positively or say nothing. • a frantic turtle 🐢 11:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of a Wikipedia account's activity is publicly viewable. The accounts you're calling "superfans" aren't even active in the Michael Jackson topic area. They're active at Articles for Deletion, where they routinely vote to delete articles for the reasons they explained. I've never seen this sort of doubling down and attacks against fellow editors end with anything except for being blocked from editing. I can only assume you'll accuse whatever admin imposes the block of being a "superfan" too, regardless of whether they've ever written anything about Michael Jackson in their lives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh im sorry- I didn't mean to insult. Or to double down. What I meant was, was to tell that poster that I absoluteky meant to put that "single issue editing is uncool" sign on my page since they thought it was a mistake. I used that phrase as shorthand meaning my thought process at the time I posted it to my own page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

How about rather than posting pointless notifications to yourself, you just cease editing voluntarily so someone doesn't have to block you. Alternatively improve your behaviour so there's no need to worry about notifications. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was unnecessarily accusatory in saying that Drmies was a single-issue editor in support of hiding well-sourced allegation material. My familiarity with that editing cohort is behind my mistake. FWIW, i did attempt to make peace just now on the talk page for yet another disputed Jackson page Safechuck v. MJJ Productionsnot that I think Drmies has any obligation to engage!) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhdshoes2, Wikipedia is not news, and any single update to anything about the Jackson case(s) (on either "side") is not automatically qualified for mention on Wikipedia (undue, not notable, recentism, etc). When your edits have come under question, one of your responses was, for example, "how will researchers find/do anything?" But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database on all Jackson information, just like how it's not a flight itinerary, a travel brochure, or a soapbox. It's supposed to have a balance of detail for the average reader, so not all information is included. This is why other editors think you're coming from Reddit (not in the malicious sense), where a lot of subreddits focus on trivial documentation of everything possible. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a Wikipedia thing. I hope this helps. Crystalespeon (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair. I do think though that if a reader wanted to know in 2 minutes how many accusers accused any other celebrity (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump) they can look that up on Wikipedia. Readers can't for Jackson. It seems like simple encyclopedia basic information to me, not an esoteric deep dive into Jackson minutia. But i hear you.Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I think it's important to remember that even if you are right (or you think you are right), if consensus says otherwise, you have to be patient and work together, and compromise with other editors. You should get a good result that way. Happy editing. :) Crystalespeon (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yup. Thanks for your kind words Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had a quick look because of its edit summary; something about Special:Diff/1342434083 and the conversation leading to it is ... "cringe". The entire discussion could use a focus on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree, at some point it gets to be a ridiculous time sink, and that's where uninvolved admins need to come and step in. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

user:Drmies I believe that comment was addressed to your comments as well. .Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While true, I think the message got across :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve posted elsewhere, this editor, along with a few other editors, appears to be coming from a subreddit. Some of which have already been banned already in the past. I previously took this user to the admins’ noticeboard for disruptive editing, WP:CANVASSING, and offsite canvassing on a similar topic, per the suggestion of NinjaRobotPirate about three years ago. HandThatFeeds even suggested blocking this user based on a personal attack mentioned in that specific thread. The editor stopped editing similar topics only to reappear after yet another discussion on Reddit, as you can see here and here.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this is total nonsense. Once again you refuse to engage with page content so pivot to smears. You accuse EVERYONE of canvassing on Reddit. I distinctly remember you accused me falsely 3 years ago, the last time i edited these pages. The obly reason I am back on theMJ Wiki pages is because 1) the Robson trial is back all over mainstream press given estate dispute and 2) five new accusers from the Cascio family are in the press of last week. nd 3) wikipedia should be an encyclopedia not a fanzine. . Instead of smearing, why not explain why you keep redirecting Safechuck v. MJJ Productions to a 1993 page? Or why you keep trying to get Category: Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit: fixed link) deleted? There have to be content reasons. ~~~~ Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is still ongoing with Bhdshoes2 failing to understand what Wikipedia is not and trying to pick fights. I find it hard to believe Bhdshoes2 can contribute constructively in this topic so long as they believe the editors cleaning up WP:ADVOCACY are actually some cabal of Michael Jackson superfans trying to sabotage coverage of the sexual abuse allegations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait what have I done wrong since I got brought up on charges? Have deleted the S word from my vocabulary! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going to respond to this and to the message at my talk page at the same time in this thread. Just looking at edit summaries alone from the last few days, these are the ones that make false accusations against other editors of, or falsely imply that other editors are, maliciously hiding information:

• Special:Diff/1342983202: why are we deleting out accusers Jane Doe and eldest sibling Frank Cascio (who has been in the media for 20 plus years as a Jackson associate) but leaving in a bunch of nonsense about HBO's nondisparagment clause from an old concert film? Smacks of burying the info. Re-added Frank.
• Special:Diff/1342983824: Removing the paragraph on HBO litigation over a 6 year old documentary based on an old concert film clause. Nothing to do with allegations. Hides the ball (obviously). Is covered in multiple paragraphs on the Leaving Neveland documentarypage
• Special:Diff/1343002880: can someone PLEASE explain why this section is full of statements from people who say they were NOT molested but someone keeps deleting this actual legal accusation by the firm behind the Safechuck suit. That makes no sense. If you can have Feldman Culkin Barnes you can have the accusers in a section covering accusations
• Special:Diff/1343005678: way too outdated lawsuit info. The case is over 10 yrs old. Also it is an absolute joke to have this posthumous sex abuse allegations in an entry on this page nowhere visually near the other sex abuse allegations in his lifetime. Smacks of hidiing the ball from readers trying for an overview. But that is a fight for a different day.
• Special:Diff/1343034458: Adding "now." Funny how you impartial editors had Frank Cascio's abuse DENIAL statements and testimony and book all over this page and the trial page in 2023 per the archive. Now the joint is scrubbed clean of him at every turn. He was newsworthy when he said Jackson never touched him. Now he is memory holed. I re-added him below.

This accompanies the continued pattern of editing Wikipedia to right great wrongs. If you're looking for advice, my rule of thumb is that if you hold emotional beliefs about a subject, it is a bad idea to edit heavily in that topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine fair. I do actually believe that, not gonna lie. And if people who edit because "the wrongs must end!" should not be editing, then it is what it is. I hear you. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling strongly about a subject is nothing to be ashamed of, it's part of being a normal human being.

It takes a skilled, self-aware human being to learn and understand when that passion is so strong that it has the potential to impact our judgement on opposing viewpoints.

It takes a bloody amazing human being to be able to judge when this is happening and also have the self-control to step away and let others take over the reins.

Treat this situation as a rung on the ladder to becoming a bloody amazing human being. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Appreciate it Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed My God! There are DOZENS of them!! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait. I'm the drunk driver right? And this means you all think I'm wrong about these pages being "wildly inebriated" neutrality-wise? In that case ... .... I'm getting banned aren't I. Sigh. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People generally don't get fully banned from Wikipedia just for conduct in one topic area unless it's truly egregious. Usually it ends with any restrictions being limited to that one subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no opinion about Michael Jackson and sexual abuse allegations. Didn't pay attention at the time, have never been curious since. I am just noting that it seems like a lot of people are disagreeing with you. That does not automatically mean that they are right. I wrote an essay just for people in your situation: You can read it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this essay rules. Thank you. It captures exactly what (in part) goes on in terms of collective action from a contingent. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bhdshoes2; it's normal to be passionate about a topic. It's actually one of my favorite things about people, and what makes Wikipedia really great. What isn't normal on Wikipedia is getting to the point where everyone you disagree with is now seen as a "superfan" or "single-source/issue editor". Even if you are right (I wouldn't know, I started paying attention to society after any related scandal), being right isn't enough, and "winning" your arguments or disputes isn't the point of Wikipedia; it's to find consensus and to build a really great encyclopedia. If you can't edit about Michael Jackson in a manner that is collegiate and civil with editors, even ones you really disagree with, then you shouldn't edit there, period. I would rather the community not have to enforce that through a topic ban. You've acknowledged that you went too far, so the next step is to course correct your behavior going forward. My advice to you would be to stop making accusations about people's motives, tone down the snark, and to take a step back for a day or two to try editing something else. It really is fun to hit "random article" and correct typos or fix some grammar as a palette cleanser, or picking a backlog to try your hand at. When you're ready to come back to the topic with fresh eyes, focus on the content like ToBeFree said. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Yeah. It really is what it is. Even if there is a long-standing community of Michael Jackson enthusiasts reverting every single edit, that definitely isn't every editor here as was pointed out above, and I can't change that by hollering about it. I need to just not edit the pages, at least for awhile. I mean it is frustrating. 13 former child companions have accused the dude as of 2026 and the fact those allegations were made (not saying they are true, saying they were made) is functionally scrubbed. But snark is just not a solution. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still have remaining concerns regarding the continued editing pattern of this editor. The editor appears to be consistently focused on expanding coverage related to the sexual abuse allegations involving Michael Jackson, raising significant questions about neutrality and due weight.

As I noted above, the user participates in an external forum where discussion is explicitly limited to the viewpoint that Jackson is guilty. While off-wiki activity alone is not determinative, this context may help explain the single-purpose nature of their contributions here. Despite repeated advice, suggestions, and concerns raised by multiple editors, including administrators, the editor has continued this pattern. Most recently, they initiated a new thread proposing the creation of a dedicated navbox exclusively for these allegations, and have been notifying multiple related talk pages to advance this proposal. A draft version has already been created in their sandbox. As I see it, this is both redundant, given the existing Template:Michael Jackson, and risks giving undue prominence to a single aspect of the subject. Such a standalone navbox focused solely on allegations appears inconsistent with common practice here on Wikipedia, even in cases involving individuals such as Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, where convictions were actually handed out.

This conduct suggests that Wikipedia may be being used as a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Given the persistence of this behavior despite prior advice, I believe a topic ban related to editing content about Michael Jackson and associated allegations should be seriously considered to prevent further disruption and to ensure compliance.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're still trying to engage in WP:ADVOCACY on this issue? Yes, it seems a topic ban is the only way this will stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly a bit disappointed to see that, since agreeing to stay away from the subject [2] and acknowledging that it's not a good idea to edit subjects where you have a strong bias [3], they've only edited topics that directly relate to the allegations against Michael Jackson.

I'm wondering if a TBAN would be in their best interests, since they've not been able to stay away from the topic on their own & have essentially become an SPA.

On the plus side, they've not persisted in the original assuming of bad faith and have stayed polite from what I can see.

Can someone please confirm whether TBAN's be proposed/supported here, or must they go to ANI? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CBAN, topic bans can be proposed and discussed at both AN and ANI. In addition, Michael Jackson is a contentious topic area so AE is also an option, and I'm pretty sure an uninvolved admin can issue an "on the stop" topic ban as well. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I would support a TBAN, I might wait a few hours to see if an admin wants to place it themselves or would prefer community discussion first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute! I haven't edited ANY mj pages since I promised not to! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I PROPOSED a edit on the talk page! And did an RfC as I was told to in the essay about that was linked on the drunk driving metaphor. I have not done one singls solitary edit to an MJ related page since we spoke. This is an effort to shut down discussion. I voluntarily promised to not edit the MJ pages and stuck to it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find one single solitary edit I have made to one single solitary jackson page, it would lile to see it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and my nav box talk page proposal was simply an effort to reach consensus on the deletion of the Safechuck page. I was saying "hey go ahead and delete it but maybe we should have some way folks can navigate this topic?" Absolutely no engagement - rather, the editor came here ... Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not the article pages themselves, but you've been very active on Michael Jackson article Talk pages to discuss editing the articles, including the Michael Jackson page itself, the trial and FBI files.

This honestly goes against the spirit of agreeing to stay away, you've just moved onto the Talk pages instead.

You explicitly agreed to stay away from MJ pages, which logically includes the directly-associated article Talk pages. I don't think anyone here imagined that you intended to carry on using the Talk pages to propose edits to the articles - I certainly didn't.

You've even created an RFC [4], and a navbox to be included directly in the article, so how is this staying away from editing any Michael Jackson-related pages? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link above to that very idea in an essay where the admin made the metaphor about drunk driving. If you think a topic has been captured by a group of editors, don't be rude to them. Instead, do RfCs. And my navbox proposal was in response to the deletion proposal for Safechuck. But im so confused as to why you wouldnt want my input on talk pages if it isnt changing the actual pages. The whole reason I stopped editing was because overly passionate editors (I am passionate about neutrality not MJ) should not be editing. But why dont you want me on talk pages? I dont want to write my ideas where they arent wanted so not arguing. Just wondering why? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ps - I wont edit the talk pages either if that is what you all want. Im not here to argue. You guys are are the Wiki policy experts not me. But I do want it noted that absolutely none of my talk page edits were about anything other than navigation among existing pages. That is not ADVOCACY or SOAPBOX. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is primarily because most of our posts were encouraging you to explore unrelated subjects & topics, but a week later you've exclusively focused on the same area that you've had problems with - allegations against Michael Jackson.

That's a very, very narrow topic compared to the millions of available Wikipedia articles, so it's a bit concerning to see that you're apparently uninterested in working on anything else right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I wont write talk commentary any more. I do want to say I take being a person of my word very seriously and if you want to expand the no-go zone to talk discussion then so be it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a really good idea - if you can work on other topics then that'll do a lot to assuage people's concerns, and also greatly reduce the risk of other editors bringing this back to admin boards.

Think of it like an unofficial voluntary topic ban from Michael Jackson-related subjects, at least for the moment? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok it is a deal- thanks. I promise. Consider me self-banned from all things Jacksonian, both the live pages and discussion pages. The post talking about my writing in my sandbox and in the talk pages on that proposed navbox, to which I was NOT notified, did feel designed to provoke the admins into falsely thinking I betrayed their trust, and get me banned, which I think is very uncool, but I can only control my own self. I ain't writing any more where it ain't wanted and appreciated! Thank you for your patience. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About a dozen editors have commented with concerns about Thryduulf's conduct across two LLM-related conversations

1. Bludgeoning the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Replace NEWLLM, as described here [5]. Thryduulf argued [6] that he had not bludgeoned the process after having replied to 11 distinct support !votes and only 2 oppose !votes (both Thryduulf and I !voted to oppose, btw). Concerns expressed by other editors: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
2. Whatever happened at WP:AINB § Herbert A. Parkyn AI enhanced image, best described by Anachronist [14]. Several of Thryduulf's edits in this thread were disruptive, but this [15] which baselessly implied the rationale for a block was probably the most concerning. Concerns expressed by other editors: [16][17][18][19][20]

Attempt to resolve constructively: Seeing a pattern of behavior that had already deterred editors from participation [21], I decided to address it instead of waiting for it to potentially happen again. At User Talk:Thryduulf § Approach to LLM-related discussions I asked Thryduulf to acknowledge the error at the AINB thread to rebuild some trust with editors who are active there. This conversation unfortunately did not go as I hoped, which led to concerns about general accountability.

Pattern continues: Similar conduct [22] - assuming bad faith, groundless accusations of wikilawyering, tortured readings of LLM-related policy, general stonewalling of anyone trying to do anything about LLM content issues - is happening again at WP:AINB § Hammer retarder and use of AI generated image, regarding an AI-generated image that a user subsequently identified as a possible derivative work of a copyrighted image. Before this latest AINB thread, I thought that a few admins having a word with Thryduulf would be sufficient. But now, I think that a topic ban from LLM-related conversations in project space would be most effective, although I am open to other suggestions. NicheSports (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always agree with Thryduulf on AI issues, but I can't see that they have done anything wrong there. They have simply disagreed with some other editors and said so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything here that would be resolved by the proposed TBAN. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to stonewall anything. I simply strongly believe that existing LLM policies and guidelines should be interpreted as actually written, and that any new ones are workable, proportionate, have as few side effects as possible and reflect the reality that issues with LLMs are not black and white. I'm not sure why pretty much every comment I make continues to attract accusations of bludgeoning and bad faith, but now we're here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you keep responding to every argument against your opinion and reiterating your viewpoint? Not saying that is inherently bad, but this is probably why they don't think you are arguing constructively. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it then fine for clearly incorrect statements of policy/guideline to be made but not to point them out? Is it fine for people who hold one viewpoint to repeatedly reiterate their opinion but not for people who hold a different opinion to do the same? Is it fine for those who support a (near) total ban on LLM use to respond to each different argument made in opposition to that view but not for those who oppose such a ban to respond to each different argument made in support? Only if the answer to all three is "yes" would that justify the labelling and accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's more than possible to rebut arguments without bludgeoning the process. Also, this comment is remarkably hostile. I can't dream of making such a statement, draw concerns from multiple editors regarding said statement and previous discussions, and remain intact on this project. It may be that a TBAN is unhelpful or ineffective. But I can't help but think of WP:SUPERMARIO. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think my status as an admin has any relevance to anything here? I don't recall acting in an administrative capacity in any of the relevant discussions? Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No comment regarding the actual concerns, I note. Anyways, WP:ADMINCOND states Administrators should lead by example and, just like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others at all times (my bold). Just because you did not use the admin toolset in these discussions does not mean that you are exempt. Also, it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block coming from a person with the capability to mete out that block is inherently chilling. This isn't a mere observation. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf I think your status as an admin has relevance. At a conceptual level I write about why that is at User:Barkeep49/Elite, which I wrote after becoming an admin but before I got even more permissions. On a policy level WP:ADMINCOND does say at all times. I think there enough context within the diff itself (let alone the broader discussion which I've read) that it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block isn't a veiled threat. However, I do think that entire comment is reflective of an editor at a wit's end, which hey most of us have been there, but does so in a way that falsely sets up a binary of either incompetence or bad motives. And that doesn't reflect well on you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf do still think you being an admin is of no relevance? You have no responded so it is unclear if you accept that or refute it. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it then fine for clearly incorrect statements of policy/guideline to be made but not to point them out? Surely if it is so clear then actually it is not necessary to point it out? And surely if it actually is necessary then someone other than you will do it? ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I find Thryduulf's efforts to thwart restriction on LLM use to be immensely frustrating, and I believe their position is one that would do immeasurable harm to the project if it became the standard. But expressing such an opinion is not a sanctionable offense on its own. Right now, the ideal solution is to have everyone read WP:PEPPER, because there is definitely some bludgeoning going on. And then maybe codify our strict expectations around LLMs into policy so the letter of the policy aligns with the spirit of the policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I share the concerns about bludgeoning and hostility in these discussions, and I don't think it's limited to the LLM context. I'm reminded of recall discussions like Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr, where Thryduulf made fifty-five comments (apparently on the view that he wasn't bludgeoning because others hadn't adequately answered his questions) and used a tone that culminated in Would you now like to answer the question, let [another user] answer the question I asked, make more irrelevant comments without answering the question, or just shut up? I don't think we're at the point where sanctions would be helpful, but I really hope Thryduulf will (in the spirit of WP:ADMINCOND, which applies even when the admin hat is off) listen to the feedback he's been given and try to work on disagreeing without being disagreeable. Obviously this can be a tough area to strike the right balance in, but when people keep expressing their concerns and the response is I'm not sure why pretty much every comment I make continues to attract accusations of bludgeoning and bad faith, that's when I start to get worried that the feedback isn't getting through. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Extraordinary Writ If I was making tens of comments of the same nature in the same discussion then I could understand the accusation. The most recent accusations have come after I've made literally one or two comments on a topic and are have no mention or implication of the faith of anybody (unless it is inherently bad faith to disagree that the only possible solution to issues related to LLMs is to ban them (almost) entirely with (almost) no thought to any possible consequences, interactions with other policies/guidelines and/or how such a ban might be enforced). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf, other editors aren't coming to each new discussion on AI as a blank slate any more than you are. They're remembering all the previous ones as well. Editors' tolerance for bludgeoning doesn't go up the more they're exposed to it, but down. The effect is that you end up with fewer and fewer comments to work with in each discussion before editors start to feel bludgeoned. With AI, you may now be at WP:COAL as the limit. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a new thing. I'm put in mind of WT:Speedy deletion/Archive 87#Post RfC discussion (context in the immediately preceding RFC section, and context for that in the first section of that archive). —Cryptic 20:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to see this project continue to have nuanced and well-thought-out discussions about AI, but frankly when I see Thryduulf's name appear in any of these discussions I tend to disengage because I know it's likely to devolve into bludgeoning, accusations of bludgeoning, and denials of bludgeoning. The "CIR block" comment directed at Gnomingstuff is particularly outrageous – even if he didn't mean it as a threat, an admin saying something like that can have a chilling effect. I don't know if any sanctions are appropriate but wanted to note that behaviour like this can be a barrier to constructive discussion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Was pinged here. (Which to be clear I don't have a problem with in this case, the thread is referencing a comment made toward me.) I respect that their stance on AI is logically consistent with their stance on similar issues in the past (e.g. opposing the mass deletion of unreferenced articles on similar "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" grounds, apologies if this is a mischaracterization). Genuinely, I do. Obviously we don't agree on some AI issues (although we probably disagree less than they think we do). The difference is that I'm not out here saying that it's surprising they haven't been banned for incompetence. Whether or not they intended it that way, comments like this come across as "shut the fuck up." A recurring theme in AI discussions is how editors increasingly feel worn down, are losing goodwill, etc. That doesn't happen on its own. It is a direct result of comments like these. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this is an issue specific to the topic of generative AI, as observed by Cryptic. I am reminded of Thryduulf's behavior here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#Otherwise-implausible_redirects_originally_intended_as_editor_assistance_(i.e._possessive_redirects). I mentioned to Thryduulf that his participation in the discussion was starting to be counterproductive, and then I explicitly stated he was approaching something similar to bludgeoning after he continued.
  There is also something to be said about a chilling effect when an admin, specifically, is exhibiting this sort of behavior. Something like the CIR block comment will be interpreted differently coming from someone who actually has the ability to block users, and being mindful of that is absolutely something we should expect from an admin.
  All of that being said, I find Thryduulf to be a very collaborative editor with useful input almost everywhere else I've seen him on this project. I'm very glad we're having this conversation about Thryduulf's more troublesome behavior, and I hope he takes the advice to heart.
  The strongest sanction that I would support is a formal warning against bludgeoning. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This needs to be a broader discussion because to whatever extent Thryduulf's conduct is problematic, Thryduulf isn't the only offender. Arguably he's not the main offender. On LLMs there are quite a few whose passion becomes long-winded on occasion. I do hope that Thryduulf is one of those who considers editing their comments to remove duplication of points.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 207 § LLM/AI generated proposals?, the close began with the following:

  Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith are behavioral requirements for these discussions. When determining consensus, I disregarded the comments of Thryduulf, who clearly breached these requirements with comments like "If you don't want to be accused of making rabid assertions, don't make them." and "Your comment makes it clear that you have either not actually understood or are not listening to anything that contradicts your opinion."

  On the non-AI side, Thryduulf has also bizarrely argued that linking to a deprecated source is required by WP:V, which is a concerning interpretation of a core content policy. Combined with Cryptic's comments, I admit I am concerned by the pattern of not following consensus because they dislike it. ADMINCOND applies when the admin hat is off. I don't want you to be recalled. I don't want you to go to ArbCom. I don't want a forced apology. I do want Thryduulf to at least acknowledge that people find this behavior to be a problem and commit to doing better in the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a very misleading characterisation of my comments regarding WP:V, which need to be read in the whole context to be understood. I do acknowledge that multiple people have problems with my sometimes too direct communication style, particularly when I have become frustrated by my comments (sometimes repeatedly) being taken out of context, misinterpreted and incorrect motivations attributed to me (sometimes directly contradicting explicit statements I've made in attempts to reduce potential misunderstanding, although this is not common in AI-related discussions to my recollection). I will attempt to improve going forwards, but I cannot and promise I will never point out misrepresentation of facts/policy/guidelines when I see it nor to completely refrain from pointing out (the all too frequent) occurrences of being accused of saying things I have not actually said. I hope that others in the various discussions will also hold themselves to this standard.

  (in case anyone thinks it relevant, I have not been hiding from this discussion, I've just had extremely limited time and intermittent internet access for a couple of weeks and Wikipedia has not been my number one priority. I have over 100 notifications to sort through on en.wp and I have other things to catch up on too so cannot guarantee fast responses). Thryduulf (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf, I decided to look at your participation in that thread, context and all. The truth is slightly different, but I agree with House's assessment that your behavior was problematic there too. Your participation in that chain of replies was entirely re-litigating many arguments in the RfC to deprecate archive.today: the squabble over the definition of malware, and the importance of WP:V weighed against the harm associated with archive.today links. You referred to the editors aligned with the consensus as having a moral panic, and implied the dissenters as being the cooler heads who will inevitably prevail.

  That is concerning behavior. I want you to recognize that.

  I am not reassured by your response that you acknowledge the problems here, given how much of your response is to justify your behavior in a specific context. I understand if a more proper response isn't a priority for you, though, and you have my sympathy. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not stating my behaviour in the thread regarding archive.today was unproblematic, I was stating that describing my argument there that linking to a deprecated source is required by WP:V was (and is) a very misleading characterisation. I have no problem with people objecting to arguments I make, I do have a problem with people making comments about my character, intentions or behaviour based on (characterisations of) arguments that I did not make.

  I disagreed with the consensus regarding archive.today, but I do support implementing the consensus of that discussion, i.e. removing links "as soon as practicable". I did not (and do not) support actions that go beyond that consensus by removing links with intentional disregard for foreseeable consequences regardless of practicability. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have read your comments in full. I wouldn't have characterized what you wrote as linking to a deprecated source is required by WP:V but neither would I characterize that statement as a very misleading characterisation. But so others can make their own determination I expect House Blaster was focused on removing links is more than "might" cause "isolated problems" it's will cause problems of unknown magnitude, potentially tomorrow. WP:V is a core, non-negotiable policy that we absolutely must have regard for because there is a big difference between accidentally creating problems on a small scale through good-faith ignorance and wilfully and recklessly causing known problems on an unknown scale through haste.

  In general I am not a huge fan of the need of so many Wikipedians to have people offer full apologies in order to show contrition as the only means of acknowledging problems. I would much prefer to acknowledge people have pride, avoid the temptation to stop digging, and instead let the acknowledge the concerns and simply act different in the future. I think we're seeing the same dynamic in this thread that has played out at previous threads that have spurred the concerns here. By so focusing on whether or not HB has given a very misleading characterisation, it's easy to lose the acknowledgment you've made about doing better in the future. The same is true in the reply I'm responding to (even though you start that comment off with the acknowledgement). My guess is that you think you're threading the needle of standing up for yourself and acknowledging concerns; if that guess is correct I will say that in my opinion you're not successfully threading that needle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My intent is to acknowledge that there are concerns about my behaviour (this is unarguable), and that I recognise some (probably most) but not all of those concerns as appropriate and valid. I do intend to do my best, going forwards, to take the feedback onboard and adjust my behaviour accordingly (although I cannot promise perfection).

  Regarding the section of my comment you quote, I feel that it still leaves out some important context - that being that I regarded the (apparent) attitude that it is/was more important to remove links to archive.today now regardless of any consequences (known or unknown) than it is/was to ensure that WP:V is met both now and in the future as both incompatible with both WP:V and not in accordance with the consensus of the RFC. The characterisation that comes to mind now is "reckless versus careful and considered". "Reckless" is too strong a word for at least some of those I was disagreeing with, but hopefully this helps explain my perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf, what this response says to me is that Barkeep was correct when he said you're not successfully threading that needle. I don't think anyone has anything to gain by extending this thread any further, and I'm heartened by @NicheSports's comment below. I don't think there's anything more you really need to or ought to add here. But I do think you should consider, for the future, some kind of self-imposed limit on participation in discussions. A max of three posts, only replying to any particular editor once, only responding if directly pinged with a question, never responding to anything more than ::: deep, some combination of these or other ideas - whatever seems sane and workable, I think you should try it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence presented here is concerning. Failing an acknowledgement from Thryduulf himself that this behavior is unacceptable, I support a formal warning against bludgeoning. Toadspike [Talk] 02:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support formal warning against bludgeoning. Out of respect for Thryduulf's time, I think it best not to coax a proper acknowledgement or apology out of him. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, per Niche and asilver. I feel these concerns have been adequately acknowledged, and I agree that this thread can be closed. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Our essay against bludgeoning is used far too much. Discussions are supposed to be discussions rather than just a succession of people stating immutable positions. If you disagree with Thryduulf (as I often do) and feel strongly about the subject then take part in the discussion rather than try to silence them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree that some times editors are a bit quick to accuse others of swamping conversations with repetitive arguments, I'll note that the essay in question is specifically about not just replying to everyone with your immutable position. I agree that interested editors should be encouraged to participate. To help discussion proceed forward, though, I suggest trying to consolidate responses as much as possible, to reduce conversation branching and thus make it easier for everyone to follow the overall thread. I know this is really hard with English Wikipedia's discussion traditions (which is a key part of why our consensus-based decision-making traditions don't scale very well). I think nonetheless we should try our best with what we have. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest closing this soon? FWIW, Thryduulf and I recently found common ground here [23], which shows considerable grace on his part considering this filing, and I thank him for it. To Thryduulf: I became worried about your inactivity and am relieved to see you return. While I am still concerned about policy interpretations at AINB being a potential flashpoint, I think advice has been provided [24] that would be helpful for that specific situation (which I will work to adhere to as well) and beyond that I feel hopeful that nothing more is needed at this time. NicheSports (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know everyone has already said their whole deal here, and the original poster of the thread has suggested closing it, so there is not a really exigent reason why I need to throw my own bloviation on the pile. However, I should say for the record that whenever I have seen Thryduulf arguing about AI, a very high percent of the time the person he's arguing with is either woefully misinformed or obviously incorrect.

Being right obviously does not exempt you from THE PAGGIES, but on a subject where people frequently just say stuff that isn't true, anybody trying to participate truthfully will be forced to repeat themselves a lot (anyone who's watched an argument about pseudoscience will understand what I mean here). jp×g🗯️ 07:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user has spent most of her time vandalising pages that has to do with ethnicities outside yoruba, to the exxtent that they wanted to claim Akwete, which is well recorded in Hugh Crow's Memooir, and other anthropologists that worked in the Southern Nigeria like Percy Amaury Talbot. Please review the account and see that they are mostly repoorting and vandalising pages that belongs to Igbo ethnicity.

She vandalised the page created for the traditional clothes of Western Igbo people, and also reported it, despite having so much accurate references that are easily verifiable. This user @Dolpina has not been able to counter any of their write ups and edits on pages belonging to the Igbo ethnicity. Not even able to provide proper sources in her edits. This should be looked into very well, as to avoid biases on Wikipedia. Idenze (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk?markasread=345863913&markasreadwiki=enwiki

You reported me with fictitious claims after I clled out your vandalism here. Dolpina (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you correctly. Your edits in the pasts has shown that you are very ethnocentric, and bias in your edits. For example, you have done lots of edits on Akwete in the pasts trying to credit. it to the Yoruba, and when solid documents were uploaded, you resorted to claiming that the Ijaw version, which was well credited to Ndoki women came from Yoruba land. That is you being biased and ethnocentric.

Your past edits has shown repeatedly that you are biased and ethnocentric, because for exxample, you tampered with Akwa Ocha, without any solid proof of the page faulting Wikipedia's policy. Idenze (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts include older Wikipedia accounts with very few activities until recently and newer accounts created days ago. The accounts Dangermanmeetz and Idenze are examples of the likely old meatpuppet accouts making ai generated and original research articles, with "sources" not stating what is said, check it out , the "ichafu" and "Akwa ocha" articles, one which was already spotted as a LLM text hallucination reproduction.

Also another one, who is new is vandalised the disambiguation page of "Bole" to make it into a new article page of their choosing, which I reversed. An account days ago which vandalised the shekere page which then had just joined an hour ago. There have been a couple other accounts popping up vandalising.

But I will focus on these two older accounts, which even uploaded an art image from "1822" which is their own work and has n source stating it. The level of blatant disruption and commitment to original research is astonishing and very troll like. I don't know where to start with the reporting and from which angles, so I want to draw eyes of more experienced Wikipedians to these pages : @Dangermanmeetz @Idenze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichafu_(headdress)# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwa_Ocha. Idenze is also adding images with no copyright approval that are not free use and tagging them with whatever he/she likes.

Also check out the recent page history for Gele (headdress), Akwete cloth, shekere,ogiri,ogbono soup,Bole (disambiguation)...more might be currently be getting vandalised by similar agents.

I'll add here that I've reported them on helpdesk and that their edits have an ethnic POV pushing slant, targeting Yoruba articles, Igbo articles and Nigerian articles to push their narrative, as well as creating LLM and original research article content on the loan word for scarf in igbo language (not even an article notable for Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary for words)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolpina (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: merged the two sections; regardless of the merits of either (or otherwise), they are symbiotic. —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 13:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional data point: Sigma shows overlap among Obinna Tony, Ovunda2345, MarkAgu1, Briskman76, Obgist, Lutarchitecture, Dangermanmeetz, and Idenze on Akwa Ocha, Ichafu (headdress), Akwete cloth, and related discussion pages. Also, User:Idenze states on the user page that ozikoro.com is his own blog. If that site has been used as a source in related content (by other editors), those citations raise independence/COI concerns. I am not drawing a socking conclusion from this alone, but it does seem to warrant closer scrutiny. If the main concern is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, SPI may be the more appropriate venue.

The article itself should probably be trimmed back to what is clearly supported by independent reliable sources. Kqol • talk 18:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY is in question making an "ichafu" article, asides from the LLM and original research, as it is a generic word for scarf in igbo (via chiffon) not verified as a cultural head dress piece nor the pictures he/she submitted. It's like me making a page for eggs in spanish here as a Wikipedia article. Dolpina (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who (if anyone) is right about the two previous sections, but I do see that there are content issues mixed in with possible conduct issues. Take the content issues to the relevont article talk pages and discuss them in good faith without claims of vandalism. Then we can get a better idea of any potential conduct issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They keep reverting nonstop. You can see if you check their page history. They even removed the ai tag placed by two people,idk if it was an editor or admin. They were given automated warnings all of which they don't care to listen to.Dolpina (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolpina and @Phil Bridger I've warned them about WP:3RR on their talk page. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dolpina (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More sock activities: A user "Jajaofopobo147" randomly nominates Gele (headdress) for deletion, seemingly as "revenge". Please check @ User:Jajaofopobo147.Dolpina (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another strange activity here. Ive opened SPI here. I may add additional suspected sockpuppets later Kqol • talk 22:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that place is a horde of them that its an eyesore and they keep dropping commentary on there. They are coming from some groupchat on social media, bent on affirming each other and pushing that the word for scarf in their language (any scarf) means the same as the cultural headdress from another ethnicity, all with no peer reviewed sources just going on about how they wrapped their heads.... (so all ethnicities that ever tied a scarf or had a word for scarf, can cosplay as another ethnicity's distinct headdress ... I guess). Another interesting older account is one Bernadine fellow, idk the user again rn. I'll check that out, thanks. Dolpina (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really in a position to judge the underlying cultural issue here, since I do not know enough about the topic or the relevant traditions. This may be a good case for bringing in more subject-matter input, and I would be glad to help ask at a relevant WP if that would be useful. The conduct/sockpuppetry side is also worth looking at, but that is probably best handled by editors who work in that area and can apply the usual standards carefully. Kqol • talk 00:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I think it can be clear to all about the validity of said proposed article when none of the so called sources cited shows the name of said article on any of the titles... can be a tell-tale original research sign, which itvis in this case. But yeah sure, please do. Dolpina (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dangermanmeetz Kqol • talk 00:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria#Request for outside input on Akwa Ocha / Ichafu / Akwete cloth Kqol • talk 00:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note possibly related topic: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive removal of 15+ sources during AfD on Ichafu (headdress) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Turkish citizens

request, I would like to change the map and it's relationships with other countries for example,

• Azerbaijan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Georgia
• Moldova
• Serbia
• Ukraine

Since they have "freedom of movement" using only the biometric turkish national id. According to google, https://snipboard.io/h4YS9w.jpg The map of visa-free countries marks of turkey citizens "green sketch" on those countries i mentioned shall be sketched with "blue" to show a geographical movements of turkish republic. ~2026-18711-13 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes ~2026-18752-50 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a year ago, when I still had multiple accounts blocked for sockpuppetry, I wrote about my history on the website, confessed to things I have done wrong, and requested that an incident that happened to me in 2019 be looked at. That can be found here, but it is largely outdated now since I have been unbanned since then via the standard offer. At the time my request for the incident to be looked over was denied largely due to the fact that I was still blocked, which is understandable. However, now that I am unblocked, I would like to request that an impartial administrator look over the incident that took place to give their views on what happened and what I may have misunderstood and gotten wrong in my perspective. The admins originally involved are welcome to comment here themselves, but I understand if they don’t want to since I have been far too unnecessarily harsh and unsympathetic to them in the past. Below I will quote the relevant section of what I wrote a year ago that contains all the links needed for an impartial admin to review the incident, as well as my personal perspective on it. I am not asking for any punishments or judgements against any of the involved admins, I would just like this incident that has bugged me for so long to be fairly reviewed. Thank you.

Last February, on the BigBuilder1755 account, I brought up an incident that happened in 2019 on one of the old ips I messed around with. Here was the initial post. My post was very aggressive and demanding, regrettably so. I should not have demanded that the admins I took issue with be penalized, especially not for 6 months each 5 years after the fact. I apologize for this. I should have gone into this post with a more polite tone without many demands, I should have just called attention to the incident and gave my perspective so that a proper and measured discussion could be had. I was immediately blocked for this and the responding admins dismissed my complaint as nonsense. At the time I was mad about this, from my perspective I had a legitimate complaint and it was brushed aside. But in hindsight I don’t fault the admins for reacting this way. My complaint looked very much like a troll with the demanding nature, the fact that it was the first thing I had ever posted on the new account, and because the checkuser was able to connect this account to other blocked accounts of mine. I handled this the absolute wrong way, and I really had no right to leverage the complaint at all since I myself had wronged others on here and hadn’t owned up to my own had behavior. Regrettably, I did not get the clue at the time and over the next year I reintroduced this claim multiple times on different ips, each time getting them written off in similar fashion. This was stupidity on my part. Here are my additional threads on the matter for reference.

While many of my behavior over the years has been trolling, these specific posts were actually done in good faith, as silly as they seemed and as poorly as I wrote them. Let me explain where I was coming from. I was legitimately very upset by the interactions I had with multiple admins in 2019, and that stuck with me. While I knew that I myself had done bad things here and myself have wronged members of this community on multiple occasions, I was very much disappointed in what I saw from admins who I previously thought higher of. So last year I decided to look at the details of what had happened, and I came to the conclusion that I was wronged. I really wanted to see what could be done, which is why I posted that rant so many times. Each time I was very unsatisfied by it being dismissed. It being dismissed was my own fault obviously, but that’s how I felt at the time. I now withdraw all my requests to punish those admins that I ranted about, I instead just want to discuss what happened in that incident. I looked through the evidence and came to the conclusion that those admins were lying to me and unfairly blocked me, as I explained in those posts. I also understand that it’s possible that I could be missing part of what happened or misunderstanding something. While it looks to me like those admins were in the wrong, it is also very much possible that I am actually the one in the wrong. So below i will repost my perspective on what happened, but rewritten to avoid all my demands and harshness:

“I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was unhappy with what I perceived to be unprofessional behavior from the admins. So I would like to file a complaint on the matter so that we can discuss what happened. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page.

My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla seemed to have lied to me. My ip was blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my ip. From my perspective, it was clear that my ip was blocked, I believed that the admins were lying about this. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page which I interpreted as essentially admitting that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. I thought this was also a lie or at least that user being confused, as I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for an untrue reason. I believed that the 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. I thought that they were not taking me seriously because I was an ip editor.

Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla seemed to decide that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, which I thought was common knowledge. So it seemed to me that he just wanted me gone and made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. While this was true, I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. Since that issue was already resolved without a block, I also saw that as another flimsy excuse.

I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block, but got no reply. This really bugged me, I felt that I was being unfairly ignored and that none of my complaints were being taken seriously.”

And that sums up my issues with that incident. Hopefully this is more understandable now that I explained the context behind this, withdrew my unfair and hypocritical demands, and have admitted to all my own faults and am ready to face the consequences. I am no longer asking for any penalty to those admins, I just wanted to share my perspective. I am willing to listen to the opposing perspectives from the admins involved to understand why they did what they did and to see if I missed anything. I just want to put everything from my past here behind me and face the consequences so that in the future I can be a good Wikipedia user who isn’t hiding anything. Since I have cleared everything up and given my apologies, I sincerely hope that the admins involved in that incident are willing to clear the air with me. Since I will likely be quickly blocked after posting this, that discussion can take place on my user talk page in the event that I lose my edit access to this page. To conclude, I apologize, I am happy to admit to what I’ve done, and my only requests for admins are to hear out an unblock request whether it be via the standard offer or other conditions, and to clear the air on that unfortunate instance from 2019 so we can finally get closure and move this all behind us. That one instance is the only legitimate issue I have had with admins, which is why my only other request beyond consideration of an unblock request is to clear the air on that specifically. But to anybody I have wronged: If you want to clear the air with me about bad things I did to you, then please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you.” CrazedElectron27 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As someone entirely uninvolved in any of this may I suggest that immediately taking other editors to AN/I over interactions with one of your socks seven years previous is possibly somewhat unwise. I would gently suggest you might want to withdraw this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hold nothing against any of the admins involved and don't want them to be punished or judged in any way. I simply want an impartial administrator to review the incident and let me know if I misunderstood anything at the time, in order to clear the air. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't ANI, and at this point he just wants to understand why things happened the way they did. I agree he should let it go, though, among other reasons that it isn't reasonable to expect anyone to remember what their thought processes were seven years ago about an inconsequential event for them. And posting a wall of text like he did is a VERY good way to cause your posts to be misunderstood :/. Just write it off as some degree of confusion/misunderstanding on everyone's part, including his own, and move on. ~2026-19182-94 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The chronology of events given here does not square with the contents of the history of User talk:166.216.158.52 nor the block log of that IP. Gaelan's comments about the IP not being blocked came about 3 hours before a block was imposed. Your inability to edit PewDiePie at the time is because that page was protected (and still is) from unregistered/unconfirmed accounts. Yamla, meanwhile, does not appear to have ever asserted that there was no block against the IP; they imposed the block on the IP. DFO commented after that. Reviewing the VPN threat assessment link there, it appears that there was evidence at the time that the IP was part of a VPN network, although the same tool is saying today, 7 years later, that this is no longer the case. Gaelan never commented at that page again after Yamla blocked the IP. Bearean's response given the state of the user talk page at the time seems appropriate, given the extended random ranting all over the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review. At the time I do recall viewing a block on my IP, maybe I was seeing something from another IP or am misremembering? I understand why I couldn't edit on the PewDiePie page; the issue I brought up was Deepfriedokra saying I had edited on that page even though I hadn't, as well as implying I was blocked even though the other editors were saying I wasn't blocked. You are correct now that I look back that Yamla didn't assert I wasn't blocked, I should have worded that more carefully. He said that he newly blocked me after saying that I wasn't previously blocked, which I at the time thought was a lie (although I'm willing to take your word for it since you reviewed the history). I understand that the IP could have been false flagged as a proxy. My issue was that it felt that the proxy check was done vindictively. It felt that the admins already had issues with me so used that result as an excuse to block the IP and to disregard me. I did not feel that check was done in good faith. Again, I appreciate the checking, and am happy to hear further thoughts on this. I hope you can understand where I was coming from. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Block logs are public; you can view the block log for that IP address here at this link. You can see that the IP address was not blocked at the time that Jamie told you it was not blocked. It was blocked a short time later when it was found to be flagged as a proxy, which is what Yamla told you. It looks like you may have misunderstood what they were saying or the timing, which is understandable in the moment. But that moment was six years ago. @CrazedElectron27, welcome back to Wikipedia. The best way to get back into the swing of things is to focus on the now and not the past. I can promise you that no one here harbors bad feelings for you. This is a new beginning, and we're glad to have you here :) tony 18:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very long post, and it seems to me like it's more or less wrapping up now. CrazedElectron27, please let me know if you specifically want me to respond. I'm not trying to avoid doing so, it just doesn't look necessary, based on my quick first pass. A sincere congratulations at being unbanned, by the way, glad to see you back. Note that I'm leaving on vacation in a few days; that's sometimes used as an excuse, but I disclosed this (on an unrelated matter) to WP:ARBCOM a little over a week ago. Still a few days until my vacation, but once I leave, I'll have no access to my Wikipedia account until the later part of April. --Yamla (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• CrazedElectron27 You asked that "an impartial administrator look over the incident that took place to give their views on what happened and what [you] may have misunderstood and gotten wrong in [your] perspective". You have already had some answers to that; I will attempt to give some more. I shall also offer some advice, which I hope may help you. Obviously, as always with advice, it's up to you whether you choose to take it or not, but I suggest that you at least seriously consider it.
• When Ohnoitsjamie, in an attempt to help you, suggested that you might be affected by an autoblock, you said "Autoblocks happen when ip addresses were recently used for vandalism. This IP Address has not been used for 18 months". In fact an autoblock would occur when an IP address has been used by someone logged into an account which has been blocked, not when the IP address had been used for anonymous editing. Neither you nor I know whether that IP address had been used by someone using an account, because only a CheckUser can see what IP addresses are connected to what accounts. That is one misunderstanding.
• Ohnoitsjamie said "There is no record of a direct block on 166.216.158.52, and it's not currently range-blocked". That was perfectly true, as can be seen from the block log. Not only did you mistakenly believe that was not true, but you didn't even consider it as a possible good faith mistake, but instead assumed, without evidence, that it was a lie. I believe that the numerous inaccuracies in what you have said were good faith misunderstandings, not lies; you can afford to extend the same kind of assumption of good faith to others.
• Deepfriedokra made a total of two edits to the IP talk page in question. I have read and reread both of those posts several times, and I absolutely cannot see anything in either of them that looks like him "admitting that [you were] blocked". I have no idea where you are coming from on that.
• Judging from the section "You're not blocked" of the IP talk page, it seems you may have been confusing being blocked with a page you tried to edit being protected. You accused Gaelan of falsely claiming that you weren't blocked, but that was certainly not a false claim, and I have no reason to suppose that Gaelan was not making a good faith attempt to help you.
• Assume good faith from other editors, unless you have convincing proof of bad faith. If you had said that Ohnoitsjamie was mistaken in saying that there was no direct block on your IP address, rather than saying that Jamie was lying about it, you would still have been wrong, but you would not have antagonised other editors in the way you did, and you would not have risked that antagonism coming back to hit you.
• Even if you think someone has done something wrong, try to keep it in proportion. If you are the kind of person who is capable of bearing a grudge for seven years, then I don't suppose you can change your personality and stop yourself from doing so, but at least you can try to hold back from bringing the matter up. Doing so will achieve nothing useful, and is likely to lower other editors' opinions of you, which may at the best reduce the likelihood that they will take notice of your opinions on other matters, and maybe worse than that. Bad things happen; leave them and move on to better things. Turn the focus of your attention onto working on the encyclopaedia, not on trying to settle scores or take out your frustration over past events. I have been a Wikipedia editor for just short of 20 years, in which time I have made over 200,000 edits. How many times do you suppose I have experienced other editors doing things that I have regarded as totally unreasonable and beyond the pail? Hundreds? Thousands? I don't know. How many of those incidents do you suppose I still care about? How many do you suppose I still cared about three months after the event, never mind seven years? Both those questions are easy to answer, and both have the same answer.
• Okay, there's at east a substantial part of an answer to your request, and also some advice, which, as I have said, you are free to take or leave. My final comment is that in my experience editors who follow the kind of line I have suggested have a far higher chance of staying on Wikipedia for a significant time than those who don't. So there you are. Take it or leave it. JBW (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the advice. I'll address your confusion on the Deepfriedokra thing; he responded to me asking to be unblocked by saying "Sorry, I've seen your edits to that. WP:nothere applies.". This implies an answer of no to my question, which implies that I was already blocked in the first place. But I guess he just took the question as me requesting the PewDiePie page have its protection lifted? CrazedElectron27 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement by Deepfriedokra. Sorry, I've no recollection of that/those discussion(s). And I'm happy to "deal with you." Trouble is, I'm not around much since I resigned my adminship. Thanks. Wishing a happy Spring/Fall to all.-- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be absolutely blunt here. If I had realized that this would be the immediate result, I would have opposed your block instead of supporting it.

Like Simonm223 above, I was not a part of this block at any time, and I think you should immediately strike this entire message. You come back and say you're not here to make a complaint, and then you proceed to...make a complaint, but just pretend it isn't one. And then you accuse people of lying to you and misleading you, yet after seven freaking years, you still haven't even checked the basic facts that you're asserting to attack others, even though this was something so important that you hung onto it for so long.

And no, adding weasel words to aspersions doesn't make them into constructive engagements. Telling people that they're "free to ignore" screeds in which you attack them doesn't absolve you of responsibility. I'm not going to propose it, but if someone proposed to re-apply the block or limit you only to article space, I would support that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, did you mean you'd have opposed the unblock or oppose the original block? Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock. The request brought to the community didn't say anything about a James Joyce-length airing of grievances. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, thank you so much for clarifying! Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it doesn't bother me, and even if it did, it would be my fault for butchering my native language. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazedElectron27: Given that striking has been suggested more than once, I am going to link to WP:STRIKE as that shows how to strike out parts of a comment in case you want to withdraw this. (I don't see where we have a policy or guideline explaining withdraws, but WP:WITHDRAWN kinda(?) covers the gist of it. A user who starts a section and strikes the comment that started the section is considered to be withdrawing their request which is generally granted and, if granted, then the discussion would be close with no further action.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a supporter of the original appeal, I agree this wasn't the best idea and probably should be struck.

@CrazedElectron27 By including your original accusations, you're essentially making them afresh. Have you heard of something called a "sh*t sandwich?". It's where you say something bad and try to ameliorate the effect by placing the negative information between two more positive statements.

You've said that you want to review your behaviour, then quote your original accusations verbatim, then repeat your claim that you're only wanting to look at how you acted.

It feels a bit like you're trying to relitigate the original block from years ago & that's what's concerning a few of us. I don't think you quite realise that this is what you're doing, but you're still doing it nonetheless. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should withdraw this. This can not possibly end well for you if you continue. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why should an admin with limited time take it up with reading your post? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request an administrator to move this draft to mainspace because the target page is protected and can only be moved by administrators. The draft has been improved and all the suggestions given by the reviewer have been addressed. Reliable sources have been added and the article now follows Wikipedia notability and neutrality guidelines.

Draft:Mukesh Mishra

I kindly request an administrator to review and move it to mainspace if appropriate. Thank you. Yogiin (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Yogiin You've already submitted it to AfC - if it's accepted, the reviewer will handle the move. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft that does not appear to be currently under review, with the most recent status being "declined". Should an AfC reviewer approve the draft for publication, they can then post a move request at WP:RMTR#Administrator needed or on the draft talk page using {{Admin help}}. I don't see a need for administrative action on this matter at this point in time. Left guide (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So recently i got a deletion request for an edit i made on the Elie Tornado page and ever since that i couldnt really edit anything on wikipedia. I am really confused , hope any of you could help me out :) -Del Del2426 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since you edited this page, there shouldn't be anything affecting your editing. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting administrator attention to Golan Heights due to what appears to be serious breaches in Wikipedia, most recently regarding MOS BCE where a team of editors decided to unilaterally change MOS ERA due to "consensus", even though the 2001 page editors are using as "evidence" had 2 paragraphs at the time and MOS ERA wasn't even established yet, and 25 years have passed with this not being a problem. Four editors decided to suddenly push this, seemingly a case of Tag Teaming and OWNERSHIP of the article. They have unilaterally changed the entire article for this POV. They are using what I infer to be incorrect reasoning and clarification is needed. More pressing is the fact that editors are stonewalling the article and seem to be acting in unison to push edits through without regard for BRD and is setting a bad precedent for this project. Oversight is needed please. JJNito197 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the discussion at Talk:Golan_Heights#MOS_ERA is that there appears to be a good faith disagreement over which style is preferable, and the article has had a mixed style for an indeterminate amount of time, seemingly due to lack of care more than anything else. I think it would be much more productive to make your case for your preferred option (seemingly BC/AD) on the article talk page, rather than call for admin intervention here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, would it be correct to assume their reasoning for this, referring back to a 2001 page as evidence, can be used on other articles with a mixed BC/AD, CE/BCE usage? So I can revert back to the earliest versions of dating systems on other articles where there are mixed dating systems? Because this is the exact reasoning they are using. JJNito197 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wanting to push a particular dating system, it's just the precedent they are setting. I want to revert back so consensus can be formed. JJNito197 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resolve this on the article's talk page. MOS:VAR makes it clear that, If discussion fails to reach a consensus regarding which of two or more competing styles to use at all, then default to the style that was used in the first post-stub version of the article in which one of the applicable styles appeared. However, that is after the discussion is finished, and does not mean that the earliest style is automatically the one that should be used.

Also, further editing the date style while the discussion is ongoing usually causes problems as the discussion gets diverted. It's best to leave the article's date style alone while resolving this, even though it is currently mixed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So if im understanding you correctly, would the "correct" option be to RV these changes to as was is, and then get consensus on talk? Then if consensus wasn't reached on talk, restore back to the earliest version of the dating system on the first post-stub version? So are these editors acting against what is outlined on MOS:VAR and are they within their right to edit the way they are currently doing? Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:NOTBURO, this doesn't set any sort of hard precedent like you're describing, it's just yet another case of "the status quo is unclear and it would likely take more effort to figure out the 'valid' status quo than it would to just come to a new consensus about what the article should say". If there was evidence that Agnieszka and other editors were repeatedly doing this exact pattern of editing in order to game MOS:ERA in some way, that would be cause for investigation, but I see no indication at all that this is the case, nor does it appear that Agnieszka had any reason to believe that their edit was anything more than uncontroversial copy editing prior to your first objection.

If this was a highly contentious aspect of the article, with the expectation that it could take a while to come to a consensus, and where there'd be more cause for concern of editors gaming the system due to ulterior ideological motives, there'd maybe be a case for insisting on strictly enforcing BRD. But I'd hazard to say that the AD/CE question might be one of the least controversial parts of Golan Heights, and there's no need to draw this out or accuse editors of collusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To the other part of my submission, can one construe these editors to be acting in a TAGTEAM or BRIGADING manner if they are incessant in tandem, pushing edits through in apparent harmony, at the same relative time-frame? Multiple involved editors pushed for the specific MOS BCE change within 2 hours, and have done the same with other aspects of the article. JJNito197 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd suggest before you go changing anything anywhere else to be mindful of WP:POINT which is likely to lead to you being blocked for disruption if you don't have a good reason to make changes other than "this happened somewhere else". Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not petty, but within my right? JJNito197 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cryptic has indefinitely blocked User:TheTechie for vandalism on account of her April Fools–related edits. I think this block was questionable (especially without warning and when she was trying to comply with consensus as described at Wikipedia:Rules for Fools), but several other admins disagreed, so I'm bringing the unblock request here to get further input. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Similar to what I said on TheTechies's talk page, I believe that this was a bad block that was not necessary to prevent disruption. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Trying" to comply but not succeeding. As mentioned, I think an immediate indef was certainly heavy-handed, but the disruption (changing the target of heavily-used redirects like WP:5) was substantial, with effects that spread far beyond WP namespaces. I think a block until the end of April Fool's Day would certainly be warranted, at least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. She was complying with the letter of the rules for fools and did not intend to actually cause any trouble. A warning to stop messing with redirects would have been sufficient. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She was not; there were no visible tags at all, as there never are on redirects. A new user being directed to WP:5 would end up on the page for an American road with absolutely no hint what went wrong or why they were pointed at it, especially if they weren't from a country where April Fools is common. At least that's unlikely for WP:47. Fortunately, "indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent", on April 1 or for that matter on any other day of the year. —Cryptic 15:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point that changing the redirect targets is more disruptive than most project space pranks (though I wonder if some sort of soft retarget along the lines of "this is supposed to go to wp:x, but today it goes to wp:y" would be acceptable). I maintain that you should have just warned her. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WritKeeper; support an unblock at 00:00, UTC−12. Their edits were merely an error of judgment of no great magnitude. —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 15:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but several other admins disagreed who? — DVRTed (Talk) 15:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper is an administrator, so that's one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More April Fools time-wasting stupidity. All for the sake of 'jokes' that weren't funny when they were first posted in 2005... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" holiday, and we're all winners. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block. If someone is trying to comply with rules they are more likely than most to be receptive to a message letting them know that they aren't succeeding - especially one that explains what they've got wrong and what they need to do to correctly comply. Blocking is only appropriate if there is active, ongoing disruption that can't wait for them to see the warning or if they ignore the warning, and even then a partial block is going to be more proportionate in most case. I'm not a fan of April fools jokes on Wikipedia generally, but they are not an excuse for disregarding our usual principals regarding proportionality of response. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That first point is one I hadn't considered, and is well-taken. I had intended to warn that even the tagged summary change at WP:Speedy deletion was a bad idea before I looked at contribs and saw the redirect changes; at that point, I was mostly concerned with ending the immediate disruption. —Cryptic 15:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I agree that this is a Bad block reading the statements above. Why block for what was simply a joke that was an attempt to follow the rules but made a slight mistake. An infinite block is clearly not necessary for this misunderstanding. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• If an admin is "mostly concerned with ending the immediate disruption" I don't get the indefinite part. Then misgendering TheTechie when it would have taken two seconds to check their userpage is pretty poor. AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the rules for fools don't discourage this, they read like anything goes as long as it's not in article space. Consider this edit to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. It's allowed under those rules, since it's not in article space and is tagged as a joke, but it's a pretty bad idea. The rules should be clearer about where in project space pranks are acceptable. _🐾Nyakase^🐾 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I always thought that blocks without warnings were for "oh sh*t, this needs to stop and we don't have time for a warning" cases, or where a warning is pointless (e.g. clear trolling/bots). If a warning and a block will achieve the same effect, IMO we should always go with the lesser option.

Now that it's in place, if blocks are preventative and not punitive, what is this block currently preventing? If the answer is "nothing" then it should probably be removed - it looks like pretty much everyone agrees on that point at least? If we want to be pedantic, we can even time it to expire after midnight, but I don't think that's really necessary since the embarrassment of this situation will be deterrent enough. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block inappropriate. Reasonable alternatives would have been 1) 24-hour block if significant concerns about project disruption were warranted (personally, I'm not sure that's true here) or 2) warn then 24-hour block if warning not heeded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please close the two joke RfAs that are currently transcluded/sending out watchlist notices? The RfAs are scheduled to end on April 8th, but April Fools Day is over. I don't know if it was a good idea that these were transcluded in the first place, but they definitely shouldn't be anymore. Renerpho (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like they're gone now. Renerpho (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]