This is probably going to sound extremely petty but I am more just concerned about accusations of sockpuppetry in the future. An editor I have previously interacted (@Imperial khasah) with seems to have copied my userpage introduction almost word-for-word.

His userpage intro: Hi! I'm Khasah. I have a deep interest in the medieval world, particularly the histories. My focus extends to exploring Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. I especially enjoy editing topics that delve into the lives and legacies of monks, philosophers, and scholars from the middle ages.

And mine: Hi! I'm Ixudi. My editing interests lie predominantly in the medieval world. In particular, I am interested in South Asia, Central Asia, the Balkans and the Caucasus. I also edit on topics related to Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, particularly the biographies of monks and philosophers who lived in the middle ages.

I wouldn't usually care but the user seems to be getting dragged into quite a few content disputes and I don't want an Admin to somehow assume we are connected. What is the best way forward with this? Should I just change my Userpage? Ixudi (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably edit your user page, and send a message to the imitator. I also recommend posting this at ANI next time.

- Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 16:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ixudi, a lot of new editors copy more experienced editors' User pages so while it might be unsettling to you, it's not enough commonality for a Checkuser to assume that you are the same person. I'd only change your User page if that would make you feel more comfortable. Have more faith in our functionary team to have confidence that they would need more evidence to identify you two as sockpuppets. It's more likely that inexperienced editors would assume there is something up but you only need to be worried about wrong conclusions from an SPI report and I think you are safe there. I would drop a note to Imperial khasah, sharing your concerns. But remember to assume good faith, they probably copied it not out of ill intent but because they admired it and wanted their own User page to have a similar look.

In the future, if you have an inquiry like this, I wouldn't post about it on WP:AN but just directly contact an admin or checkuser on their User talk page. This isn't a case that needs the attention of the entire admin community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi dear admins, and other editors! I want to raise a concern very similar to this recent thread at AN.

There is Draft:Tabish Hashmi, which may had a history of editions by sock users (I cannot call everyone sock due to DBQ because AGF), until I tried rewriting it during 17 April to 1 May. This may not qualify under GNG or as a standlone BLP, but I assume I have added enough for creating notability of a performing artist (TV host, stand-up comedian as per WP:CREATIVE). The draft remains unsubmitted since then, and no consensus established on the talk page. I tried taking it to the other patforms, including WP:3O, but got response from nowhere, and therefore, I am coming here after more than two months.

It would be helpful if someone looks up the issue and assist, though my availability will be limited from tomorrow onwards.

Lastly, is it necessary to ping the involved editors? I assume that uninvolved editors can sort this out better. Thank you! M. Billoo 14:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem pretty confused about how English Wikipedia works. You should perhaps go to the Teahouse, our new user forum, and ask for assistance there. In short, you have to submit a draft for approval if you want anything to happen. Also, no consensus is necessary. If you decide you don't want to use Articles for Creation, just create the article in mainspace yourself right now. Articles for Creation is optional, and there's no reason for someone to sit around idly wishing that they could create an article. Of course, if your draft can't pass review at AFC, it'll probably get deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Billoo,

I apologize, because I know you have tried to get my attention about this issue (or on something else) and I haven't responded. But it's still not clear to me what exactly the problem is that you want help with from admins. Reading over Draft talk:Tabish Hashmi, I see there is another version of this article at Draft:Tabish Hashmi 1 but you don't mention this fact in your query (above). Most of the editing that has gone on and submission on Tabish Hashmi occurred in April, not recently. Is there a title blacklist or a main space page that is protected? Or is it because there are two copies of an article on the same subject? You could do what NRP suggests and move the draft to main space but given that it has been rejected twice, it would likely be tagged for a speedy deletion or deletion discussion by one of our NPP patrollers so I don't recommend you move it to main space without more draft improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. The fact is, I was frozen to make edits because from one side, the actual sock (StayCalmOnTress) was attacking over my contributions, and from the other side, I became part of the very same SPI. By calling it similar issue, I meant, rewriting and still getting AfC rejection, then having a very similar disagreement on its talk page, (and also recreation of a duplicate topic, sorry to not mention) just all that had also happened at Dananeer's topic (except for the protection part). It was not just one article for me, it was happened at the chain of articles, since April 2025. I will try resubmitting it right now, hopefully someone else experienced may check it independently. Thank you! M. Billoo 22:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Star Mississippi, I think the closing statement should be amended to mention WP:V issues, as at this point that seems to be the more significant obstacle to an unblock (see their talk page). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I lost my password and I don't know what to do. How do I get my account back? Is having the IP good enough? Stbpsci45 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have email enabled to your old account? If not, then there is not much that can be done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to declare your use of an alternate account; see WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a request from a non-admin to become a local edit filter manager is open at the edit filter noticeboard. Those interested in this are invited to join the discusion there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 10:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

The Arbitration Committee acknowledges the resignation of ST47 (talk · contribs) from the CheckUser team and thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, July 2025

• Victuallers (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Victuallers had his autopatrolled right revoked in 2023 by Beeblebrox enforcing the consensus in this ANI discussion. Yesterday, Dclemens1971 submitted the following nomination to Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled: (permalink)

I have been familiar with Victuallers' work for some time but coming across his work on Malawi in the new pages feed today made me realize with surprise that he is not autopatrolled. His new page creations are of high quality and demonstrate awareness of Manual of Style, notability guidelines, etc., just as I'd expect for a long-tenured admin. Unless there's some reason not to grant this permission that I'm unfamiliar with, I think adding the AP flag to Victuallers will reduce the backlog for reviewers.
— Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Since the right was revoked by community consensus, I'm moving the discussion here as a procedural action; I'm not leaving an opinion. Should Victuallers's autopatrolled permission be restored? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Victuallers, who says that the quality of my contributions has not varied for years. This means that a) their articles are presumably of the same quality as they were when P was revoked, so need to be patrolled by others; and b) that they don't recognise the issues that led to the revocation of AP and haven't adjusted accordingly, in which case their articles need to be patrolled by others. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was unaware of the AN/I discussion at the time of requesting the flag for Victuallers and would not have suggested it had I been aware of the prior community consensus. However, I reviewed Victuallers' previous 10 creations (my usual standard when I run into a non-AP editor whose work does not appear to require additional patrolling) and found no problems that I considered warranted ongoing patrolling. But since I started the conversation and TechnoSquirrel69 has moved the discussion here, I will share my view: I do wonder if the prior discussion applied too strict a standard to Victuallers and perhaps conflated the article quality problems with the separate topic of deleting preexisting redirects when creating new articles. Autopatrolled is for prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of the new pages patrol process on Wikipedia; there's nothing in WP:APCRITERIA that requires error-free creations. These kinds of errors flagged in the AN/I discussion are nitpicky ([1], [2], [3]). One of the articles flagged Fram cleaned up 10 minutes after some typos were made in an edit by Victuallers and less than an hour after Victuallers created the article. Flagging Victuallers' mistakes in this window of time as problematic editorial behavior at a noticeboard is unreasonable, especially considering NPPers are expected to observe WP:NPPHOUR. I'm quite sure that everyone who is autopatrolled makes similar mistakes from time to time. (Victuallers' use of an unreliable source is more serious, but in the context of other nitpicks discussed above I'd be more inclined to forgive that.) Autopatrolled is about focusing our volunteer patrollers where their time is most valuable, not ensuring that articles need virtually no editing by other users. Victuallers continues to be a prolific page creator and thus re-granting AP would have an impact on NPP volunteers' time. I think another chance can be granted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that arguing the previous consensus was wrong when it was literally 100% in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest. But that several experienced users (including two admins) found sufficient concern to revoke reflects both the seriousness of the issues—including copyvios—and, shall we say, a perhaps less than firm understanding or awareness on Victuallers' part that several issues needed addressing, but had not been. Respect your analysis, though. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi, like I said above, I wouldn't have brought it up at PERM had I been aware of the earlier consensus. I respect all the editors who came to the conclusion at the time. Just figured that since I inadvertently triggered this conversation I should at least read through the original discussion and not avoid commenting on something I started. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On a separate note, I'd like to apologize to @Victuallers if my post at PERM dredged up unpleasant memories or started a discussion that you'd rather not have. (If we should speedily close this thread, please let us know.) I was truly unaware of the history and only wished to highlight what I saw as a net-positive track record of contributions to the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think it saves time then do proceed with your application although I see that Fortuna is getting confused when they say "in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest". There is no "Victuallers' case", and it shows a deep misunderstanding of what's happening here. I am not the applicant. Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the gaslighting, but 'Victuallers' case' literally means 'the case regarding Victuallers'. There is no intimidation as to the 'applicant' ('appellant'). Suggesting that those who disagree with you are 'confused' or 'misunderstand' demonstrates precisely the lack of introspection I touched on in my comment. Caoi! —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume this was intended to mean "the case for Victuallers to be granted autopatrol"; I can certainly imagine myself using it that way if I wasn't being very careful with my words. Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can see that Rusalkii, but "introspection"? Why is that relevant?. Is someone still misunderstanding the case? This is an application by NPP patrolers to make a change to save them time. It is based on their perception of my editing. They will know that my "lack of introspection" (or the PhD that I could be taking in the subject) is irrelevant to their case. Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't really want to get into arguing about someone else's words, seems unconstructive. Rusalkii (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have reviewed a random smattering of Victuallers's creations for issues identified by other editors (about 15? I wasn't counting, sorry). The only NPP-relevant issues identified by other editors are the following:

• Special:Diff/1293545114: citation to a predatory journal removed by Headbomb
• Special:Diff/1281129389: factual error, caught by Thoughtfortheday as part of a series of major edits to the article

Neither of these users were actually patrolling the article, and I don't expect the average new page patroller to catch either of these issues. Do their articles have issues? Maybe. But if they're there they empirically are not being caught by NPPs, so we should reinstate the right to decrease the burden on patrollers. (I would change my mind on evidence of continued nontrivial copyvio, but given the history if that was occurring I would support harsher sanctions than not granting autopatrolled, since in this hypothetical that had empirically not fixed the issue). Rusalkii (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per FIM. I am not convinced that the issues have been resolved. JayCubby 14:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a backlog. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP has been declining UAA reports [4], despite not being an admin. Their edits to Template:UAA should probably be reverted as well. [5] 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E5C6:A985:B43E:CAB3 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• UAA is almost never an urgent backlog that requires a notice at AN. Any editors engaging in disruptive editing can be reported to AIV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason I shouldn't block Starfall2015 from WP:UAA? When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should at least warn them to knock it off first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been borderline disruptive for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look through their edits. I don't think sanctions are appropriate, since as SFR said they haven't really been warned and this seems clearly good faith. However, Starfall2015, your edits recently have been almost entirely to backend parts of the project, including ones that require plenty of experience. Please step back. Avoid commenting on noticeboards unless it's a dispute you were involved in. Avoid nominating things for deletion for a while, read some deletion discussions and policy, and try to help out by commenting in AfDs once you feel like you have a grasp of it. Avoid asking for advanced permissions. I get that you're trying to help, but this isn't the way to do it. I'm happy to take questions about what is or isn't appropriate right now, if you'd like, or the teahouse is a great resource. Rusalkii (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they should still get a warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz you already did User_talk:Starfall2015/Archive_1#Suggestion

I think at minimum they should be p-blocked from project space, but their draft work is also concerning as @Rsjaffe noted. Star Mississippi 17:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've been archiving/deleting their warnings and feedback on their userpage. I did give them some more feedback this morning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that you not block me, as I'm a valued contributor. I am good-faith, and if you blocked me I wouldn't be able to help UAA or something. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starfall, please read the above thread more carefully. You should not be trying to help out at UAA right now. You are not ready, and it isn't helpful. Rusalkii (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that response above exhibits an astounding lack of clue, I've pblocked them from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Once they have taken on board the community's concerns and agreed to act on them, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Concur. @Starfall2015: it is good that you are trying to help. However, you are not helping; you are disrupting. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, DFO; I think UAA can probably do without that kind of help. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the unblock request. They are currently running for adminship, which is the feedback they took on board from IP 2A0E's comment above. Le sigh. Star Mississippi 13:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related, I've also warned LordDiscord for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into LordDiscord's recent comments over the past few days, I am unfortunately convinced that they are not trolling and are being honest. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be trolling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. The reason I was convinced of their honesty was because of the comments at User talk:Olitun and User talk:Human Right Wiki. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet! The cat's out the bag now. If they hadn't gone through with the RfA, this might have been salvageable, but now we are firmly in the realms of CIR. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And their response to their RFA being tagged for speedy deletion was to remove the tag. Not a good look. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now they've removed it again. Surely a CIR block is inevitable at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is transcluded! Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Re, "you've been here long enough to know better", to be fair, I don't think they have: although the LordDiscord account is five years old, they've only been active about a month. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that isn't very long, being here long enough to know about nominating at RFA is long enough to know "don't fucking troll people into getting their teeth kicked out of their face at RFA and probably make them quit editing". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would people be uncivil (“teeth kicked out”) at RFA? If that is really a problem, then that should be fixed. The solution shouldn’t be to discourage qualified editors from being nominated. LordDiscord (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And an IP is attempting to stop my RFA! That is very bad. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LordDiscord I don't think you were trolling, but the naivety about the environment that is RFA isn't helping you or @Starfall2015 who should withdraw. While I don't think they'd be elected, the group election would have been much more kind than an RFA which will be SNOW closed at best and gutwrenching at worst because Snowfall is not qualified to be an administrator. That is a fact, not uncivil. Star Mississippi 14:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The election is what I offered to nominate them for (because I saw that there was an ongoing election). Although I thought that was the same thing as an RFA. I see now there are two different processes. LordDiscord (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. In any case, Starfall2015 is now demonstrating sufficient lack of CLUE/competence that the outcome's inevitable at this point. Going by their RfA "answers", we're probably been trolled... Q: "What are your best contributions?", A: "The thing that got me blocked". —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA is now transcluded. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus here, I have asked them to withdraw and apologized to them. LordDiscord (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think that's really a necessary comment. There are no requirements to nominate someone for adminship, and while yes, RfA is a bleeding shitshow nowadays (for a list of reasons so long that it could be the subject of dissertations), adminship remains no big deal. Everyone's standards for adminship are different, and while Starfall is a bit...lacking in the clue department, I think LordDiscord was genuine in their offer to nominate, and calling a kind but naive offer "trolling" is somewhat condescending, and there were so many better ways you could've phrased that. More to my point, and this is solely my opinion, but I think you should strike your accusations of trolling that you have raised towards them here and on their talk page. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging an editor to stand at RFA or nominating them at RFA citing the behavior that just saw them blocked is indistinguishable from trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior leading to their block was that they needed to be an admin to clerk UAA. They then were offered a nomination for adminship, which is, at least in theory, the way to remedy that issue. I don't see where this is necessarily trolling, so much as just well-intentioned but misguided. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any reading of this thread up to the point of the offer of a nomination could be summarized as "they just need to be an admin." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly did not read the entire thread at the time, but the initial comments were all about that (“When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page”, “The OP has been declining UAA reports, despite not being an admin”). The reason why I thought they were qualified was because of my experience with them at ANI, not this one, which I mentioned in my initial comment. That’s the only place where they had directly interacted with me.

I was surprised at the response, as I thought I was doing something good at the time. And that is a problem if it is indistinguishable from trolling to several editors, which is why I will be avoiding any RFA/admin election/related topics until I have a better understanding of the community standards. I hope that alleviates any concerns. LordDiscord (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're edit warring over the speedy deletion tag on their RFA [10], coupled with this frivolous warning and this obviously invalid RFPP request, it's abundantly clear that a block is needed at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not block me. I have not violated 3RR. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the request for protection, with some probably futile, but nonetheless kind, words I hope. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is beginning to look like WP:CIR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sealioning, IDHT, obsession with RfA, tying as many editors up in as many knots as possible over a range of namespaces. Kind of remnded me of this guy, who Zzuuzz CU'd as Arch'134. Still, by now I guess the sheer amount of dsruption probably warrants/justifies a general Checkuser needed request. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S2015 seems  Unlikely to A134 imo. dbeef [talk] 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A134 was for example, Dbeef. I assume there are several others who do not object to wasting the community's time like this. Mind you, I guess there's always room for a new kid on that particular block... —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case CU does not immediately find other accounts to connect to, I do a comparison.

I've got no opinions on a block; I was only looking at it from a technical point of view. dbeef [talk] 16:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Dbeef, didn't mean "block" in our sense, rather City block as in "New Kids on the"  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we were hoping this was a sock rather than a terribly confused new editor. The RfA application is extraordinary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe@Dbeef as I said on their Talk, I consider myself Involved to block unilaterally and they appear to have paused after the ill-fated ANI thread. But if they resume editing I think it's time for at least a p-block from project space if only to save themselves from walking into an INDEF. I'll open the proposal Star Mississippi 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, if any, would be ATMN, as they recently were also involved in the Oasis kerfluffle. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While UAA was the immediate issue, discussion here and at their Talk has shown that the issue is a broader one and that Starfall2015 does not have the Competence to edit in Project Space. I believe removing them from this complex area will help them gain the editing experience to be a better editor in the long run. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer and per self. I also think there's a case to be made for the IAR close of their RFA. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This behavior is starting to become very similar to another recent ANI "customer." Best in my view to give them a time out and let them build competence through the experience of normal editing.

Intothatdarkness 17:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well maybe; but I doubt it's enough. Sorry, but as I said above, this editor either lacks WP:CLUE and sufficient competence to edit here, or, frankly we're being trolled. Either way, they've become an absolute timesink. First, they're clerking at WP:UAA, which wasted several editors' time and bought them a pblock, then the appeals, then launching an RfA which if it's allowed to run will waste a lot more editors' time... all of which have done nothing except waste several editors' time and energies over a period of days. See also ths thread. The fact that at RfA their answer to the question, "What are your best contributions?" was answered with, effectively, "The thing that got me blocked", says all we need to know. As Cullen328 noted, they have been disruptive for weeks, and not only in project space: they attempted to endrun AfC by moving their draft back to article (twice!) and have left innaproprate user warnings and refactored other users' talk pages. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I take responsibility for any disruption from the RFA, I encouraged them to do that. LordDiscord (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not socking since they didn't edit concurrently and no attempt at obfuscation but Starfall15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is their prior account per the history of Draft:York Bypass (thanks @Fortuna imperatrix mundi). The deleted contribution show some nonsense from the first edit which makes me think they weren't new then. cc @Dbeef if there's anything helpful there. Star Mississippi 19:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though, as Fortuna... states above, this may not be enough. I get the impression that this is a very young editor, who perhaps is salvageable given enough time. Putting in some hard guardrails like namespace blocks may help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Clearly there is a competence/judgement issue that time building the encyclopedia might remedy.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As if there were not enoguth reasons before. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a bit earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh but I just saw it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with regret, because I don't think they're being malicious, but I don't think project-space access for this user helps anyone, including them. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Some sanction is needed for this editor short of a site ban, and this is probably what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Starfall is clearly well intentioned, but misdirected. The issues they are having are unfortunately fairly common among certain types of newcomers, namely they are trying to be an admin despite not having the experience or knowledge to contribute to administrative parts of the project in a productive manner. This seems like it would be a good way to redirect them to more productive endeavours, where they can get experience and learn how policy and guidelines work. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said. It saddens me that this new user received such horrendous advice. It's been a long time, a very long time, since a user with three months tenure and 600 edits stood a prayer of passing a request for adminship. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/David Gerard for David Gerard to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now closed, as David Gerard has resigned the tools. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I've been working through Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which has some overlap with Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]