I use different email addresses for different purposes, so please read User:Thryduulf/Contact before sending me an email to ensure your message gets to the right place
Hi there, I've often seen you around at RfD and you seem to know a lot about redirects so I thought to inform and ask, there's an IP at List of misquotations (which I recently closed as "keep") who appears to be adding some sort of maintenance note but is also getting reverted by an anti-vandal bot. Is what the IP doing ok? Left guide (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the IP is doing the right thing on this occasion. Cluebot does not edit war so the edit should stick now the IP has reinstated it. I've reported it as a false positive to the Cluebot maintenance (person? team?), but I've never done that before so I don't know what happens next (if anything). Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
The word limit restriction (discretionary) is added to the standard set of contentious topic restrictions for all contentious topics:
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
Dicklyon (talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
The Arbitration Committee assumes the indefinite topic ban of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Hi there, just a heads-up I closed this RfD and launched a simple dab page at Farmers' Rebellion per your silent consensus. I think I got the main things, but a second pair of eyes may help since I don't draft large dab pages often; feel free to tweak or improve as desired. Regards, Left guide (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Yes, I love Ancient Egypt...but in Canada today with post Covid inflation, most people are struggling to survive and I think I have contributed what I can for wikipedia. I also wrote and sourced almost all the images for this article from flickr: Dush, Egypt . I also sourced most of the images for these two Princesses' articles from flickr: Mereret and Khenmet Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Hi! I am setting up a new Cardiff Meet up and I'm messaging those who attended the last one to see if they are still interested / local.
Looking at your user page I appreciate you may have moved however if you happen to be in the area it's on Thursday 6th November (6pm to 8pm) at Bru Coffee on Queen Street.
It will be an informal social so it's completely fine to arrive late / leave early. The aim is just for people editing Wiki (or those interested in doing so) to get together, chat about what they are up to, ask for any peer support with Wiki things they might want, chat about the kinds of events they might like in person in 2026 and also to just have a lovely time!
All of the information is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Cardiff/5 (I haven't had time to translate it into Welsh yet but the Welsh translation should be up by end of next week when I'm back in work).
If Cardiff Meet Ups are something you're interested in but something about this set up/ date / time isn't accessible for you, please let me know at gemma.coleman@wikimedia.org.uk so I can bear it in mind when we organise future events. Gemma Coleman (WMUK) (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Gemma Coleman (WMUK): Count me interested, but only if: (a) it's on a Saturday or Sunday; (b) it's open-ended - two hours is really too short a duration for what for me is a journey of 92 miles (twice); (c) it's in the daytime, not the evening - since it's likely that I shall be working the following morning (work on any of 7 days is always a possibility for me). To get to Cardiff by 18:00 I need to leave home at 15:50, and if I stay until 20:00 I get home at 22:15. Also - and on a more personal matter - coffee shops don't hold much attraction for me. The last two Cardiff meetups were at The Central Bar - I'm pretty sure I attended one of them, but didn't sign up, apparently. Food was reasonably priced, beer more so, and coffee - well, you pay about £1.00 to £1.50 for an empty cup, which you fill as many times as you like. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input @Redrose64. It's hard to run something that meets everyone's needs (not in a pub and not on a weekend were also requests I had!) but it's useful to know the range of different preferences and maybe we can change things around so that even if one meet up isn't someone's preference, the next might be.
If Cardiff is 92 miles away hopefully there's a meet up a bit closer for you? If there isn't and you'd be interested in running one feel free to email me (gemma.coleman@wikimedia.org.uk) or send me a message and I'd be happy to support with setting that up as I can.
Otherwise, it's still in the planning stages but there is potentially an editathon happening on Sat 29th November in the afternoon in central Cardiff. If that gets confirmed I can let you know if you'd like? Gemma Coleman (WMUK) (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thryduulf. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
BumblB645 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hello, Thryduulf. You have new messages at meta:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/117. Message added 21:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Interwiki talkback}} or {{Itb}} template.
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a 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.
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
I see that has article has been deleted. It was probably one I created when enthusiastic about Wikipedia, regrettably anything to do with Gibraltar upsets people in Madrid and a number of 'editors' spent a lot of time taking down Gibraltar material. No doubt celebrating the tercentenary of the Spanish being ejected by force was a target. Nevertheless it was a real event in Gibraltar and no doubt with a bit of effort I could find the source of the story and the images which have been deleted as "copyright" which is a dirty tactic as I rather suspect they were my original images. I had my image of the first flight from Spain arriving at the Gibraltar airport on December 16, 2006 deleted as a "copyright violation" despite giving a reference to my press pass for the event. Of course there were around 30 photographers lined up on the runway to take much the same shot as me. I was of the belief that some of the 'editors' were employed by their government as they had a lot more time to spend on edit wars than me. But in the end they got me banned and I lost interest. I would be interested in seeing what the article was and if there is nothing about the event, which was significant in Gibraltar's history, and creating a better fully compliant version. Centenaries only come up so often :) and we won't live to see another one here. One on Wikipedia is not too many. I am late in noticing this but the system just reminded me I did my first edit 20 years ago. Otherwise not dead, just sleeping Gibnews (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 2#Gibraltar 300 it seems you created the article in April 2006 and it was converted into a redirect to Gibraltar a month later. I left a long comment there explaining my findings, but with no mention of the Gibraltar 300 event on Wikipedia it was never going to survive as a redirect. I wasn't able to find enough evidence to verify whether the original article was or was not a copyright violation. I had no evidence regarding the images other than the deletion log, which said they were deleted not for being a copyright violation but for lacking a source (meaning it wasn't possible to verify whether they were or were not copyright violations).
Given the text in the original article was written more like a news report than an encyclopaedia article, if you think the event should be mentioned on Wikipedia then your best bet is to either add sourced encyclopaedic prose to an existing article (History of Gibraltar perhaps?) or start a new article (I'd recommend initially as a draft in your userspace), making sure that it demonstrates notability. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Since the previous discussion, because of my poor judgement at grouping together unrelated sources, was a mess and was archived with no outcome, I've started a fresh, targeted, discussion about FR24. Pinging you because you were in the old discussion :-) Danners430tweaks made14:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Hello, Thryduulf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lists of enemies and villains, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hey @Thryduulf. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 21 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026 ahead. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙✉17:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hi! You signed up to our last meet up as potentially interested in Cardiff meet ups but the date proposed didn't work for you. I'm messaging to let you know we have another one scheduled for 22nd January in the hopes that date works for you - full details on the meta page or feel free to contact me with any questions. Gemma Coleman (WMUK) (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.
Hope you enjoyed the Winter Lights festival, shame we were heading in opposite directions and didn't get to chat! I was just passing through on the way back from an afternoon in Greenwich, thought I'd have a quick stop for a look at the lights but it was so crowded I ended up only seeing a couple. Might try and go back one evening in the week to see if it's less busy.
I was also just passing through! I was on the way back from Ikea, Katie wanted to stop in at M&S to get something for the evening meal. I'm going to do Winter Lights on a midweek evening when it should be less crowded. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
can you explain when/how "of fishing" rather than "of the fishery" was the official name of the company? i'm not inclined to believe you until then Oreocooke (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
over here, you said "The Governor and Company of the merchants of Great Britain, trading to the South Seas and other parts of America, and for the encouragement of fishing" was the official name of the company and should be added to the article., but to my understanding, it is a misnomer because it is generally considered to be "The Governor and Company of the merchants of Great Britain, trading to the South Seas and other parts of America and for the encouragement of the Fishery" instead of the former. could you please elaborate on why you said that? Oreocooke (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because it came up as the official name when I searched. Now it's possible that what I found was a mistake or misnomer, I shall have to look in more detail. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
both results come up when I searched. I might just move the discussion about which official name is more official to the talk page, when I have time. Oreocooke (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to disparage anyone. My comment was in reply to the suggestion that editors don't like their citation style being "improved". It's only a real issue in cases of OWN (that's why I said "Curmudgeons not liking their articles"), where an editor's dislike of a style makes them resist the consensus of other editors. Switching a style isn't strictly a matter of improvement, but also opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.
A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi Thryduulf, I'm asking you to reconsider your approach in LLM-related conversations and make sure that you are adhering to important conduct-related PAGs like WP:AGF, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:CIVIL. I have noticed two examples that I consider materially disruptive.
Your contributions at WP:AINB § Herbert A. Parkyn AI enhanced image were unconstructive, and your comment here [1] which baselessly implied the rationale for a block was unacceptable for an admin. This can have a real negative impact on the project if it pushes constructive contributors away
You previously bludgeoned the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Replace NEWLLM, as summarized here [2]. I also noted [3] the bludgeoning despite agreeing, strongly, with your !vote. I was especially concerned by your comment here [4], where you argued you had not bludgeoned the RFC after having already responded to 11 support voters and only one oppose voter (you !voted to oppose)
I would ask you to take into account your words from your !vote at the RFC referenced above. You wrote about the need to to be explicit about assuming good faith and not harassing editors. Those apply in all cases, including to editors you may disagree with and on project space pages where you may wish the local community operated differently. With changes to your approach I think you can be helpful in LLM-related project space pages. Please feel to reach out or ping me whenever if you'd like to discuss anything related to this. NicheSports (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf pinging you in case you didn't see this. I see that you have continued to comment [5][6] at WT:AIC without engaging with feedback either here or at the relevant WP:AINB thread, despite now 6 editors expressing concern with the approach there. I think some acknowledgement (preferably at the WP:AINB thread) would help smooth things over. Like I said above, I think you can be helpful in LLM-related conversations, such as providing a helpful perspective in RFCBEFOREs. But without acknowledgement of mistakes (we all make them!) I worry about your participation deterring engagement from other editors. Hopefully you understand - thanks NicheSports (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is all the more concerning because I told you why above. I worry about your participation deterring engagement from other editors. This is not a hypothetical, either. The editor who opened the RFC referenced above explicitly told you [7] that they found your behavior intimidating enough that it contributed to them no longer engaging in the discussion. My suggestion remains the same; a brief acknowledgement at the AINB thread would go a long way towards establishing trust among the overlapping groups of editors active at AINB and WT:AIC. NicheSports (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of what has been highlighted was months ago and was entirely different in character to the most recent comments. I do not feel that my responding to your personal concerns regarding old behaviour of mine on a general page would be at all helpful to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. To be honest this feels like wikilawyering, which other editors including an admin noted at the recent AINB thread. I didn't ask you to address the RFC stuff - I have mentioned it here because I noticed a pattern of behavior in LLM-related conversations that has deterred engagement from other editors. My request was to address the recent interactions at AINB. And I do expect something - if you are unable or unwilling to take accountability for the recent conduct and establish that this pattern will not continue (again, a simple "my bad" at the noticeboard would suffice, this does not have to be a big deal), I will take this to AN and ask that board to remind you of your obligations under WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. NicheSports (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is my status as an admin relevant? Why do you wish to make a mountain out of a molehill that everybody else has moved on from? Why is tying that molehill to completely different old behaviour beneficial to the project? I do not regard expressing my opinions about other's conduct I did not feel appropriate as inappropriate, even if you disagree with me. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.
Arbitration
Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.
You claimed that the RfC was found hope not hate to not just be generally reliable, but overwhelmingly so, because you dismissed the opposing arguments as "refuted". I disagree, and I don't think this reflects the results of the RfC well. The opposing side wasn't arguing that it should never be used, but that it should be attributed to, due to multiple problems found, such as commission findings for example. Stating these are "refuted" when they haven't clearly been so seems to be like inserting your own opinion into the closure. Would you consider re-opening the RfC and letting someone else close it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire discussion and found that the arguments against unreliability were strongly refuted. Attribution is required for matters of opinion from advocacy organisations, but that was not in doubt and is not a matter of reliability. There was no consensus that attribution was required more generally. So I stand by the closure. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is required for matters of opinion from advocacy organisations, but that was not in doubt and is not a matter of reliability. Wait, so is attribution for them required or not? And if it is, could you add that to the closure? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution requirements are no different than for any other advocacy organisation, exactly as it was before the RFC, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES if you are unfamiliar. The close already says It is undisputed that, as an advocacy organisation they are biased, but bias is not a bar to reliability. It's not really providing much benefit to say that policy applies in the same way it did before the RFC regarding something that nobody participating in the RFC disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well surely not every source is biased -- meaning this one is treated differently from other sources deemed reliable? And even if there was practically no opposition in the RfC, future editors who want to know how to source HnH may find such mention useful. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's no different from any other advocacy source. Editors wishing to know how to source HnH should read about citing to advocacy sources if they don't already know that. We assume editors have competence and intelligence enough to know that the default applies when it is not specified otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We assume newcomers have intelligence, yes. We also assume that those who have found an archived RSN discussion about a specific source are competence enough to know that the general policies about advocacy organisations apply equally to that advocacy organisation, and that if they don't know what they are they need to read them. We also assume that more experienced editors will help newcomers by pointing out things they might not know and correct any good faith errors.
In short, the answer is no. I will not be amending the closing statement to say something that it doesn't need to say to satisfy you. I read your comments in the RFC, I heard your arguments, but they did not gain consensus. Move on. I may not respond further if you do not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For making a close that would likely be contentious and doing so with ease. This barnstar is awarded as the mist from snow dusting begins to form over the review. You trusted your own judgement and it's evident you had good reason to do so, please continue to do that. CNC (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld17:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bon Echo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The complaint was not LLM generated. I used an LLM to search for some sources, but I verified each one and wrote everything myself, using sources I already knew of as well. If the full complaint was generated by an LLM people would have been able to tell, but it obviously wasn't since I wrote it myself. And no I'm not an uninvolved party, I have been directly affected by Andy's behavior which I described. Please let me reopen this, I am not GPT posting. LLMs are a useful tool in a limited capacity like for speeding up combing through large amounts of data given it's verified by a human, and doing so does not violate Wiki policy. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to reopen that thread - you explained in it how you used an LLM to trawl through ANI to find mud to throw at the wall. Whether that is explicitly against policy or not, it is not acting in good faith. It's better for all concerned to shut it down now before boomerangs start getting thrown. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand I'm not some stalker who's been conspiring against Andy. The whole boomerang is insane.
As for the LLM stuff, yes I found mud to throw at the wall (crucially, in addition to the mud I already had), if that's the language you want to use. The language I would use is finding evidence to build a case. I suspected Andy was cruel to other editors I hadn't seen after my interactions with him and after being told on my talk he always ends up at ANIs for incivility, so I did some research and I turned out to be correct that there were a lot of more incivility accusations I hadn't seen. No part of hypothesis testing is bad faith. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you chose to act before listening, but actions have consequences. As I've just said in reply to someone else in the thread, bad filings (regardless of why they are bad) make genuine problems harder to solve. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree bad filings make genuine problems harder to solve but was my filing actually even bad? I reviewed all the sources before including them, skimming the ANIs, and it turned out a couple of the ANIs eventually led to sanctions for the nominating editor. But he clearly still persistently makes people feel like he's being uncivil, which doesn't necessarily even disqualify these nominations from being at least partially relevant to the discussion. Even if they backfired, they are still part of the much broader 20-or-so bullet point list of examples of people feeling like he'd been uncivil. I was establishing a pattern, and they fit that pattern even if on their own they would be insufficient examples. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At this rate, Thryduulf was doing you a favour by mercy-closing the thread.
I'm not trying to be clever, but if this doesn't completely backfire for you then don't take filing ANI threads lightly in the future (hint: WP:DRAMABOARD is a valid shortcut to ANI for a reason). Even if you think it's the right thing to do, assume it isn't, avoid filing ANI like its COVIDthe plague, just don't do it unless there's absolutely no other way to handle someone that is NOTHERE to improve the project. --Gurkubondinn (talk)02:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fair. I guess it just seems like because I made a mistake, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. I opened it precisely because I did believe there was no way to handle this situation outside the ANI (the moment anyone challenges his condescension, he always gloats about the ANI won't work and starts threatening with boomerangs). He was literally laughing at me in the discussion making fun of me for how it backfired, saying I would have had him if I hadn't used AI to find sources as if it was a game he was winning. In other words, he was being sadistic in a discussion about his own misbehavior but no one was interested in this because my own AI use neutralized any serious criticism against him. A lot of editors have expressed frustration for the same reasons. But because I messed it up, I misrepresented a strong case for a serious position as a weak case and ruined that opportunity for everyone. Fml. This editor needs to be sanctioned (again) so he stops being a dick to everyone, but that case needs to be made by someone better than me. I feel responsible for messing this up and I guess at this point I'm rambling. Sorry guys. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In one of your last comments in the ANI thread, you said to MEN KISSING that you didn't skim properly, but that contradicts what you said to me earlier:
...every single ANI it flagged I manually reviewed, confirmed it was related to misbehavior allegations,...
I hope that one of the lessons that you walk away from this ANI will be that asking a machine think for you is a very bad idea.
My guess is that you initially believed that you had "confirmed it enough" (LLM output can seem quite convincing at first glance indeed) but you were then confronted by a rude awakening following the scrutiny here at ANI.
That's what WP:LLMCOMM is about. If you are going to make an actual argument, then you also must be able to come up with that argument yourself. Otherwise it won't be very useful. --Gurkubondinn (talk)04:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the conversation here. But I genuinely think there's some misconceptions at play here so I'd like to clear them up if that's alright.
I asked the LLM to make a list of potential misbehavior allegations against him in ANI. Then I skimmed each misbehavior allegation by Ctrl + F searching each ANI archive and reading the first paragraph of each ANI. No part of it involved me listening to an LLM, I just asked it to make a list of ANI pages for me to examine and then I looked at each section manually for a bit.
When I said I didn't skim properly, I meant that even though I confirmed they were related to misbehavior allegations (they were, and the problem wasn't that they weren't allegations, but that they weren't valid allegations), I didn't do enough scouting to verify they each were valid. But in my mind at the time, I was thinking that even if a lot of these instances aren't 100% misbehavior, they're still relevant evidence for us to establish a pattern (because the nature of there being allegations themselves are evidence). So that's part of why I didn't look too deep at each ANI's outcome initially.
When you file an ANI thread, you are putting your neck on the line. There is no immunity for the filer. So you better make sure that you, and your own contribution history, will stand up to scrutiny. Because otherwise there's a boomerang heading your way, for free.
Thryduulf will know this, but won't get any sympathy from me for having let it slip that you used AI to compile that list ("I'll show you the man, and you get me the crime" was quite on point). But I hope that you learned how unreliable these tools are, and I also hope that you won't use them for your enwiki contributions or research in the future.
It doesn't matter to you what someone else may or may not do or say. Take a look at the list of editors with the highest numbers of contributions and see how many of them are blocked now. Look around any old discussion and you'll find a surprising number of old regulars that now find themselves indeffed or cbanned. If you truly think that some editor has a conduct problem, and if you are right then it will eventually catch up with them (there is no immunity). But don't be so eager to be the one to lead them to the proverbial gallows, or you might find yourself dangling instead.
Now let's give Thryduulf their talk page back. You can write on mine if you want to continue, but my advice would be to take a break now and walk this off first. --Gurkubondinn (talk)04:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I went to bed, and thank you Gurkubondinn for your explanations. The one thing that hasn't been said here (I haven't looked yet to see if it was mentioned at ANI) is that the key failure was not understanding the context of the filings and the context in which Andy said the things he said. Context always matters, even for bright line policies like 3RR (e.g. reverting obvious vandalism is exempt) and civility is arguably the least bright line of all our behavioural policies. Take this as a learning experience and you'll be fine, double down and you won't. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is Alexandraaaacs1989's third trip to ANI. Their first [8] was about a content dispute, but perhaps understandable for a relatively inexperienced editor. Their second, [9] was also about a content dispute but was also directed specifically at me. I'm involved, but my reading of that one is that it should definitely have been a learning experience and Alexandraaaacs1989 did say in the thread that they were learning and apologised. It is thus disappointing that they opened this latest one almost exactly a month later, and what they appear to have learnt from last month's foray is how to dig up dirt with an LLM. I would hope that they would take this learning point: don't go to ANI! It is a last resort, not a first one. Just don't go there unless there is literally nothing else to be done, and no other place to go. Even then, don't go there. You will be happier that way. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Now removed from there. In answer to your accusation of HOUNDING, I am a talk page watcher here. I have never followed any of your edits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew we were allowed to quarantine and delete (ex 1ex 2hist) all criticism on our talk pages without taking any steps to archive. And your edit has the note Remove bad faith reply, explicitly accusing me of bad faith which we both know is against Wiki policy. Are you deliberately breaking Wiki policy in front of me to bait me into starting another ANI so you can get me boomerang'd? Because it sure feels that way. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Users are allowed to remove almost anything they wish from their talk pages, with a small handful of limited exceptions, see WP:OWNTALK. Sifurboy is not doing anything wrong or inappropriate here. --Gurkubondinn (talk)18:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He explicitly accused me of bad faith. He literally wrote that my reply was "bad faith". How is this not wrong or inappropriate? Regardless I'll leave now since Thry asked. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And why are you insisting on talking about the hounding allegation I left on your talk page on this user's talk page instead? I don't understand why you keep trying to move away from a private space and into other peoples' spaces when you criticize me. How exactly is User talk:Thryduulf a better place to talk about hounding allegations than your own talk page? I don't want to keep bothering these people. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew we were allowed to quarantine and delete all criticism on our talk pages without taking any steps to archive. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Personal talk page cleanup - Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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/May 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
May 8–12: Discussion phase
May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
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.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a 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.
Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).
Arbitration
The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
_-_The_Dream_of_Saint_Joseph_-_NG6276_-_National_Gallery.jpg)
