Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 30 June 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!

---

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki message delivery 20:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, though I think someone is trying to change the incoming links to the article. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: You can hold off on updating those until there's a requested move. I've reverted the bold move to Susan Collins (politician)Susan Collins (politician). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need me to go back and revert those changes.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to revert them per WP:NOTBROKEN. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you change the Hip Hop template to look more like this?

2601:C7:C280:14C0:604B:6A11:AF10:4EE (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to remove all of the hyphens from "hip-hop". See the discussions Requested move 23 November 2024 and Requested move 2 December 2024 where there was consensus to use the hyphen. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave all the hyphens in, but other than that, change the template to what I've shown. 2601:C7:C280:14C0:604B:6A11:AF10:4EE (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other changes consist, so far as I have found, of things like using former names of articles (like changing LGBTQ representation in hip-hop to LGBT representations in hip hop music or changing Romani hip-hop to Romany hip hop) or section names that are not the current section names. Each one that I have checked has not been a helpful change. If there's any particular changes in there that you want to identify, please say what the changes are and why they would be helpful. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to put in the rap rock genres that are not there.2601:C7:C280:14C0:38E3:7302:6F55:75EA (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I believe this is a 1RR violation:

First revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1303840029

Second partial revert, still counts as revert to my understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1303878921

Could you check and if so, take the appropriate action? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the violation and imposed a 10-day WP:0RR user restriction. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt resolution. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 03:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• 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.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • 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.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• 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.

---

Hello, SilverLocust,

Just letting you know that this draft is nearing CSD G13 time and it is old enough that you might not receive a notification when it is deleted. Hope all is well with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've dummy'd it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not right to block Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu from Wikipedia. He helps ensure that a Mexican figure is recognized as important in the field of Yoga. I kindly request that you unblock me." 189.180.215.241 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions on the user talk page for requesting an unblock. The block should be appealed from that page while logged in to that account. Logging out in order to edit other pages (like this one) is block evasion and may led to your IP address being blocked. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Just wanted to say that I was at 800 words (-/+ 10%) which was my word limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1300894058) when the thread was archived. I've added another 200 words (and asked for an extention for it) to deal with the unauthorised unarchiving of the thread and additional allegation about things that happened after the thread was archived. I've edited my bit a few times to bring the word count down and to make it more concise, as the statement that you've brought back from 18th July was full of responses to other people directly, I've since reworded it to reduce my word count and not directly respond to every comment. This was my first arbitration I've been involved with and it's hard to know the process, plus I'm often on mobile, and mobile editing for the arbitration page is extremely hard if you're trying to reply to someone. I will refrain from getting involved in the process anymore, just wanted to explain my actions, because the arbitration started six weeks ago (and was closed four weeks ago) and a lot has developed since then. Icecold (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to request that the warning be downgraded to an informal reminder, as you originally suggested. I understand the problems with my edit and I've committed to being more careful with my future edits. You might say that in such case I'd have nothing to fear. However, as you can see from another editor's off-topic comment in the AE thread about an unrelated RUSUKR edit, editors like myself working in contentious areas get scrutinised a lot and sanctions can be weaponised in future. Alaexis_¿question? 19:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin and Vanamonde93: Wish to respond? I won't reduce it to an unlogged warning unless you two are fine with that, given that a warning can be logged by a single administrator. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed both per my comments at AE about the edits we looked at, but also because I trust AE admins as a body will not give more than necessary weight to a logged warning. I appreciate the ask. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The headcount in favor of a logged warning was 2 in favor, 1 not-opposed, 1 opposed, so per WP:CTOP your closure was correct under a rough-consensus standard, and can't be reversed outside of a formal appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the appeal procedures are a restriction on the closer's ordinary discretion around revising or reverting a close. Anyway, purely hypothetical since as I said I wouldn't reduce it unless you agreed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• 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.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• 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.

---

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to ask for your help on a problem, for which I apologize here. I have been writing articles on Wikipedia for quite some time now, and I have many articles to my name, but I have never been involved in the deeper rules of the site; I was simply interested in spreading historical knowledge. That is why, at the same time, I think due to a system error, I made a mistake. When I tried to upload a picture to Wikimedia once, the system wouldn't let me, forcing me to create the address Sylvain5791 there to upload the image to Wikimedia. I didn't realise this address also worked on Wikipedia. And the Sylvain5791 address was created from the same email address I use for the Sylvain1975 account. A few days ago, I noticed a date error (the starting date of a period) on one of my maps uploaded to Wikimedia. Since that map was part of a series of maps concerning the Austro-Hungarian confrontations during 1848-1849, made by me on Wikimedia, I had to adjust the date on the map that followed this map, as well. To make these corrections, I used the account Sylvain5791, because Wikimedia did not allow me to do so with my original account Sylvain1975. Afterward, without paying attention to which account I was logged into, I made small changes to the descriptions of these maps on the Wikipedia pages where they were used. I thought I was still editing from my original account (Sylvain1975), but in fact, those two minor edits appeared under the Sylvain5791 account. I was not aware that having separate accounts on Wikipedia and Wikimedia was against the rules, nor that clicking back into Wikipedia would cause edits to be made with the Wikimedia account, because I thought that my Sylvain1975 address would not change into Sylvain5791 there by using it on Wikimedia. That is how the two edits appeared in the articles Spring Campaign and Winter Campaign (1848–1849). I sincerely apologize for this. I never used the account for a malicious purpose. If I had intended to do anything wrong, I would have created that account from a different email address. I did not mean to break any rules. As I mentioned, I only created the second account by mistake, because the system would not allow me to upload an image to Wikimedia with my original account. These edits were limited to articles I had written myself, and the Sylvain5791 account was not used for any malicious purpose (Creating an illusion of support, Internal discussions, Circumventing policies, Strawman, etc.). When I figured out that I made a mistake, I put the template retired on that account, and I also wrote an explanation on its talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sylvain5791

So, I want to ask you, what can I do? Can you help me? Maybe I can use: - Clean Start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Clean_start, - Legitimate users option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses, - or to tag the Sylvain5791 account as: Maintenance: An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks, or to segregate functions to maintain a user talk page dedicated to the purpose. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account, as "This account is the alternate account of "Sylvain1975Original account", with the mention that it is used only for image uploading. Or any other option you propose.

Thank you for your advice, and I apologize for any inconvenience I caused you. Sylvain1975_¿question? 19:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain1975. There's no need to worry. You can just put {{User alternative account banner|Sylvain1975}} at the Sylvain5791 user page. (Wikipedia:Clean start doesn't apply here, because this you aren't starting over with a new account.) If you want to make it clearer at a glance that the two accounts are connected, you could make a to rename it to "Sylvain1975 (alt)" (while logged in to Sylvain5791), but that isn't necessary. I don't think anyone looking at your alternative account's edits and similar name would think it is intended for deception (or other impermissible purposes stated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). (Personally, I use the alt account name SilverLocust+.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Sylvain1975 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please create the redirects 'Siberian Wikipedia' (with a capital 'W') and 'Siberian wikipedia' (with a lowercase 'w') with the templates {{Rcat shell}}, {{R from domain name|.org}}, {{R to section}} (for both redirects), {{R from other capitalisation}} and {{R avoided double redirect|Klingon Wikipedia}} (only for the second redirect) and redirect them to the article 'list of Wikipedias § Siberian', because I think those redirects would be useful to readers? PK2 (talk; contributions) 11:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant 'Wikipedia' in both instances (both with a capital 'W' and a lowercase 'w'), not 'Wikipeda'. I just fixed those spellings now. PK2 (talk; contributions) 22:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PK2: I've undeleted Siberian WikipediaSiberian Wikipedia. This isn't a domain name (which would end in .org), and it's an anchor rather than a section. If the reader types "Siberian wikipedia" into a search, it already automatically fixes the capitalization. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to ask a question regarding the latest AE proceedings I was the subject of. I'm asking you since you've commented on them and have been involved in other incidents, so you likely have the necessary context.

I don't want to appeal my BER - some of my edits were inappropriate and I'm still reflecting on the arguments made by admins and other users, in the meantime I've taken a break from the more contentious topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While reading what BER is I suddenly realised that I'd be banned from opening enforcement requests. I'm not a big fan of them, I don't think I've ever made AE or ANI requests. However I'm concerned that the problematic behaviour that has been happening in the PIA topic area (primarily a severe lack of AGF and removal of reliable sources supporting opposing viewpoints) would continue and I would have no way of bringing it to the admins' attention. Short of requesting an exception to this part of the ban, what would you recommend as the best way to address such issues if they arise?

To be transparent, I've asked u:Vanamonde93 a similar question here but I wasn't fully satisfied by the response I got. Alaexis_¿question? 11:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: Sorry, I missed the notification that you had sent this. If you think administrator intervention is necessary, personally I'm willing to be pinged from your user talk space or by email to take a look, provided that you keep the request brief (say, under 200 words for the initial message), that you don't ping others in the request, and that you only do so occasionally. However, I will try to resolve it without issuing sanctions, since I don't want to treat this as a broad workaround to the restriction. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That definitely works for me. Alaexis_¿question? 06:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	[73] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also love the design of these. I looked at the table and thought "hell yes". And then I checked who added them and found noone, checked for template changes, checked for module changes and then lacked words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• 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.

---

MediaWiki message delivery 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe but am not entirely certain that this edit constitutes a 1RR violation. I informed the editor of it and they claim it is not, without addressing it and instead discussing the merits of the tag. Can you resolve this if this is indeed a violation?

I believe it may be as according to Wikipedia:Edit warring, "to revert is to undo the action of another editor." Uw-3rr states that "undoing another editor’s work — whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material — counts as a revert." Maintenance tags are not exempt from 1RR. Tags like

or

are substantive, contentious claims about an article's quality. Their removal and restoration are treated as any other content edit under 1RR. Furthermore, in the same series of edits the editor reverted other content alongside adding the tags, constituting one revert. Because re-adding a tag after it has been removed constitutes undoing the removal, that action qualifies as a revert under the policy definitions. Reinstating something they had been reverted constitutes a second revert, and thus is a violation of 1RR.

Furthermore, I believe the tagging itself violates WP:DRIVEBYTAG, but that is being discussed in the talk and can play out there. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied with an explanation and warning. I'd also revert the violation, but it has already been reverted. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your name came up here. [92] Perhaps you have some sort of clue as to what the heck this is all about? I attempted to answer a somewhat confusing question about section heading formatting regarding an article on a long-dead illustrator, and through an increasingly convoluted discussion, am now apparently being accused of mistreating a 'Supreme Court rape victim', while 'obtain[ing] information about this article offering to assist me' - an odd accusation to make, since I was being asked to assist. There appears to be some sort of CoI involved too, which apparently TheArtandVintage, who started the thread, would rather didn't get discussed further, despite revealing it on their user page some time back. [93] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the foggiest idea what that's about, sorry. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this post on TheArtandVintage's talk page, [94] they may well have been editing with a previous account, and have been blocked. Maybe that will jog your memory? Probably not, but I'm thoroughly baffled - more so, since I'm now being told that suggesting that “it’s not an emergency to update an article about an illustrator that died in 1975”, as I did, was defamatory. Just bizarre... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to ongoing CoI concerns etc, I have now taken this to ANI: [95]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This addition appears to indicate that the discusison of 3A vs 3B is still an on-going or unsettled topic, rather than closed with consensus. DMacks (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? "Per consensus at ___" doesn't mean ___ is still open. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also that change was per 4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something you added:

or users with few or no edits outside user space, excessively unrelated or grossly improper<ref group=meta>The words "or grossly improper" will be deleted if 3B passes over 3A.</ref>

but that "if" is not an open question. DMacks (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't check the footnote. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix! DMacks (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SilverLocust. 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?

• 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

• 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)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

MediaWiki message delivery 20:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SilverLocust, I hope you're doing well. Could you please merge the history of Draft:The Remarried Empress into the newly created mainspace article, The Remarried Empress? Thank you for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized there's a draft for this article, and I thought it was a redirect for a novel. But I didn't copy-paste from the draft, so why does it need to be merged? Shouldn't we open a discussion first? 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 22:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't have to be merged for attribution, but they are literally on the same exact subject so there's no need to discuss merging them. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 15:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated at the recent RfC on the same topic or the recent ARCA request on the same topic, you are invited to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Allowing use of AE for community topicwide restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @SilverLocust. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 10 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. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't told me. Though @SilverLocust+ has this account beat by 4 months (it just originally had "Jenson" in the username so I switched to this account to be more anonymous). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When List of films considered the worst was split, the list of lists was left unnecessarily semi'd, while List of 21st century films considered the worst wa sleft unprotected. List of 20th century films considered the worst ended up with the bulk of the page history and the original protection settings as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reduce the base page to temporary PCP as WP:TRYUNPROT. The 21st century page hasn't faced disruption in its month of existence, so I think I'll just leave it unprotected until needed per WP:PREEMPTIVE.

If you're aware of a standard practice of split articles matching the parent protection, I'd be interested in looking at that. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2026 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to contact us, and indicate the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business. It is strongly encouraged to use a Gmail address for ArbCom business, for functionality reasons.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the VRT users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 16:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is also not what I associate with arbitration, - I enjoy being without arbcom restrictions for ten years now ;) - For fun, perhaps listen to Mendelssohn on a great instrument, illustrated with historic images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty congratulations, Jenson; I hope you have fun in your new role! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Techno (though fun isn't among the thing that come to mind when I think of arbitration). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've often found fun in places I wouldn't expect, Wikipedia in general being one of them! If nothing else, don't let the LTAs get you down. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• 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

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• 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!

---

MediaWiki message delivery 17:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe but am not entirely certain that this edit constitutes a 1RR violation, given this:

9 Dec, 13:48 This is a revert.

10 Dec, 07:17 This is another revert.

Time between: ~17 hours, which is less than 24 hours as required by 1RR.

Also, though this concerns content, the edit summary for the latest revert is a misrepresentation: In the talk I explicitly said that the two restored sources were superfluous as they only make a passing mention with no analysis whatsoever, yet they were restored regardless in the second revert.

I would also like to point out that the same editor has violated 1RR only several months prior on the same page and was given a sanction for it by yourself.

They were also more recently sanctioned separately for violations including those on that same page. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be a 1RR violation. I'm away from my computer for about another 8 hours, but @Alaexis would you please provide a comment? There seems to be a lot of reverting here over time (by you and others). What needs to change to prevent violations from happening? Is it inevitable that they will happen if you continue reverting (or editing) in this topic? ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust I've self-reverted myself. Indeed this is a 1RR violation.

Having said said, I'm quite surprised to see this complaint here. I've literally implemented the wording suggested by @Raskolnikov.Rev [133]: I am happy for "restriction of political freedoms" to be changed to "authoritarian rule" if you prefer that term, but having both is entirely superfluous.

There is indeed a problem with the removal of reliable sources critical of Hamas in the article. @TheJoebro64 added the characterisation of Hamas rule as authoritarian (which is hardly disputed btw). When I restored it, it was removed again with a misleading edit summary: We already state that it engages in terrorism multiple times in the lede, so the body is already accurately reflected. Engaging in terrorism and authoritarian rule are two completely different unrelated things. Alaexis_¿question? 15:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to the two sources that I've used, they are perfectly adequate for the claim. The authors are scholars and subject matter experts, they are published by university presses. Alaexis_¿question? 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything @Alaexis has said here is false, and the fact that they have decided to double down after yet again engaging in a 1RR violation on the exact same page they have done this before just a few months back and were sanctioned for, and then received an additional sanction for edits on the same page even more recently, I believe demonstrates that there is a clear pattern here that requires a permanent sanction, as admins were considering in the latest case if they did not begin adjusting their behavior with the balanced editing restriction.

What has Alaexis done since then? They did exactly what other editors predicted they would do with this restriction: They began upping their edits in other areas, so they could maintain the same level of edits in ARBPIA, and the exact same behavior persists on the Hamas and other pages as was noted in that case and led to that sanction, including now a blatant 1RR violating while edit-warring over reverted content that he is now blatantly misrepresenting.

As I said in my prior response, and can be seen in the talk discussion, I did not agree to restoring the two sources Alaexis added, because the sources are entirely superfluous. Go check them. They only have a general reference to "authoritarian rule" once, as a term, without any addtional analysis whatsoever. So why did Alaexis add them? Because he apparently did a Google Books search for "hamas authoritarian gaza", and those two are in the top results, and he did not bother to check if they actually contain substantive analysis warranting inclusion. He was merely interested in finding a reference to that phrase regardless of whether it was suitable as RS.

I then told him this explicitly in the talk, as I had in my edit summary for the very edit he then reverted, that the sources are superfluous and do not contain any substantive analysis whatsoever and merely use the phrase "authoritarian rule" in passing, and so are not suitable to be included, and is entirely redundant because the already cited HRW source does contains this substantive analysis. He quoted me from that talk in his reply to you just now, while deliberately omitting that part.

And he decided to ignore that, violate 1RR as he was edit-warring in violation of WP:BRD and restore the sources, and now he's misrepresenting it by pretending that I was actually in favor of that edit.

And he's also going back to misrepresenting the original edits and accusing me of wrongdoing even though everything I said was accurate both in the edit summary and that talk discussion to justify this behavior.

Again, the fact that they are not at all apologetic after blatantly violating 1RR yet again despite multiple recent sanctions for that exact page, shows that they will not adjust their behavior, exactly as editors pointed out during the last case.

I hope you can now see this as well @SilverLocust, and act accordingly.

Thank you. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a good example of the lack of WP:AGF that has been one of the major problems in this topic area. They began upping their edits in other areas is simply false. It's easy enough to see that I didn't ramp up edits in the last two months and also that I contribute in pretty much the same areas I've always edited. There is hardly any dispute about the nature of Hamas rule over Gaza. It's described as authoritarian both by sources that cover broader topics like the ones I cited and those that look in detail at Hamas like Nathan Brown's Gaza Five Years On. Again, this reflects a pattern of removing or downplaying anything critical of Hamas.

Do you consider this edit summary accurate? The human rights violations and political repression in Gaza (supported by HRW) have nothing to do with the terrorism against Israelis.

@SilverLocust, I hope you review the thread which was pretty constructive. I'm still puzzled that this happened at the time when we've almost reached a mutually acceptable solution. The wording was already agreed and the only point of contention was whether to cite the two additional sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one of the major problems in this topic area are editors who persistently and blatantly violate core editing rules such as 1RR even after having received multiple sanctions for exactly this behavior, and then continue engaging in it as they defend it and try to deflect blame while misrepresenting it as a mere content-dispute. This is not about content and following the normal consensus-building process. This is about you violating 1RR on the very same page you were sanctioned for violating it on recently, and then were additionally sanctioned for your broader editing behavior, including edits on that same page. The major problem of this topic area is that editors who repeatedly violate these core editing principles are able to get away with it for far too long, thereby fundamentally undermining the consensus-building process. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I was basing what I said on the percentage and nature of his edits after the balanced-editing sanction was imposed. In the past 30 days, his edits in ARBPIA comprise 28.26%, right up to the edge of the 33% restriction. And in terms of quality of edits, he has yet again violated 1RR not just in ARBPIA, but on the very same page he had previously violated 1RR just months prior and was sanctioned for, as he was sanctioned recently with the balanced-editing restriction for edits including on that page. I forgot that he was also given a separate warning for his ARBPIA edits several months ago by SilverLocust, for his lack of care with primary sourcing and BLPs. So his editing behavior in this topic clearly has not been affected by these recent warnings and sanctions.

What is dispositive to me however is the response to this by Alaexis. He's defending it. He's saying it's not a big deal. It's actually others who are to blame, as he misrepresents what happened by quoting me out of context and deflecting to another unrelated edit. That's what to me indicates that they see absolutely no issue whatsoever with their behavior, despite the multiple sanctions he has been given just recently for it and violating the same core rules yet again, and will continue with it unless a sanction is imposed that stops this persistent pattern of disruptive rule-violating behavior, which I believe has to be at a minimum an ARBPIA topic-ban. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very impressed with either of your conduct regarding this dispute. I have posted my decision on both of your talk pages. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are enjoying the holiday season. I understand the point of having bright line rules and understand the reason for my sanction. At the same time I think that the balance of sanctions was hardly fair. I just saw in my watchlist that u:Raskolnikov.Rev keeps removing well-sourced information in the PIA area. The latest example is here. The removed content was supported by an article in the Times of Israel which is a RS. The edit summary was "This is sourced back to UN Watch which is not RS" which is untrue: most of the article contains original reporting by the ToI. Alaexis_¿question? 15:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust, my edit is being misrepresented. I stated in my edit summary: "This is sourced back to UN Watch which is not RS, and it has not been confirmed per the report itself. Not suitable for BLP". If you look at the cited source for that claim, a very brief liveblog entry, it matches what I stated:

"Georgetown University in Washington, DC, appears to have dropped its partnership with the UN special rapporteur for the Palestinians, Francesca Albanese."

"Her removal from Georgetown’s directory was first reported by UN Watch, a watchdog group that campaigns against Albanese."

It is entirely in line with BLP standards to not include such unconfirmed poorly sourced claims. @Alaexis, who has been recently warned by you "to be more careful when interacting with primary sources, especially regarding living or recently deceased people", is now complaining about a policy-compliant revert in a BLP.

He is thereby also engaging in content-disputes in PIA in violation of the sanction imposed on him. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: While the Times of Israel is considered generally reliable, I think it is fair of R.R to view its "live updates" as a possible exception since WP:NEWSBLOG says to "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" and also considering the post's "appears to have dropped" qualification. See also this RSN thread discussing a live update from TOI, where some users commented on that live update aspect.

While I am not very familiar with the Albanese situation, I see a Georgetown person gave a statement to JNS confirming this disaffiliation while giving the additional context that "U.S. institutions [e.g., Georgetown] are prohibited by federal law from affiliating with individuals subject to U.S. sanctions [e.g., Albanese]" (my parentheticals).

@Raskolnikov.Rev: I excluded talk pages (including this talk page) from the 30 day topic ban.

I don't see a need for any new or changed sanctions here. Happy holidays, ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SilverLocust, I hope you're doing well. Could you please merge the history of newly created Draft:Bhay: The Gaurav Tiwari Mystery into the mainspace article, Bhay: The Gaurav Tiwari Mystery? Thank you for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C1K98V: Since the two have overlapping edit history (i.e., the live article has edits from from both before and after the draft's edits), I'd prefer not to merge the edit histories. The draft can just be redirected to the live article, and if there's anything there that should be incorporated into the live article just copy it across with attribution. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate your feedback. Hello @ItsKhan Aman, since I'm not very familar with Plot and it's outside my area of expertise, please feel free to follow their advice. Thank you for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Silverlocust, regarding your statement, I just wanted to ask if were you able to review my summary and contextualization of the sequence of edits? I followed BDR and consensus was apparent to me with the 3 out of 5 editors involved in support—myself, יורם שורק, and Butterscotch Beluga—with the two dissenting editors, Nehushtani and BlookyNapsta, providing non-arguments and "inane comments," demanding an unnecessary RfC, and then going straight to AE instead of coming to my talk page or asking for a self-revert or anything. It also appears that the consensus in the RfC on the matter will vindicate me. Thank you, إيان (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi إيان. In looking at that talk page discussion more closely, I agree that my abstraction of what would be problematic for ONUS and EW wasn't quite applicable to the specifics, and have withdrawn the first parts of my recommended outcome. Later I might consider the thread some more and put in a new recommendation (aside from just my preference for page bans over page blocks, which I kept). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and attentive revision, Jenson. إيان (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenson, thanks for answering my enforcement request about ECR violations the other day. In general in these situations (temp users commenting in PIA discussions), what should I/non-admins do? Ignore, report, strike or revert were the options that came to my mind, but I don't know whether one needs permissions to strike/revert others' talk page comments in these scenarios, and reporting seems a bit cumbersome - even with the quick report section at AE. TIA Samuelshraga (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuelshraga. I have very frequently seen non-admins reverting or striking WP:ARBECR violations, as did I before I was an admin. The procedure just says in a passive phrasing, without specifying by whom, "Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring." Absent some future change, it should be fine for non-admins to do that, provided an admin doesn't ask you to stop for some reason (e.g., unreasonable calls about what counts as a violation). If extended-confirmed users have replied to a non-EC comment, then it is better to strike or collapse – otherwise just reverting the violation is also fine (cf. WP:SOCKSTRIKE advice). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Samuelshraga (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Killing of Yuval Castleman has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed about 17 other notifications from mass TfD nomination. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an oops? --Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• 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.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

---

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]