Note: if I've made a clearly bad block, such as something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but actually has a good explanation, please unblock without waiting for me to come back online. If it's something less clear, please at least get consensus on AN/I first. Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

I don't normally look into other Wikipedians as I prefer to just pop around adding bits and bobs to the encyclopedia and saying my part on the talk pages but I was astonished at @Yusuf Michael's behavior on the Kennedy Center talk page. I'm very glad that you blocked him for a week from editing that page but I don't think that it goes far enough. He clearly does not understand the ethos of this project. I'm concerned that he has made 285 edits and has been reverted 56 times. I'm further concerned that he's getting close to becoming an Extended Confirmed user who will have authority to make changes to contentious topics without being required to use the talk pages first.

It's possible that I'm totally off base here, but I have never seen a user who has so many edits, engaging in this kind of behavior. What do you think? I don't want to be engaging in the policing of other users but I thought it best to bring his larger edit history to your attention. Thanks. Bill Heller (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning the ropes. @Billheller Yusuf Michael (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It won't happen again, my apologies Yusuf Michael (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It literally did happen again 5 hours before you posted comment this when you made this request for speedy deletion of my user page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABillheller&oldid=prev&diff=1329366951

It's becoming clear to me that at this point, you are unfortunately not editing in good faith. Again, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, especially before making edits to other users' user pages (which you should otherwise be editing at all). Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Bill Heller (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about Wikipedia:AREYOUNOWORHAVEYOUEVERBEEN at the Village Pump, and I thought that you might want to provide your input.

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § What purpose is Wikipedia:AREYOUNOWORHAVEYOUEVERBEEN supposed to serve? GrinningIodize (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

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.

Hello. Could you please then adding source link, adding it to the page, where image is, not the image itself. — Ирука¹³ 15:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's Not How This Works. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This image has source information, but it links directly to the image. Please provide a URL to an HTML page that contains this image. — Ирука¹³ 16:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:SarekOfVulcan and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sarah Roemer, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I am new here to Wikipedia, like just made my account. So i'm just looking through my Watchlist, Mainly to see what it is, and I see you who has docked me (I guessing it is docking me) of 1,006 of something. And what I assume is your comment, just says "Not the place for this." I haven't even opened General Discussion, (Where I was docked, and I might be wrong when I said I haven't.) Anyway the main point is, I think you got the wrong person, I'm not upset at all, I just wanted to inform you of your accident. 7pagemudamudawrrry (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the Watchlist. I removed several comments from Talk:Main Page, and they took up 1006 characters - hence, the -1006. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Alright. Apologies then, did not mean to mix stuff up. 7pagemudamudawrrry (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing! SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• 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.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Thank you for your intervention with [1]. I have felt obliged to comment further in as restrained and polite terms as I can, but delivering a somewhat robust message.

It may be that the article should survive (I am undecided), but certainly not with the mistaken content that exists. This is one of those areas where Wikipedia tends not to have good solutions: a content dispute on a subject without a large number of interested editors. I am mentioning it to you as the comment that you corrected is typical of the sort of stuff that happens with the problem editor on article content: perhaps "forgetting" something that most would expect you to remember, misrepresenting an issue, etc. It is a huge amount of work to prove that an editor acting in this way is actually misbehaving. You will note that others in the deletion discussion have questioned whether references are adequate. This is a common situation with past interactions. I have no idea whether the root cause is a genuine lack of ability or the intention to "prove" a point by fair means or foul.

Like others in this situation, I have backed off in the past. But it seems wrong for the Vezo people who build and sail these craft to have something central to their lives so badly explained. (Studying all the references has left me with a strange sense of identity with them.)

At this stage I am not looking to raise this matter anywhere else. If you had any advice, I would welcome it. If not, that's fine. Just posting this here is part of a solution for me. Ultimately, I have braced myself for a rough ride (like the edit summary on [2] – yes this is the same picture with the same misidentification of rigging components.) Thank you for your patience if you feel you have done your bit already. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]