This is an archive of past discussions with User:Asilvering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Asilvering. I usually create and edit art related pages for our Middle Eastern art community, one of my friends from the ARF asked me if I could check why their page was locked, can you let me know what I should tell them? Thank you! BEARLEB (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @BEARLEB, please see WP:CT/A-A for details. The short version is that editors can only edit about Armenian politics topics once they have 500+ edits and have been editors for 30+ days. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Tech News: 2026-20
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
Community Tech has published new guidance explaining how wishes on Community Wishlist are triaged and prioritized. The documentation is intended to help contributors write stronger proposals by clarifying the factors that influence prioritization decisions. Beyond vote counts, the guidance highlights considerations such as potential impact on the community when determining which wishes move forward.
Updates for editors
The Reader Growth team is launching an experiment to test a new Share Card feature that allows readers to create visually engaging cards from Wikipedia articles or selected article sections and share them online, with each card linking back to the original article to help expand readership and article discovery. The mobile-only A/B test will be available to a portion of readers on Arabic, Chinese, French, Vietnamese, and English Wikipedia to better understand reading and sharing habits, and is scheduled to begin the week of May 18 and run for four weeks.
The Android and iOS Wikipedia apps recently released the 25-day reading challenge into Beta, as part of efforts to drive reader engagement by encouraging users to complete reading milestones. To track their reading streak during the challenge, App users can add a widget featuring Baby Globe to their home screen. The challenge officially begins May 11.
View all 17 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where the global preference for enabling syntax highlighting in wikitext could unexpectedly disable itself after being turned on, has now been fixed.
Hi, thanks for the follow up. I don’t have a professional or financial relationship with findtime.io. I was reviewing and updating information related to DST/scheduling tools because I occasionally explore and compare productivity and time-management platforms, and I noticed some outdated or missing details on those pages.
Could you clarify which part of the edits was considered problematic so I can better understand and contribute appropriately in the future? SyedAhsanauthor (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
May 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Yes, go ahead and report to RFPP. You don't have any explicit restrictions. If you get your reports declined, do your best to learn from that. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Editing
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi I'm who you are mentoring. While I'm editing it would be helpful if I had a tutorial instead of my brother grabbing the computer. Cello unicorn (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for the quick response. Probably should've checked for policies (especially the one on AI assistance, sorry about that!) a bit more before posting in a hyper-focused daze.
I suppose I just misunderstand when admin action (or whatever the method is for tipping off existing section maintainers, as an alternative) is warranted, then. I'll definitely see what I can do to fix things myself, though I'm obviously pretty green here. There's a way to flag articles as needing improvement, right? I guess what I was most wary of was potentially starting an editing war if I were to just go and revert those or something, especially given how many of those contributions have been left unchanged for 8-10 years.
Would the more appropriate solution be a Talk page callout or something to better explain why those sections are being edited to remove improper sources and non-neutral language? Should that go on every page, or is there a more centralized place for that? HonestCoda (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
To add to what Nakonana said: "existing section maintainers" are, well... that's you, now. Welcome to the club! You can always try a talk page post, but for this kind of article, it's pretty unlikely that anyone is watching. When things have been left unchanged for 8-10 years, that might mean there's consensus for that version, but far more often, you're simply looking at the article as it was when the last person to touch it got bored and moved on. It's not any kind of "good" state, it's just the present state. So you're welcome to do basically anything you like. Make sure you give some kind of explanation in the edit summaries so that people know what was on your mind (eg "cleaned up non-neutral language", "removed long list of awards that didn't seem encyclopedic", etc). Someone might revert your edits, and if so, then you can get into a discussion about them and try to come to some kind of compromise. A reversion can feel like someone is saying "fuck you and this edit in particular", but really, a lot of the time, it's just "I'm not sure about this", and when you explain yourself in more detail everything works out.
When you're done messing around with the article you can just walk away and find something else to do, but if you've made significant changes, it's a good idea to write a bit about them on the talk page of the article, so that future editors have something to go by. Especially if you stop editing because you gave up, and you think there's still lots that ought to be done. If you give up entirely, but you still think there are problems that need fixing, you can put a maintenance tag on the article. WP:TWINKLE makes this really easy. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
aepr
Latest comment: 2 months ago24 comments6 people in discussion
Hey, asilvering. AEPR allows for diffs to be brought in without editorialization. Maybe we aren't making that clear enough, but people can still find diffs and present them. The reason I hatted the section at the other case was that there were zero diffs presented, just editorialization. I've just made a clarification there.
The thread you removed AEPR from had statements from four nonparties within a day of opening, two of which you investigated and seemed to find less than useful and another ditto by another worker. I kind of felt like it was already a mess. :D Although probably the first question asked by workers should have been why this wasn't two cases, so there's also that. But at what point do we decide it's a mess and we don't need any more opinion beyond diffs? I feel like if we need a diff explained, we can ask. If we start hatting things, are we signaling to other workers 'I've investigated this one and don't see much'? If the thing gets so long that any new worker coming in thinks, "hell no", have we really solved the problem of things going unactioned? Sincere questions, I don't know the answers. Valereee (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The actual text of AEPR doesn't seem to allow for nonparties to present diffs of misconduct. It only allows uninvited users to present links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization. That doesn't seem to include things like diffs demonstrating incivil behavior or a battleground mentality. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
They can always approach an admin on their talk page with something like "I have diffs of X exhibiting behavior Y that seems pertinent to the discussion at AE. May I add that to the discussion?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Before you added this note, I considered doing just that, but decided against it. I was unsure if, by technically interacting with the case, that I may've risked running afoul of AEPR or that using the talk page in this manner could be seen as an attempt to game the restriction.
I now realize I shouldn't have taken such a strict interpretation, especially considering the procedure states "Comments in threads restricted in this manner are limited to"(Emphasis mine), so the talk page would be exempt from this.
Regardless though, as it seems AEPR is still being ironed out as it were, I thought it best to give my experience of interpretating the procedure, even if it's unlikely many others will have come to the same conclusion as I had initially. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
@Butterscotch Beluga, FWIW, I would have argued you weren't running afoul with a simple presentation of diffs. Thank you for your comment, it makes me think I will add that note whenever I invoke AEPR (unless of course it turns out that needs discussion.) Valereee (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that's possible. So that editors can see it in the first place, it has to be some kind of banner. We could put "hug a fluffy kitten today!" in a banner at AE and it would feel scary. It's AE, after all. -- asilvering (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Hm...I wonder if that needs clarification? It seems like every diff is a link to either a past discussion or an administrative action. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Or that's what arbcom did intend, maybe encourage AE workers to make a statement that they are explicitly inviting nonparties to offer relevant diffs, without editorialization? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
probably the first question asked by workers should have been why this wasn't two cases, so there's also that I didn't ask this one, because I thought it was self-evident why the two were being considered together, and it hardly seemed any additional bother. Regarding hatting, saying we've got enough info, etc, I think those decisions are all best left to individual admins working AE, and I think AE admins could be much more aggressive and decisive about that kind of clerking. One thing we might want to implement is a separate "clerk notes" section, to visually separate out some of the back-and-forth about word limits, etc, so it's easier for admins to find the discussions that are still relevant. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
But I both questioned the inclusion of three parties and AEPR'd the case. You saw both of those completely differently from the way I saw them. Should we be aggressive and decisive before we know whether other workers are going to completely disagree with us? And are we just being wishy washy when we wait for those signals?
Clerk notes sounds good. AE is one of the few noticeboards I could see (designated) clerks being helpful. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The AEPR was fine. You did it without asking when you saw the problem, and left it open for someone to disagree with you. I disagreed. In my view, that's the thing working as it should. As for questioning the inclusion of three parties, other admins had already gotten to it that point, so no, you wouldn't want to revert the whole filing at that point. But if you had, well, so what? Then samuel refiles and we get back to handling the case as normal, split into two. That would have been fine. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Not the filer of the AE case in question (but one of the four nonparties).
I think that there has been a general frustration over the continuous cycle of RFCs at the Talk:Zionism page, among others in the PIA area, and a bunch of users have thoughts about the ongoing situation. SamuelShraga was just the one who happened to file the case (but it could have come from several other users). This also spans two different CTOPs. PIA and GENSEX (which I have zero involvement in and thus cannot comment on). I can only speak for myself, but I do not have the time or energy to sift through historical documents looking for evidence when there is essentially a zero percent chance it changes anything, when a few users appear to be stonewalling the process.
The entire AE request got derailed after I posted evidence, and the discussion ended up becoming "Is EaglesFan37 a sock" for a few days (the answer is no, just someone with too much time on their hands who likes archival research), along with whether admins had to rescue themselves from the case. At some point, it begins to feel impossible for any true progress to be made one way or the other, which has been personally discouraging.
To be completely honest, a joint PIA/GENSEX arbcom case is probably needed to sort out the users frequently involved in these disputes to truly obtain a broader pattern/insight of who is being disruptive/violating policy, or not (which could probably end up including 20 different parties). EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry @EaglesFan37, but if you're going to speak directly to the issue at AE right now, that has to be done at AE itself. As for the discouragement, truly, I sympathize. Spending my free time reading the archives of Talk:Zionism hasn't exactly been fun. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Asilvering,
New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026
Backlog update
At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.
After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.
2024 and 2025 NPP Awards
JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.
Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.
The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.
An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Asilvering, thank you for taking a look at the AE case I filed yesterday. I have a couple of procedural questions I wanted to ask but wasn't sure if the case itself was the right venue; I hope it's okay to ask you here:
The subject of the case left me a talk-page request to alter its format, and about three hours later changed it unilaterally (1, 2, 3). I do not want to get into a formatting dispute at AE, but I am unsure whether that kind of alteration to another editor’s filing is proper, particularly since if I'm not mistaken the additional comments section is intended for subsequent additional material, and the initial material I placed in the diffs section was properly placed there as it provides necessary context for the diffs. I'm not sure how to handle their edit here - any thoughts?
Also, the word counter the editor added currently shows 499 words. May I request a 150 word extension so I can add some directly relevant diffs responding to issues raised in subsequent comments?
Eh, I can't use the revert button to do it and I don't think it's worth messing around, since it's readable in any case. I'll warn them not to do that in the future, and I'll grant the extension. -- asilvering (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for this kind of situation, so I'm trying to tread carefully. Should I forward the email as evidence to someone, & if so, who? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
You're free to ignore, reply, report, whichever, whatever seems appropriate depending on why they were blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Abstract Wikipedia team has identified five potential pilot wikis to assess their interest in adopting abstract articles on their wikis. The pilots are Malayalam, Bengali, Dagbani, Arabic, and Indonesian Wikipedia. The feedback period will be open until May 22. If your community is interested in becoming a pilot, let us know on Meta.
Updates for editors
An experiment to show Reading Lists to logged-out readers on mobile web will launch on May 18 across German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Dutch, Turkish, and Urdu Wikipedias, and will run for one month. The effort supports broader goals of helping readers save and organize articles for later reading, while encouraging habits that could lead to future Wikipedia contributions.
To support a bookmark button in the Reading List beta feature, the "Tools > Action" menu has been updated to display icons, including the watch star indicator that helps editors identify temporarily watched articles. The icons now also match those used on mobile, improving consistency across platforms. The change is currently limited to the actions menu and mainly affects editors with privileged user rights.
Suggestion Mode was released as an A/B test for newcomer editors on the mobile website at ~15 Wikipedias. The experiment will measure the impact that Suggestion Mode has on the proportion of newcomer mobile web edit sessions that result in constructive (un-reverted) article edits. The experiment will also evaluate the feature's impact on editor retention, and monitor changes in revert and block rates.
View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue in the Wikipedia Android app where images could sometimes fail to load after opening a recommended reading list notification, has now been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
The Wikidata Platform team has published its backend replacement recommendation and accompanying technical architecture for the migration of the Wikidata Query Service (WDQS) away from Blazegraph. Feedback is invited until May 25th 2026, especially on potential gaps and impacts on advanced use cases. Wikidata community members and WDQS users are also encouraged to help identify high-impact tools and workflows that may need attention on this page. Feedback can be shared on the Migration talk page or during the next office hour. See the WDP team newsletter for more details.
On English, French, Japanese, and a few other Wikipedias, there was a trial of hCaptcha, a third-party bot detection service. The trial showed that hCaptcha effectively detects and deters some bad-faith automated activity, on its own and by giving checkusers and stewards signals to look into. Because the results were positive, hCaptcha will be rolled out across all wikis over the next few weeks. See the hCaptcha project page for technical information about the implementation and privacy protections. Learn more.
The latest Community Tech update is now available, with progress across several Community Wishlist initiatives, including Reading Lists expansion from the mobile app to the website, new language support for "Who Wrote That" and the Personal Dashboard, improvements to 3D rendering and Charts, and upcoming work on talk page sorting, audio playback, and editing workflows. The update also shares current priorities, wishlist status trends, and opportunities for community feedback on future focus areas and the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2026–2027 Annual Plan. Read the full newsletter for details.
The next GAN backlog drive will be held in June and will be co-ordinated by four editors. It will be mainly targeted towards those who are new to reviewing.
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I want to read and edit articles that are random or articles that are in different topics. Like, Arts, Sports, Entertainment, Games, etc. Is that possible or allowed? --7SecondSurgeryRoar!16:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi @7SecondSurgery, that's definitely possible and allowed. You can read about any topic you'd like, and you can edit in the vast majority of them. You can find random articles using Special:Random. If you happen to not be able to edit any articles, you are always welcome to suggest edits on the article's talk page. Staraction (talk·contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago21 comments6 people in discussion
Sorry if it of inappropriate bother or waste of time. I already asked it some other user, but probably it is out of their competence, and as you're related to the investigations here, I will dare to ask you too (I'll copy from the other place):
Could an editor here get some lingering consequences for repeated false accusations against other user? I'm just not sure if its something that could be of matter for such a huge project, as it, obviously, relatively minor in comparison to more serious cases happening daily here.
Other user said its unclear what I'm trying to ask, so I tried to rephrase it there; not sure if it really better, but will copy too in case:
Suppose there is some editor, who had redundantly repeated false accusations about somebody else. Could it lead to some lingering consequences for that user if some certain action had been took here via site structure?
I also asked there if it possible to point me to the more knowledgeable person initially, but it should be redundant in your case I think. ~2026-28690-14 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
This is a part of potential significance: by "false" I meant "not based on reality". While "mistaken" could be read as "something person do believe in, regardless to reality". As it obviously what would be claimed, if it provide a noticeable difference, I'd ask about it too in advance, while I reading it: is it something that also would be clear from those links or not (because it was precisely outlined aside mentioned pages)? ~2026-28690-14 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't have any idea what you're trying to ask. Can you rephrase? Or you could just tell me what this is about. What editor or comments are you concerned by? -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I'll try:
You're provided some actually useful links to read, but immediately made a warning about difference between "mistaken" and "false" accusations, as if it wouldn't be covered in those links. As it is important distinction (and indeed no really addressed in those links, and ones I followed from them), because it seems to be already a big part of problem I'm wonder about.
In short, some people already pretend to operate as if they could just generate some claim about others, with no reasoning against is possible, as they always have a right to "suspect something, or think some particular way". While I, obviously, agree with that premise, I'm not sure it is include to be able to act as if that "suspicion etc" is a verified truth. With it resulting in repeated false accusation of the unrelated editor in sockpuppeting, and in effect also accusing me in the very same thing very same time (with it later expanding to some other accusations against me, but, at least, dropping them from the other editor, when it become too obviously ridiculous (worthy mention that it was done truly insulting way, they agreed to "forget these incidents" despite claiming them as a true still, just gratuitously letting it to "pass like water under the bridge", that is, to "forget" own false accusations)).
But if it could get them to any trouble, obviously they always would be able to claim that their false accusations actually were merely "mistaken". And it would be even technically true, I think, its not that they are intentionally attacked others due to some premeditated malice, but rather stuck in own initially unintended mistake, nevertheless resulting in not good things. So I tried to clarify at spot: if such defense is expected to work well here, and as you immediately warned me about it, it could be read as a discouragement to bother further.
Links themselves are inconclusive; there are many mentions about very similar things, with explanations roughly about "don't do that", but without clear explanation what to do if somebody else still do so. And on the other hand, other places tends to advice more in a line "try to solve it on your own, and if unable to, just forget about" (even mentioned vexatious litigation). So my main point was: is it worthy bother many unrelated people about such rather small deal (there were no open threats etc), so I tried to ask one competent person for advice first (turning it to a comedy a little, by getting lost in accounts, and asking an editor without actual competence first). Hope its more clear now.
Now, as I see that the decision should I do something about it or not is obsolete, as the case is already opened not by me, and those many unrelated people are already bothered anyway, I'd still dare to ask about technical advice how it is more convenient to do:
Should I file some own complaint about it, or it would be already assumed in ongoing one? and
Should I write something there from this account, or somebody would ask me on their own if they would feel to?
Sorry if of bother, in case you're actually think its better to ask somebody else about it, please, tell. Just I thought it could be appropriate to try, as you're admin who actually involved in similar investigations. ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I get it, I just not sure what I exactly expected to do from now, so I already asked about it in message you answered to. ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, if someone is making accusations that are simply wrong, there's no need to report them anywhere. In general, you can assume that the admins handling whatever accusation you're talking about will also warn or sanction the accuser if they're doing something wrong. It's not at all uncommon for that sort of thing to happen (see WP:BOOMERANG). If there's an incident you'd like me to have a look at, I can look into it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Much appreciated, and I could only hope is that I'm writing is not entirely difficult to understand, at least not all the time, and I will try to clarify any part that would fail it in case it would happen.
More or less all that I thought as maybe worthy to show somebody to review is already provided in links in that AN incident. Honestly, it is something truly Kafkaesque, I think: outright from the beginning I had to address some accusations without any underlying ground provided for them, but when I was doing so (reasonably, I hope), it was simply dismissed as a "counterproductive numerous walls of text aimed at taking up editors' time".
As I was already accused to be a some other user 1 doing sockpuppeting (via myself), I realized that I couldn't just leave it on a spot as it, because it would looks as if the accusation is true (cannot do anything with a see-through clairvoyants). Still seeing it as freak misunderstanding, I tried to explain it more, and even pointed that the editor I was talking with had more than once very similar cases in their past, according to themselves. Then I just become accused as being a sockpuppet of some other user 2, then that I'm "dyslexic", then later, that I'm actually a sockpuppet of some another other user 3, if I got it right, then with some numerous various accusations of "WP:"s violations I also at fault of, again without actual evidence about.
As one of the users, who was accused to be a sockpuppeter (via myself) during that time was under a sockpuppet investigation (acquitted there by now, as I got), I worried that all of that could be of some source of confusion related to it. And indeed, turned out I was reported there simply as another accounts of the investigated editor; not even as "supposed ones", but merely as a fact. Sadly, it turned out to be a source of a real confusion: editor there asked if my accounts mentioned were indeed not by accused editor as they claimed, and I got mixed and lost in accounts and mistook them for an administrator running the case, so decided to confirm to them, that no matter other things they're about, this is not at defendant's fault at all. Turned out that the editor I reached with it were not administrator, and, from the way it went later, likely an unrelated person, who get involved due to be a fellow of accusers. So the administrator required question I mistakenly asked them, resulted in a some dark comedy: despite I came to answer their own question initially (with it being totally ignored, as if it something assumed on its own, or totally irrelevant), my own question caused a honestly weird non-answer, and, sadly, not yet realizing that I'm talking with a wrong person, I tried to re-phrase it, believing I wrote it badly (looks like the more concise I trying to do so, it become less clear exponentially), resulting in a justified irritation of that editor. I apologized about it, and could do it again if needed; it was really unlucky accident, but entirely my fault, I should had a double-check on whom I'm writing to.
Thats the place where I wrote the first message to you.
Now, as all of it already have a direct links provided not by me, there is one place that is directly related, but omitted. As I see it as a truly disgusting and outrageous, I think it should be added to a case: this subsection till "Thanks for edits on ...". It is directly related to accusations of mine: 2 editors come to bring their "excuses" to the editor accused by them falsely and without any basis for. Not only the ongoing realization of them being totally wrong in "suspicions" or "thinking in a particular way" hasn't changed anything related to me, and simply resulted in a next accusation of being a some third user's sockpuppet. That is related to me, and it's at least not something particularly new or unexpected from them by that time. The thing that really averse me there was the way they're pretended (politely saying) to do their excuses (for an editor, repeatedly falsely accused by them). One that is sorry only for "accusatory tone" is even good in comparison; "I falsely accused you, sorry if it was in unpleasant tone". The real place is "excuses" of other user, who not only plainly accused that editor in sockpuppeting as a given fact, but also brought a case about it into investigation, where aforementioned editor was acquitted. So, there was a case of extraordinary evidence, and all that evidence (accused user was acquitted) resulted in a change roughly from "You're sockpuppeter, it just a fact" to a whooping "However, I am now convinced that ButteyFelicity and PageTheEditor are (probably) different people". X brought Y to a court, court acquitted Y on X's charges, X gratuitously agree from now that Y probably not guilty. And "forgive" them for it, and also for other accusations, that weren't brought to investigation, so weren't dismissed, so they are still true: "However, I don't regret the observations, user comparisons, or nooticing that I made on the talk pages outside this SPI discussion, because all those observations are still true.". And yes, it directly means that according to that editor (while contrary to the other one, as I got), it is "still true" that accused user used me as a sockpuppet: "The WP:LOUTSOCKING done by ButteyFelicity on User talk:Zero Contradictions#Hi is reminiscent to ..."; so the very same false accusation masquerading as "apologizing". Sorry for length of the last part, but I see it as immensely disgusting incident, that would likely gone unnoticed; in fact without it happened, likely I wouldn't bother with pursuing it at all, but this part is too much, I think.
Sorry for length, again, I hope its more clear than my attempts at concise writing. In case something would require rephrasing or something, tell, please. Thank you for bothering. ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't have any idea what could possibly cause anyone to think that you are a sock of either of those editors; they're presumably native English speakers, and you are not. If those editors were continually going around making false assumptions about sockpuppetry, that would be a problem, but I don't believe that they have been. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) So no, there isn't anything to be done here. Well, aside from simply letting it go. Easier said than done, really, and having been accused of sockpuppetry early on in my own wiki-career, I sympathize. -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't know that is exactly qualifying as "continually" in this case. It already went into some ongoing at that time sockpuppet investigation, while, as I got, technically it was an accusation of some other user, but I was directly related to it still. Otherwise it was over a course of a few days, but from it could be seen now it gradually changed to some other accusations mainly, but the incident that editor opened (one you already aware of) is still include the same accusation of "feeling" of "block-evasion" (its that third person from that "apology", I think, after first two accusations easily came and easily left); does invoked ongoing AN investigation qualify as "continually going around"? Is is that you talked about at very start, and I tried to clarify: that they could just claim it was simply "mistaken" and continue as is then? Its just a "feelings" when it suit better that way after all, anybody could have them. Many thanks for bother anyway, sorry in case of too much time wasted (that exactly what I was trying to get, does it worthy to bring anyone's attention at, or its too minor for an effort). ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
What I mean by continually is that they make this kind of erroneous accusation frequently, about different people. Then we would be able to give them a warning or restriction about discussing sockpuppetry. Since it looks like it was just this one case, we can just hope they learned something from the experience and move on. It's important that people are able to be wrong sometimes! It's unfortunate that you were part of the lesson, though, and again, I sympathize. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Still, I'm confused about how an IP's first edit ever would be on another user's talkpage.
An interesting phenomenon that I've noticed is on the user's fluid ability to control their degree of passive aggressiveness. Specifically, that they seem to be perfectly reasonable, open for apologies and to show willingness that they're probably wrong when they're talking to an admin. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk12:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Could I ask to clarify two points, because I'm clearly not understanding them right?
> continually is that they make this kind of erroneous accusation frequently, about different people
It does include more than one case, at least that other user who had an official investigation that time, they were accused by the same people in parallel. And the nature of such accusation itself involve more than one person; say user 0 is accused to be a sockpuppet of user 1, then of user 2, then of user 3, ... of user 999. How many persons are accused in this case, one or thousand?
> warning or restriction about discussing sockpuppetry
Other accusations are not a problem? Currently it looks like accusation bear no cost at all: you're sockpuppet of this user. no? ok, no problem, of that user then. no? of some third one then. no? its WP:this and WP:that violations then. no? it would be something-else-maybe-it-will-stick then, etc. Mention of only "sockpuppetry" in this context could be read as if that is beside it is fine or irrelevant?
As you're said, there is no need for me to write at "Incidents", but, if you would think its of worthy to comment about something for you or there, tell, please.
And two not entirely directly related questions, if it appropriate:
> I notice more and more usage of some fancy teal font color to mark a quotes. But they don't lead to the actual place of context. Its something on my side doesn't work properly, or its not planned to work that way, and its merely an eye-candy?
> I read some other cases at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As I got, everybody could just come there and discuss. But recently I noticed that non-administrators also could vote there. Initially I assumed that all the users who cast votes are admins, but its not the way it is then?
The teal colour is editors using {{tq}}. It doesn't lead to anything, it's just a way of formatting quotes. Regarding Currently it looks like accusation bear no cost at all: you're sockpuppet of this user. no? ok, no problem, of that user then. no? of some third one then. no?, yes, if someone is doing that, it's a problem. But that's not what's happening here; this is one incident.
Hello and thanks for bother, looks like just one line from you works wonders here. As I understand all this stuff is considered closed, no additional actions are needed and expected from anybody, right? (After more reading about related I'm really glad that I'm struggled with a pushing that for investigation, as it is ridiculously irrelevant compared to a crap you guys have to deal on a daily basis, truly impressed with your resolve.) ~2026-30342-65 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi asilver. Finally got a proper keyboard and can type out my reasoning, and I'll keep it short(er).
1 / This edit is, as far as we know, the first ever edit of the user.
Quotes, first edit
Regardless of those allegations being true or not, it looks entirely disingenuous to pretend not making "any accusations or assumptions", as they are direct requesting an investigation requiring to provide evidence about accused editors (all italics are directly from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations)
The thread is started by a suspected-as-sock(and eventually found to be innocent) user trying to clear their name. Half-way during the arguments, after I've provided some advice to the by-then suspect, this IP replied to me.
By which point I immediately assumed it to be a case of WP:LOUTSOCKING - afterall, how can a newcomer stumble across either SPI or a user talk page before editing something else? It is after all the back-and-forth did I start to realize that the IP is another user, by which point I asked for their username point blank. It remains unanswered.
2 / Ability to switch between different levels of passive-aggressiveness.
Quotes
I will skip a mystery part about stickquoter's note: WP:STICK is wikilinked and everything going to be fine, but I'm not sure if it worthy to whitewash a potential blatant lie as some mere "content disagreement" (while it is indeed could be framed such way as a pure technicality).quoter's note: Is this implying knowledge about actual Wikipedia rules? Look, you already fully seems to be self-aware about that's happening now, I'll just quote it for convenience:[...]List of instances where I ... doing other bad stuff[...]where[...]note: quotes from my own userpage; don't know what's the point here. If you could answer, or redirect me to some actual person, who possess that knowledge, and would be actually willing to answer (places like "Teahouse" and "Help desk" due to their nature wouldn't be of use here, I think), would be appreciated. Its some really weird mirroring attempt (of course not even near of "Another thing is that people who are primarily obsessed or interested in mass killers honestly sometimes creep me out [...]" by Zero Contradictions, but still noticeable [...] Not only its more likely now that you not actually realized a misunderstanding in process [...] your activity on Zero's talk page more and more looks like harassment to me.
I don't think new users tend to type down these responses with such levels of confidence and entitlement, and/or achieve such density of implications on others' wrongfulness ("zero is strange, you're harassing, you're doing things wrong, zero's lying, you're whitewashing..."). The teahouse part also shows that they've already known what a teahouse is, is expecting such suggestion to come up, prematurely declined such suggestions, and asks specifically for the user's response (or "some actual person [to answer me]")? Again, no one is entitled to an answer on Wikipedia. We care about other users' feelings only when we value their contributions.
3 / Granted, that if an experienced editor or an editor with few hundred edits decided to do all of the above, I'll feel that the editor is just reasonably frustrated with a project they're trying to improve, and 've never taken this to the AN/I. What bothers me so much is that I've told the IP twotimes that Wikipedia is a place to write an encyclopedia, and that they should put down the stick and go do exactly just that. They didn't. So from my point of view, an IP came out of nowhere, spent many veteran editors' time and mental energy with their questions, tries to be subtly hostile to make people feel annoyed, and didn't make any improvement to the encyclopedia. So I concluded their conduct on this site is unproductive / disruptive. tldr: Write the damn encyclopedia.
Epilogue
So why am I spending time typing this? Because I value Zero Contradictions and Shearonink's contributions. I see it as a great loss when a GA writer and master editor gets dragged down into emotions, and we lose few insightful edits. My Wikipediediting skills might never parallel theirs, but maybe I can try to help them keep editing. I didn't ping these two on neither the AN/I thread nor here, because they've already had enough dealing with all this.
@IrisChronomia, your point 1 is incorrect. This is the earliest immediately obvious edit by this editor, but they've plainly been on wikipedia before. People who edit without an account cannot be assumed to be newbies, as IP addresses change, people edit from different locations, and so on, not to mention that there are hundreds of Wikipedia editions in various languages. It's true, they might be LOUTSOCKing. But they're certainly not a sock of PageTheEditor. You don't need to let your time be wasted by anyone - you're not obligated to respond to this TA's questions with anything other than a "please ask someone else". -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm arguing that their behavior is disruptive and concerning; I actually never thought of them of being PageTheEditor (for that PTE doesn't speak like this).
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, hope you are doing well!
I'm new to wikipedia and have an eventual goal of adding to the electrofuel article and some bioinformatics articles.
Do you have any suggestions about ensuring i'm following the rules and how to work up to eventually adding sections to articles or adding new article content?
Hi @Rowena206, welcome to wikipedia! If you want to read the rules first, H:I is a good place to start. As far as editing tasks that aren't as difficult as writing new article content, I see you've already found the suggested edits on Special:Homepage. You might also be interested in joining a wikiproject and seeing what's on their to-do list. You can find relevant ones by checking the talk page of articles you're interested in, like Talk:Electrofuel. Not many editors bother to update wikiproject pages anymore, so the thing actually called "to-do list" is usually pretty out of date. But you'll be able to find their cleanup list, and those are updated automatically. Here's Wikiproject Energy's: . Some of the tags on that list are easier to solve than others, but everything on that list is an article that needs help of some kind. Even if you're not fixing "the problem", there's probably something you can do to make any of those articles better. -- asilvering (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
This is very helpful, I am checking out the wikiproject and cleanup list now. Thanks for the message and response. Rowena206 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Are you around?
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Best I think to wait and see if an admin attending the case has any questions for you. If they don't, there's no need to respond. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
The context is a little bit beyond what is present in the linked discussions. Indeed most of the content is just a repetition of what Smallangryplanet pointed out. I'll do as you said. Thanks! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
I intervened just to handle the question of downgrading the protections on Talk:Zionism and haven't looked at the meat of the case. I don't know if theleekycauldron was planning to do so, either. In my opinion, it would be best for non-arb admins to handle this one. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron presumably did look at the evidence (she did give her opinion and said that there's no case for sanctions against me). The additional evidence I want to submit is partly divorced from the original context of the report and highlights other CPUSH activities on the part of the filer (WP:BOOMERANGing the report) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
There is no way to say this that is both clear and kind, so forgive me: a key Wikipedian skill you have yet to learn is "when to say nothing", and you need to learn that skill as fast as you possibly can. I am not a fan of WP:COAL; I think it is reductive and, overall, unhelpful. But do read and consider it. -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
You appear to have disproven the first sentence here, annulling your request for pardon.
I do think it would be productive if parties were encouraged to provide as much evidence on each other as possible. I feel at a disadvantage being discouraged from doing so, specially when (I believe) it provides important context to the report. Further, Wikipedia is at a disadvantage since it misses an opportunity to uncover policy violations and prevent additional ones.
Nevertheless, as said yesterday and as remains the case, I follow your advice. Not only follow but also take it to heart! Thank you for consistently providing valuable input and having patience for me, NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't the outcome I expected, but I can't fault the responding admin for just closing the thread. I don't recommend jumping right back in with a new AE filing of your own, since that will inevitably be seen as retaliatory or tendentious, but if you feel like you need to bring them to AE in the future for a pattern of behaviour, you can certainly include anything you think was overlooked this time around. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I've had a chat with Senne, it's alright and I forewent any further noticeboard filing with relation to Smallangryplanet at this time NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate you getting back. I personally never wrote the page. It was created and used to be published but someone edited it without disclosing something and it was taken down. Is there any other way you can help? Baggioo10 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hesitate to mention this, because it relates to something which you have said that you hate, so you may wish to ignore it. However, UTRS appeal #113086 relates to a block of yours. It has been referred for CU review, and of course a second opinion from another CU may be a good thing, but you just may like to have another look at it yourself. (I have posted a fairly long opinion there, but of course it is based only on behavioural evidence, not CU data.) JBW (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
