User talk:Star Mississippi

Hello @Star Mississippi. Thank you for your close at AN/I. Just wanted to let you know about this. If it suddenly resumes activity, we will know who it is. 11WB (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks very much for the heads up @11WB. Apparently today isn't Sunday so much a Sock day. Star Mississippi 03:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It suddenly resumed activity. I've issued CU blocks for the alternative accounts. Izno (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Unbelievable! Well... they did only have a partial block, this means they are now a sock. I don't know how this affects their chances of ever being able to return to regular editing in the future... 11WB (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Izno @11WB and apologies for the delay, I've been offline. If my initial block still needs adjusting, please feel free to do on my behalf. Editors playing dumb about the account/person block situation make me shake my head somehow still all these years later. Star Mississippi 12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Valereee, I saw your note to UFG. Flagging this conversation as well. Unfortunately I haven't had the on wiki time to fully follow the whole situation but wanted to be sure you were aware. Star Mississippi 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wow. This is some high level incompetency. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

and... it didn't stop. Thanks @PhilKnight and @11WB for the initial flagging.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unknown FG Star Mississippi 03:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That is a major shame... 11WB (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, just to clarify, my initial message here was purely a prediction. I was hoping I would end up being wrong. 11WB (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

But it was a good flag @11WB because it probably headed off future disruption. It's just disappointing. Star Mississippi 03:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have to give all credit to @Izno. My future definitely isn't in sock puppetry. 11WB (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

noting Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1210#h-Unknown_FG_persistent_block_evasion-20251224204500 for when this inevitably comes back up. Thanks @Left guide and @Jay8g Star Mississippi 01:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! I've been trying to support R2025kt after you blocked them from article creation, but I'm worried that we've got a case of a very enthusiastic editor who can't get past CIR hurdles.

I've asked them to get a mentor twice because they're swallowing up time at AFC. Beyond this, I genuinely don't know what else I can do to help them.

Would you mind taking a moment to look at their Talk and see what you think? Are we getting anywhere or is this going to be a persistent issue? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I admire your efforts to help them as well as Orlando @Blue-Sonnet but I believe your generosity is being taken advantage of here. (cc @Theroadislong)

I'm not sure whether it's competence or trolling, or whether it matters. The draft should be rejected at this stage. I'd hoped that a mainspace block would be sufficient but it's not if their disruption has moved to AfC. I'll leave a note on their Talk as a final warning. Star Mississippi 18:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the problem is unwillingness to move on after the partial block. Allowing them to work on BLP drafts is how they got into the problem in the first place. We need a topic ban on BLPs altogether. Even then, they're all kinds of CIR problems. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Exactly, they really need to build up their fundamentals before creating full articles, but the posts when I suggest that are the few that don't get any response... Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) Thank you! I try to err on the side of AGF but that means there will be be cases where it's not going to change anything - I had a feeling this was one of those times, so I should stop and check with someone more experienced.

Thanks again! Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think your willingness to help is admirable @Blue-Sonnet. PLease do continue as there are situations when it can very much help, but there is some fundamental IDHT in season right now

@BusterD I sadly agree with you re: further guardrails. My on wiki time is sporadic due to major work event, so I won't be able to monitor and be available to discuss a new ANI discussion, but would support a topic ban. My concern is User_talk:R2025kt#What_is_a_BLP and theid discussion with @Bonadea where they were being willfully clueless about what makes something a BLP and I'd be 0% surprised if they continued down that vein with a topic ban.. Star Mississippi 18:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've told them I'm going to stop giving advice on BLP's and suggested something simpler - I've got them watchlisted to see how they respond. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Star & @BusterD, I linked the instructions to edit requests twice, gave instructions and told them which template to use, yet they've not even been able to do that correctly.

I think we might have reached the end of the road with this editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've indeffed them for continuing to involve themselves in BLP articles after all this warning and a partial block. It's time to end this. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Blue-Sonnet @BusterD for handling while I was offline. Their inability to listen is what got them blcoked and I recommended their appeal be declined. My on wiki time is still somewhat limited but will try to keep an eye out. Star Mississippi 17:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I did too - it's weird because I usually try to coach people through a successful block appeal, but this should absolutely be declined.

I desperately want to believe it's CIR and not intentional, but going straight back to BLP's after I'd told them not to on multiple occasions has me questioning myself...

I also didn't realise I'd spent the last five days on this! If it is a troll, they're pretty dedicated. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @CommunityNotesContributor

it's never an easy decision but sometimes it's one that needs to be made. Star Mississippi 18:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Yousuf31 was banned by you and started sockpuppeting. I recently noticed this account named @OmaniCoder popping up and I notice they are pretty similar to that previous editor with similar edits to Omani articles and having the same behavior. I am still not 100 percent sure though. Since you had blocked @Yousuf31 in the past, I might ask you if you think they are potentially a sockpuppet. Zaptain United (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Zaptain United

I don't see a lot here but probably worth noting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yousuf31 if you have time to file. Also pinging @Blablubbs and @Nfutvol who found the last sock. Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Could be...account was created about a month after the other was blocked, seems to have a similar pattern with editing aircraft crashes, and also appears to have a similarly confounding misunderstanding of verifiability and notability. Would also recommend requesting an SPI here. nf utvol (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, if you check old archives of Yousuf31, you can see that he said he was a programmer and this account is called Omani Coder. Another interesting thing is that they have a similar format when nominating AFDs. They both mention they are nominating the article for deletion on the talk page. Check JetBlue Flight 292 and Avient Aviation Flight 324. Zaptain United (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This might be a bunch of coincidences, but I just find it just interesting. Zaptain United (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

+1 — Seems to pass the duck test. Both use similarly worded rationale for deletion discussions (Diff and Diff), both create articles on dubiously notable aviation accidents (Diff and Diff), both are generally focused on Omani aviation, both seemingly have a difficult time understanding the point (see their talk pages), and on the commons, they upload copyvio images (see talk page and this inappropriately licensed file). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

After reviewing some more of their edits, I took the liberty to go ahead and request SPI with a CheckUser. Feel free to add any more evidence. nf utvol (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Nfutvol

@Zaptain United one thing for future reports, the puppeter/master/puppeteer is the first account so in this case Yousuf. You're telling Omani that you believe they're a sockpuppet. It's not an issue, but just so that you know down the line. Star Mississippi 02:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright I understand. By the way, if they are blocked for being a sockpuppet, will this AFD still continue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avient_Aviation_Flight_324 Zaptain United (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It depends on whether other established editors participate by the time a CU sees the report and actions it @Zaptain United. It could be closed as DE, or allowed to run. Star Mississippi 02:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I cleaned up some of their mess. Thanks for flagging and reporting @Nfutvol @RandomInfinity17 @Zaptain United Star Mississippi 03:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for spotting/blocking that. You might also want to take a look at the IPV6 /64 range as there have been other temporary account(s) socking similar articles going back to mid-November, e.g. ~2025-38349-63 10mmsocket (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks so much @10mmsocket

It looks like other editors got to the cleanup first, but I just blocked. I've watchlisted a couple of the targets and hope we can spot them sooner next time. (Thanks again @Zaptain United for catching the latest named account. Star Mississippi 16:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Star Mississippi: There appears to be new sockpuppets of Yousuf31 : BlasmaBombInWar and ~2025-42304-41 . Similarities include a focus on Omani topics related to aviation and the creation of non-notable Omani aviation accidents. Any ideas on what to do next? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Aviationwikiflight and @Izno for the flag and cleanup while I was offline. Star Mississippi 22:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am a bit puzzled by this edit of yours, closing a question on the reference desk. Sometimes an OP, being satisfied, adds " Resolved", but this need not stop others from providing further insights. My first thought was that you had determined that the OP was a sockpupprt of a banned or block-evading user, but I see no signs of that. So I don't get the point of this closure. Note further that the template {{abot }} adds the text "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page", but there is no "appropriate" discussion page for specific reference desk questions. ​‐‐Lambiam 22:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, I see the OP has been blocked; sorry. ​‐‐Lambiam 22:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries @Lambiam

Their edits, which would have made it clear why they were in issue have been deleted. they were using editors time to build their edit count before outing themselves as a sock/troll. If there's a better template, feel free to amend my close. Star Mississippi 00:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How did you come to the conclusion that the above-mentioned article should be merged with 2026 FIFA World Cup, when there were just as many arguments to keep it as is? Assadzadeh (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good morning @Assadzadeh

The number of arguments is not the deciding factor, it's those with policies and guidelines. FIFA and Trump being notable does not provide notability to the award, and that argument had clear consensus. If you disagree, you're welcome to open a deletion review as I have reread it and don't see any other way I could have closed it. Thanks! Star Mississippi 13:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FIFA Peace Prize. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assadzadeh (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Assadzadeh

I'll respond there to keep it central Star Mississippi 19:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Star Mississippi,

I am writing to you regarding the ongoing Deletion Review for the article Kerkula Blama, in which you seem to be the reviewing administrator. Thank you so much for your work on this.

I would like to respectfully provide some context for your final consideration, focusing on the article's content now that it has been temporarily restored.

My primary contention is that the article meets the threshold of General Notability. It is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources, such as FrontPage Africa, News Ghana and Liberian Observer which have published significant, non-trivial coverage about the subject's career and recognition. This coverage constitutes the basis for notability.

As noted in the DRV, a prior article for his organization was redirected precisely because the sources focused on his individual notability, which is the foundation of this article.

I understand the DRV's role is to examine the closing judgment. However, I believe the restored content provides a verifiable basis for retention. Could you please share your perspective on whether the coverage from these sources meets the significant coverage requirement of GNG?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

MichaelMorris96 (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @MichaelMorris96

There is no one reviewing administrator. I did weigh in,but so will others. You do not need to repeat your comments as they will be seen by the closer when they evaluate the discussion. It would be better for you if you come clean about your connection to Blama and your fellow editor though. Star Mississippi 14:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey @Star Mississippi thank you for clarifying the review process. To address your question directly, there’s absolutely nothing to come clean about as it relates to my connection with either the subject or another user/editor. If you check the edit history you’ll see how much I’ve contributed to the subject which prompts my participation in this deletion discussion and review as an editor who clearly believes the temporarily restored article’s content, specifically the cited independent sources meet the threshold for notability under WP:GNG As stated in Wikipedia’s guidelines, a conflict of interest is "a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person’s opinions, integrity or good faith. My intent has been solely to ensure that the decision is based on the application of content policies to the article’s current state, per WP:DELREASON. I will continue to follow the discussion and trust the closing administrator to evaluate the policy-based arguments presented.

Thank for your time, MichaelMorris96 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's great. No one is judging your opinions or good faith, just a curious interest in an article subject. You got some good advice on sources which will be helpful if the article is restored or retained in draftspace for you to work on. Star Mississippi 14:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, I appreciate the guidance and interaction. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ritchy Dube. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Playing it safe and notifying since I've directly quoted from your Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Blue-Sonnet (and @Chaotic Enby, @CoconutOctopus and @Yamla) for the flag and handling. I was offline. I know @Asilvering had some good thoughts on helping and what could have been done differently, but I think all the good will was not going to work with this editor. Unfortunately. Star Mississippi 03:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Unfortunately not, I worked especially hard on this one to be as fair and polite as possible, so many people did their best to help, but they're just not compatible with Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Star!

I'd like to draw your attention to Singhabhinav3 , who has repeatedly created articles about, presumably, himself; these have all been deleted as A7/G11s. They have also now created an article via LLM, which has since been draftified. All this you can find via their talk.

If you observe their contributions, however, you might see that they make many edits in rapid succession; these are individual links added to articles. I'm concerned that this might be gaming of some sort, but what that might be for I fail to imagine. In any case, the promo and LLM, I think, are enough to establish WP:NOTHERE.

As it's not a chronic or intractable problem, I thought an ANI report would be be excessive. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good morning @Iseult and thanks for flagging. I will look at this in more depth this evening, but if you see disruptive editing before I 'm active again please feel free to flag for another admin. Star Mississippi 13:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks again @Iseult

I have blocked as Disruptive Editing, which it clearly is regardless of UPE, LLM or other issues. Star Mississippi 04:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Star. I would like to hear your opinion/comment of this revert of your edit on Pascal Tigri, where you created a redirect in consistency with your closure of the relevant discussion. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Sundostund

I have restored the redirect and left them a note about the correct next steps. Star Mississippi 15:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For @Sundostund and any interested parties, Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Pascal_Tigri now exists. Star Mississippi 22:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You have closed this discussion, so that I couldn't write anything else there. The admin replied that, that user haven't made any edits after the warning. Just check now - Divya Sathyaraj. He did that same thing twice today. He reverted, then someone edited that out. Then he reverted that again. Please check and take a decision. SRAppu ^💬 06:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @SRAppu and @Toadspike for flagging/taking care of it while I was offline. I reopened the discussion. Star Mississippi 16:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am struggling with another editor I disagreed with at their AfD. They cast aspersions at myself and another editor at the AfD, I then proceeded to cleanup the article because it was obviously notable. The nominator of the AfD then added a bulleted list of items that for various reasons didn't belong there, other than two, which I cleaned up and kept. They were upset about my reversions, and impulse put them back in. I reverted and explained both on my talk page and the talk page of the article why they were removed. They sent me an essay they wrote today to read at the AfD, so I went to read it and saw they had redirected from WP to their Userspace, which I knew from the whole IR Triangle situation wasn't on permissible redirect, so I took it to RfD and notified them. They then proceeded to cast more aspersions, including insinuating that I am some kind of a child predator. I truly don't know what to do at this point other than to ignore them, but they keep pinging me. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking into this now @Revolving Doormat

I'll let you know whether I can help or whether this needs to be escalated due to the late hour for me. Star Mississippi 02:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Much appreciated. It is about my bedtime as well. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh yes. I'm pinging @ToBeFree as they just lifted this editor's block. I think it's probably ANI worthy, unfortunately given their relatively short editing history (bulk of their 1600 edits are in the last two months) and combative editing style. Do you want to file or do you want me to @Revolving Doormat?

In general, this kind of note is absolutely fine. I just don't have the availability tonight to handle it. Star Mississippi 02:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

ETA, it's a clean start account per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmoates/Archive. Makes the condensed disruption even more problematic IMO @Revolving Doormat @ToBeFree Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand, thank you for pinging and checking in on it. Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battle for Dream Island characters has misinterpreted consensus. There were 8 comments for draftfying and 15 for deletion. Consensus is of course not determined by a count, but by the strength of arguments, and the delete comments also made multiple explicit and reasoned arguments against draftification: citing a lack of potential for notability [1] [2] [3] [4] and fancruft concerns [5] [6] [7]. These were arguments made in addition to standard WP:N ones. The draftify comments fail to counter these arguments, and most even have the same rationale as delete comments while entirely failing to articulate why draftifying should be preferred. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

My read on that is nearly everyone wants the article out of mainspace, whether entirely (deletion) or elsewhere (draftification). Delete !votes citing cruft, that we aren't fandom, or the presence of trivia sections aren't as strong as those making a case for why draftspace can allow the article to improve and potentially meet notability. I'm willing to relist this for someone else to decide, but I'm not willing to close as delete. Would you prefer the relist or DRV? No preference on my end. Star Mississippi 02:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If relisting means reopening the existing discussion to allow for another closer to weigh in, then that would be preferred. I don't have any desire to open a DRV, that would be asking for too much editor time in my view. Thank you for your consideration. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's exactly what it will do, and perhaps other participants too. I'll relist it now.

And I agree it's a better next step than DRV in this situation.

I was having issues pinging you on reply here so won't in the relist, but you can consider it done momentarily. Star Mississippi 03:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Should the move protection remain? Or should that be reverted also? Left guide (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I left it as @Rjaffe had protected it during the AfD initially due to some earlier disruption. I'm about to log off, but if you think it should be removed feel free to ping an active admin. I have no issue with it staying or going. Star Mississippi 03:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Rsjaffe Star Mississippi 03:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

LOL

I thought I was replying to @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four and then got very confused by my watchlist. (As I said, bedtime!) @Left guide feel free to change the protection or not as you wish. Star Mississippi 03:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sometimes what we need is a little warm ball of fur that can do no wrong.

Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So sorry you had to go through that @Revolving Doormat

Moates should never have been allowed back the last time, but hoping the conduct this time makes it crystal clear that there should be no more clean starts. Star Mississippi 15:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you and I agree; their quick talk page archive was hiding a pattern if his behavior in the few short weeks since he was given the clean slate. Once I got to the journalist autobio this morning and read about said journalist... this was just another brick in the wall, so to speak. Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

When I ran into their CSDs I didn't see any issue beyond "new ish user not quite understanding the criteria" which is absolutely normal. The accidental talk page following was enlightening in the 0-100. Saw your note re: the redaction. I would do it, but I'm probably too Involved which is also why I proposed the c-ban in lieu of blocking them myself. Let me know if someone doesn't action it and I'll ping an uninvolved admin Star Mississippi 16:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No problem. I will be stepping away for the holiday later today for a bit so no rush. Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

have a safe and healthy holiday season. Star Mississippi 16:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! You too! Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been here a while, but only became interested in some of the uglier management tasks y'all have to mop up when I was pinged to ANI a year or so ago. Of course, any advice going forward is gratefully accepted if it's ever needed. Also, got my first snark today! [8] Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That probably means you're an official editor now :D

Happy to help. Don't hesitate to ping if you need anything Star Mississippi 18:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Promotional account.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema.1971 was closed wth no action. This is a procedural question on the basis that the ANI thread was closed becuase of the concurrent SPI thread. My opinions on the editor are set aside for the purposes of this question. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done @Timtrent

I haven't followed the SPI so feel free to add whatever info you think will be helpful.

And if one of my board closures is rendered moot or otherwise irrelevant, feel free to reopen. Star Mississippi 19:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I prefer to ask permission. Thank you for acceding to my request. I will let filing editor know so they can think what comment if any they wish to make. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand that there were BLP concerns but the sources that were used in the article itself weren't bad. The GPT things were already deleted by me User:Easternsahara 19:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Easternsahara

Here you go: Draft:Palestinian families

I'm not watching it, so please ping me or drop a note here if you nee anything further. Star Mississippi 19:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't respond to the claim of BLP violation at AfD because I assumed that nobody would take that seriously. But you did and I wonder why. Only one individual is named and then in a way that does not violate BLP. Using the name of a group of people only violates BLP if there is a negative impact on individual members of the group. Zero ^talk 01:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Zero0000 I took it seriously because it's my role as closer to evaluate the cases made in everyone's participation regardless of whether I agree with them, and so long as the cases isn't frivolous. The BLP one was a valid one so formed a part of my close. Let me know if that's helpful Star Mississippi 02:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for your response. I took the BLP claim as not supported by policy and I still believe that. I guess I should have made that case at AfD. Zero ^talk 03:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, Star Mississippi. Wondering if you can help with this. The editor Caramcleod213 has been editing exclusively relating to Tring Park School for the Performing Arts for two years. Before that, their edits related to a different school. Some of their edits are unsourced or poorly-sourced. They always mark their edits as minor. They rarely leave edit summaries. I have asked Caramcleod213 not to mark edits as minor four times on their Talk page, and wonder if they are not seeing notifications of edits to their Talk page. They have never engaged there or on article Talk pages. I have asked them if they have a CoI related to Tring, and they have not replied.

I'd like to find a way of engaging with this editor either to establish that they don't have a CoI, and then to encourage them to improve the quality of their sourcing, leave edit summaries and stop marking non-minor edits as minor; or, if they do have a CoI, to ask them to request edits on the article's Talk page. I suspect that they may have a WP:CANTHEARUS issue.

I asked another administrator for help; they couldn't, apart from directing me to COIN, which I would rather avoid if possible. Another editor suggested contacting an administrator about partial blocking to get the editor to pay attention to their Talk page. Would this be something you can help with?

Many thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Tacyarg

I have partially blocked Caramcleod213 from article space in hope that helps them find their Talk. I agree that a COIN would probably not be helpful nor would they necessarily understand how to participated any more than they have communicated so far. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help further. I've watched their Talk but may be available sporadically due to the holidays Star Mississippi 02:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, that is very helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Dr. Blofeld

Amazing we're both still kicking around this place. Star Mississippi 01:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Click here to see the Christmas message I wrote...💞! Vestrian24Bio 09:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you @Vestrian24Bio

The same to you and yours as well. Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ravenswing 19:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @Ravenswing

Always nice to see you around Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The ANI discussion has been archived after 2 weeks with no resolution. My position remains - supported by others - that the edits are permitted. As such, I will start using the script again. However, I will not do the 'pure' date change ones as they seemed to be most controversial. Thank you for your wise words/guidance in he discussion. Giant Snowman 08:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @GiantSnowman

You're very welcome, and apologies for the delay. I was offline for the holidays.

Thanks for your willingness to pause during the discussion. That consideration of other editors' opinions was, I believe, a good thing regardless of whether or not you had policy behind you. Star Mississippi 22:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Seasons Greetings Star Mississippi! Does anything need to be done about this IP yet? Thanks for having a look. StonyBrook _babble 22:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks @StonyBrook for the flag. I've indeffed and will clean up Star Mississippi 22:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]