This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:
post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
@JJNito197: The details are described here. You may not make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Where a page is central to the conflict (such as Gaza war) you may not edit it at all. When a page is tangentially related (such as Arthur Balfour) you may only edit those pieces which do not pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may not participate in discussions of the conflict anywhere on the English Wikipedia. There are certain narrow exceptions, described at WP:BANEX. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
addition of "Palestine" and editing at Canaan in general given the tenuous nature may be best avoided, similar to how Iskandar was repeatedly warned to not edit regional history (I am not able to verify the addition)
wikilinking to Muslims, which is not a controversial edit, but again may be best avoided
@Metallurgist: The scope of the ban is the Arab-Israeli conflict, not all of Palestinian/Israeli history. So the first two edits are okay unless you can show that they're somehow related to the conflict. The third edit is indeed a bit problematic. @JJNito197: Please be aware there's no exception to the ban for uncontroversial edits. The exceptions are very narrow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).
Arbitration
The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
May I know about your majboori to comment keep on the spam book by our long term spammer and UPE @Syedamjad08? It is interesting to know that why a long standing checkuser voted keep twice there to defend the serial spammer and the banned sockpuppet? Please answer per WP:ADMINACCT. Actually I am long term IP editor working on this long term abuse with the help of others. ~2026-27488-34 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 As far as I can see from the evidence this banned sockpuppet has a previous history of approaching enwiki admins living in India to support his spam; as far as I came to know from the fellow admin that you are also from India? Please explain. ~2026-27535-93 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little to add to what I said at AfD. Where I'm from isn't relevant. I saw the discussion the way I see most AfDs I participate in: while patrolling the old discussions. If you believe the article creator is evading a block, please present evidence at SPI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 I am not convinced, while patrolling your last 100 contribs or perhaps your last 500 contributions surprisingly I am not able to locate any AFD where you voted as a participant. Why this was very special for you? ~2026-27566-59 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And come on I don't need to teach you how to look into Indian abusive SPI and act; the previous long term evidence at his sock puppet page and the presented evidence at AFD are enough for you to understand the criticality of the matter. ~2026-27566-59 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A little less aggression, if you please. If you want me to assist you in any way, why do you think questioning my motives is going to make that likely? My AfD participation and AfD closing activity is publicly available. If you still find my participation suspicious, please take your concerns to the arbitration committee. I am not going to look into the sockpuppetry personally, as I participated in the discussion about the content. I ask you once again to take your concerns to WP:SPI, where an uninvolved administrator can review them. You are more likely to be taken seriously if you drop the allegations of bad faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
May 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase
On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Thanks, appreciate it. If it was targeted harassment I'd have asked for this myself, but I think it's safe to say they're just lashing out because their latest sock was discovered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm relieved to hear it was a pleasure to be honest. You've single-handedly raised the successful nom count success by 1.66%. That might not sound like much to some, but it's also ~half the reason why successful noms have increased from 93% to 95% since AELECT3. What can I say, I follow the data. Please keep doing what you're doing. Regards, CNC (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.
Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?
I disagree with the decision to redirect Game Show Congress to Ralph Edwards, as the mention in Edwards' article was uncited and not something I could independently verify. The only mentions I could find were Wikipedia mirrors and Edwards' own website. Even if it were cited, I would still feel it WP:UNDUE. I also feel there was more of a consensus to delete outright especially given the article's contentious history. I assume my "one XFD per day" topic ban includes DRV, so I plan to file one tomorrow. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?)13:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: That's a reasonable argument against a redirect, but you did not make that argument at AfD. Had the discussion been less than a month old I would have reopened it to allow you to argue against a redirect. As it is, there's clear consensus against a standalone article, but no explicit opposition to the proposed redirect, and as a closer I'm expected to give weight to the ATD. I would strongly suggest an RfD over a DRV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not allowed to make edits in XFD space outside my one a day nomination, so I can't bring up counter arguments in the XFD. And some editors have warned that bringing the issues up on their or the article's talk page is trying to "sneak around" my XFD limitations, so it feels like sometimes I am unfairly railroaded into less than desirable outcomes like this. I will take it to RFD once I'm allowed. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?)16:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recall that you were unable to reply. Nonetheless, given the state of the discussion after a month, a different closure is difficult to justify. In the future, I would recommend offering arguments in favor of outright deletion when that is your desired outcome (recognizing that you cannot anticipate all arguments against that). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, the script gathered your username in as well, and though I took it out of the block list I neglected to remove it from the tag list. Now deleted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a rationale to your keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inshore powerboat racing, given NOTAVOTE and two of the keep votes are KEEPER, given us effectively two rationale-based, argued votes for keep and delete, and then two more keepers per delete, with 2:1 for keep not being particularly strong? I could see no consensus defaulting to keep with no rationale for closure, but if you say the consensus is keep, well... I don't see it, not without a proper explanation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The last three arguments were to keep, and the last two indicated that they were persuaded by Fram's rationale, which was based in policy and was not rebutted. As I read it Fram is saying it is the clear parent article for a number of notable subtopics, and so a rebuttal would need to either show that the subtopics aren't notable (which seems unlikely) or that the grouping is inappropriate synthesis, which is possible but was not an argument offered. The second opinion for deletion was also weak, IMO, as a lack of sourcing in the article does not equate to a lack of available sourcing, and TNT arguments are more persuasive with evidence that the content itself is problematic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, per WP:DRV I am requesting you to move this page to my user space (I would request draft space but someone has already created a new page in draft space). DRV says a pre-requisite is Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
I intend to seek the option: If significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged and think requesting this from you is a necessary step.
This is my first time making such a request, so I am not sure if I am following the process correctly. I am not disputing that you interpreted the AFD vote incorrectly, but I believe there has been new information that would justify the undeletion and there could potentially be even more information soon, and I put a lot of time into this draft that would help to have a quality starting off point. Thanks for your time! Edittttor (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
