User talk:Newslinger

clarification on how mass rollback interacts with LLMPRV

Hi Newslinger,

Putting this here (also mentioned on AINB) so it won't get missed.

In your AINB comment you said that use of mass rollback on the Carigval case would require subsequent review. I don't understand how this squares with the WP:LLMPRV guideline which specifically says that once the pattern is clear, edits can be removed without review. Can you help me better understand when rollback without review is allowed and when it is not? At the moment I seem to be AINB's designated rollbacker and I'd like to do it right. Thank you! M kuhner (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi M kuhner, I have now responded in the AI noticeboard case. For this situation, I would only proceed with mass rollback if there is consensus in the AI noticeboard discussion to do so, and I would limit the rollback to edits in article space made during the LLM era (since 30 November 2022), which should affect a total of 233 articles. — Newslinger talk 22:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Labs Holmdel Complex

Hey Newslinger, I saw you removed a GA review from the page. The GA review that I presume you wanted to remove is Talk:Bell Labs Holmdel Complex/GA1, which was already removed. It seems you removed the wrong review, Talk:Bell Labs Holmdel Complex/GA2, which was picked up by another user who isn't accused of using AI. The bot put back the correct review, but just thought I'd let you know. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Epicgenius, thank you for catching this. I have moved the first review back to Talk:Bell Labs Holmdel Complex/GA1 and procedurally closed it. Sorry for missing the "2" in "GA2", but I'm glad the bot caught my error here. — Newslinger talk 00:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

MJ socks

Hi — reaching out as you dealt with some of the previous sock puppet accounts connected to WP:ARBMJ.

I'm concerned about the editor Wiki Retrospect, which I believe matches the pattern of these editors. The account was created on June 26, 2026, 4 days after the ArbCom case closed. They show up on Michael Jackson-related pages with the same pro-MJ opinions and knowledge of previous discussions.

• First and second edits are on June 27 at Talk:Michael Jackson to complain about the revert of an edit by the banned editor TheWikiHolic. Mentions knowledge of previous RfCs.

• Third edit was at Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Mentions Reddit out of nowhere ("That might be fine for discussion on your subreddit, but Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard"), despite no previous mention of Reddit in the discussion. The banned editor TruthGuardians and the topic-banned editor Israell complained about canvassing on Reddit in their ARBMJ statements.

• Fourth edit was to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square One: Michael Jackson. If they're not a puppet, it's not clear how they found this discussion, as this page is pretty obscure.

I don't have much experience in sock puppet stuff and I'd appreciate your view. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Popcornfud, if you have evidence that any editor may be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of an editor that was restricted in WP:ARBMJ, then you are welcome to file a new case at WP:SPI using the advice in Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry, User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. With only five edits here, there is currently not much behavioral evidence available to analyze.

The most substantial part of my participation in WP:ARBMJ was the private (off-wiki) evidence I provided to the Arbitration Committee during the case. If you come across private evidence that definitively implicates an editor in sockpuppetry or improper off-wiki coordination (meatpuppetry), please email the Committee with this evidence, as it cannot be directly shared on-wiki. — Newslinger talk 06:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I thought about filing a case at WP:SPI initially, but I don't have a specific account to name as the suspected sockpuppet. Do you think that would be a blocker? Popcornfud (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

​Yes, a newly filed WP:SPI case requires both a suspected sockpuppeteer account and at least one suspected sockpupppet account to be named. For meatpuppetry, a block or other editor restriction is only issued if there is strong enough evidence that clearly implicates at least two named accounts in the improper coordination. Otherwise, WP:SPI is not a suitable venue for the matter. — Newslinger talk 06:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I see. Well, I could certainly name a few potential accounts I suspect are involved. Would that work? Popcornfud (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

​That is enough to open a case, but the result of the case would depend on the quality of the evidence. The strongest on-wiki behavioral evidence usually involves "things that are uncommon and easy to verify", as described in User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI § Focus on easily identifiable patterns. — Newslinger talk 07:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cros.fre/Archive

Hi Newslinger. Do you think there could be a connection between ران شهامه and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cros.fre/Archive? I came across the account after seeing one of these posts on a user talk page that's on my watchlist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have filed and processed two SPI cases, case #1 and case #2, which resulted in three accounts being blocked as sockpuppets of Jasonmerin (talk · contribs), who operated the Cros.fre (talk · contribs) account. However, the available evidence was not sufficient for a sockpuppetry finding with respect to ران شهامه (talk · contribs) at this time. — Newslinger talk 17:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasonmerin

The small closing tags at Template:Deleted revisions don't seem to be working, leading to that SPI's text becoming smaller and smaller. I'm not totally sure how to fix it, but I thought you should be informed that it is happening. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought it was gone, but it has returned. It seems to work correctly when I purge the page, but breaks when I refresh the page a couple times. I can upload an image of what it looks like later if needed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi 45dogs, I've also been seeing this issue on my end, and I have no idea what is happening. The error in the template was fixed hours ago in Special:Diff/1382240744, and I've purged the pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasonmerin, Template:Deleted revisions, and Template:DelrevsTemplate:Delrevs multiple times, but the incorrect version keeps reappearing when I refresh. I wonder if this should be reported to WP:VPT. — Newslinger talk 18:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be reported there. I thought it might be the tags interacting weirdly with the small tags on the other parts of the page (e.g. in your signature), but the same issue is in my sandbox so it seems to be solely a template issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks like switching to {{small}} fixed it. If this error is reproducible with the <small> tag, then it might still be worth investigating, but I'm not sure if it's urgent. — Newslinger talk 18:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Newslinger:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – 🕸️Zahrazamedahmedi🕸️ 🍭My Talk Page🍬 🦇My Mistakes🦇 17:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Zahrazamedahmedi has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the preceding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

🕸️Zahrazamedahmedi🕸️ 🍭My Talk Page🍬 🦇My Mistakes🦇 17:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Newslinger, just a heads-up that I've opened a new Urabura SPI report. Since you've handled earlier Urabura cases, I thought I'd let you know. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi JeanClaudeN1, I have processed the SPI case. Thank you for submitting the filing. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look so quickly. Really appreciate it! JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Indian Cinema discussion

Hi Newslinger, this is regarding the discussion we had in . I had raised the discussion as you suggested in WikiProject Film waiting for the community to give their opinions but it went completely unnoticed and was archived.

First discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Reassessment_of_Sacnilk.com - huge discussion happened with many from Indian community came in.

Second discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_525#Reliability_of_Indian_cinema_box-office_trackers - which was a bit short.

Third discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_91#Reliability_of_Indian_cinema_box-office_trackers - where nothing happened.

Currently not sure what to do next, can you please give me you opinion on what can be done next, As I dont want this very important topic on Indian Cinema to go in vain. Thanks! Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tonyy Starkk, there are enough editors in the WT:ICTF thread who are interested in reassessing Sacnilk to justify starting a request for comment (RfC) about the reliability of Sacnilk on the reliable sources noticeboard. While I understand that you wanted all of the major box-office trackers to be reassessed together, an RfC is less likely to result in clear consensus when you ask editors to evaluate more than one topic at a time, and there is considerably more interest in reassessing Sacnilk than any of the other trackers, so I recommend focusing only on Sacnilk for this RfC.

For an example of how to format this RfC, feel free to reuse or adapt the format that I used in an RfC from earlier this year about a different source. Please see WP:RFC for instructions on how to properly apply the {{rfc}} template and make sure that the RfC statement (the text between the {{rfc}} banner and your signature/timestamp) is neutral and brief; my RfC statement for the example was added in Special:Diff/1336594355. Underneath the RfC statement, I recommend adding two subsections, one for the survey and one for discussion; you can participate in both subsections.

After starting the RfC, please post a notification in a new subsection of the WT:ICTF thread, which would notify any editor who has subscribed to the thread. To avoid the appearance of improper canvassing, I do not recommend pinging anyone separately, as the {{rfc}} banner already activates the feedback request system to notify uninvolved editors. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Newslinger, thanks for the detailed info on next steps and on how to start a RFC, I will take a deeper look at all the suggested links above, and then carefully open an RFC for Sacnilk. Thanks again! Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Newslinger, i have opened one , please let me know if anything is wrongly done/missed, thanks! Tonyy Starkk (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Tonyy Starkk, I don't see any issues with the RfC. It looks fine to me. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

ADL Report

Hey, ICYMI, saw that you and i both got a mention in the ADL report, wanna hear your thoughts i suppose. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:51, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bluethricecreamman, the report published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization whose corresponding article currently describes as "known for its pro-Israel advocacy", mentions my username a total of one time, in a graph titled "Each editor's span of most-recent edits". That graph refers to my editing in late April to May, which is when I cleaned up edits by sockpuppets of Nersy, a pro-Iran editor.

I find it rather ironic that the ADL would use my editing in this time period to accuse me of being part of "A newly identified cohort, working alongside some members of the original 30 who avoided consequences for the coordination", and then go on to claim that "Past biased edits have not been undone", when my editing during this time consisted of blocking pro-Iran sockpuppets, and then undoing and striking their edits that constitute block evasion.

The ADL did not publish a full list of edits they claim are "Editing for Hate" in this report, so I am not able to verify their allegations regarding the other editors they listed. Please note that misconduct within the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic is, of course, not limited to pro-Iran editors: see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Steven1991 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BasselHarfouch/Archive for examples of sockpuppet groups that have edited this year from a pro-Israel perspective. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration of extended-confirmed removal

Hi Newslinger,

I'm writing to ask that you reconsider your recent removal of my extended confirmed permission. I decided to reach out to you directly before submitting a formal appeal in the hopes that we can resolve the issue quickly. Namely, I believe there are two significant errors in the basis for the decision.

1. My sandbox edits did not violate WP:ECR under the rules in force at the time.

All 233 edits in question made to User:Cachedio/sandbox were between November 2023 and January 2024. At the time, the PIA4 decision, Remedy 4 explicitly defined "related content" as edits concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict in all namespaces "with the exception of userspace". The userspace exception remained in force for over a year after my final sandbox edit, ending with ArbCom's October 27, 2025 motion removing the primary-articles/related-content distinction.

To be clear: I drafted in userspace in large part because I was not extended-confirmed at the time of editing. I developed the material in a location explicitly excluded from the restriction at the time both to avoid ECR violations and to keep its edit history clean. Characterizing those edits as repeated ECR violations would mean applying the October 2025 amendment retroactively, which is not the norm for wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia:CT only requires editors "comply with any page restrictions in force", not hypothetical ones going forward.

For completeness (and although this is not relevant to the stated reason for change in status) I also made 11 edits to "200x in Israel" articles concerning Palestinian suicide attacks before reaching extended-confirmed status. These pages did not carry ARBPIA notices, so my understanding was that the restrictions were not enforceable there under the rules at the time. Also, somewhere among my 549 total edits, there were also 10 edits to pages that I think have since been deleted, and whose contents I can no longer review. But I have no reason to believe those violated ECR either. I believe this construes a full census of contributions potentially relevant to your earlier decision.

2. The edits were substantive research rather than permission gaming.

I spent an embarrasingly long time analyzing all 233 sandbox edits, comparing them diff-for-diff as well as against the final non-userspace article as it stood before my January 27, 2024 edit.

Among the changes that ultimately made an actual impact on the main article, the analysis shows:

• 180 edits (77%) added or corrected at least one citation, numerical figure, date, annotation, or link.
• 80 edits (34%) made improvements in at least two of the above categories.
• 74 edits (32%) introduced novel citations.

The remaining edits were predominantly table formatting, reorganizing entries, and other ordinary drafting and maintenance work. Collectively, these include 367 substantive strictly-factual improvements across 233 edits, for an average of 1.58 improvements per edit even disregarding all formatting and other "minor" corrections. If you're curious, the exact totals are 113 citation attachments, 98 numerical additions or corrections, 70 links changed, 51 annotations added or fixed, and 35 dates added or fixed.

Most importantly, the final product of this work was almost directly incorporated into the article, where it remains today. My January 27, 2024 edit alone substantially expanded the article's coverage, adding 46 new cited entries, 68 novel external sources, and 73 total citations. By February 19, 75 of my sources were present in the article.

My individual edits were often small because I worked incrementally: researching and updating one entry, figure, or citation at a time. The frequency reflects that workflow (and, frankly, the difficulty of formatting Wikipedia tables) rather than an attempt to inflate my edit count. I also want to emphasize that these edits represent substantially more work than their number or frequency might suggest. The research was conducted manually over the span of a couple months, often involving long evenings spent locating sources, cross-referencing accounts, verifying figures, and organizing information before incorporating it into the draft. The edits themselves were frequently the final, relatively small step in a longer research process. Characterizing that work as trivial or as an attempt to inflate my edit count is difficult to reconcile with either the effort involved or the substantive improvements that resulted. Obviously, I was aware of my edit count. But the fact that my edits continued weeks after hitting the 500 mark belies the intent to game the system.

To further delve into the specifics of Wikipedia policies for a minute, WP:PGAME specifically concerns unconstructive or trivial edits made to obtain permissions. I believe my edits comfortably satisfy that standard. In fact, your (User:Newslinger's) very own statement in the June 2025 ANI discussion directly supports my position: "I am revising my interpretation of the WP:PGAME guideline to exclude small edits that are constructive from being considered permission gaming."

Ultimately, my edits produced a large, extremely heavily-sourced expansion to a Wikipedia article. This heavily-sourced editing style is one I take pride in and one that I have maintained since; I do not believe there is any question about conduct or non-constructive editing following the EC grant.

Request

To summarize, I respectfully request restoration of my extended-confirmed permission without requiring another 500 edits. Although the stated basis for revocation was repeated ECR violations within the sandbox among my first 500 edits, the edits at issue (1) took place in a namespace expressly excluded from the restriction at the time, and (2) were clearly constructive contributions rather than permission gaming.

If you interpret the rules differently, I'd appreciate understanding which provision in force in 2023-2024 prohibited this userspace work.

I'd prefer to resolve this directly with you, but if we remain in disagreement, I intend to pursue the formal appeals process so that these questions can receive independent review.

Thank you for taking another look.

// Cachedio (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cachedio, thank you for reminding me that the early 2024 version of WP:CT/A-I contained an exception for userspace and had more lenient enforcement provisions, both of which are no longer in effect after the Arbitration Committee revised the procedures in 2025. Although editors who are not extended confirmed are currently prohibited from making the 233 sandbox edits and 20 article edits within WP:CT/A-I that you made in 2023–2024, I agree that the General Sanctions for WP:CT/A-I as defined in the early 2024 version of the contentious topic procedure are not enforceable for your edits that were identified in the recent arbitration enforcement request.

As a result, I am reclosing the request with a result of no action, and restoring your extended confirmed permission with a correction in the log indicating that the permission revocation was in error. I apologize for the mistake and wish you good luck with your future editing. — Newslinger talk 18:38, 14 November 2026 (UTC)