MOS:POSTNOM has an RfC
MOS:POSTNOM has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Edward D. Maryon
Thanks for this edit. I was uncertain of how to approach terminology in this article given my (exceedingly vague) understanding that this is an issue with a lot of opinions, but I didn't realize that there was an actual guideline covering this. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Rv per MOS:HON
Thanks for your help with this. Do you have a way of searching for "reverend" in articles in order to edit accordingly? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I use the basic search function, sometimes with some additional qualifiers like this to try to improve the signal-to-noise of the search. It's crude and I'm sure there's better ways out there, but it's at least somewhat manageable. -- FyzixFighter (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- thanks, that is a good start! Searching for honorifics can often lead to other problems that need to be corrected, like POV. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Recent requests for protection
I've protected both pages for a week at your request. Sysops try to avoid indef protection of any kind if possible, not merely because we want everyone to be able to edit (we do). I'm happy to modify that protection if it will help. A sage admin once reminded me that the intent is to discourage disruption using the minimum amount of tools/effort. When we see a dedicated multi-account disrupter, it's sometimes preferable to allow the person to out themself behaviorally than protect the page. Sock puppet investigators are more successful at affecting disruption when we allow the accounts to be tracked a bit. IMHO page protection is better designed for fighting broader conflict, as opposed to preventing individual action. Thanks for your eyes. Reach out if I can be helpful. BusterD (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do appreciate you protecting the pages. I am also well aware of SPI - however in this case, the disruptive sockpuppeteer is a LTA with disruptive edits to these and similar pages going back more than a decade and across multiple pages. In all honesty, SPI has done little to prevent continued disruption of these pages by this individual and IMO does more to feed this particular troll. Given the persistence the disruptive edits from sockpuppets and that these are BLPs, I do believe this falls under the criteria in WP:SEMI (even the criteria for indefinite semi-protection). I did try to limit the requests to those BLP pages that have been the target of the most frequent and most severe long-term disruption by this particular sockpuppeteer. -- FyzixFighter (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- @BusterD, I wanted to note here that @FyzixFighter is correct in asserting that this vandalism and content disruption spans all of the pages mentioned, and not just those already protected. I can further attest to the fact that the individual behind these edits is doing it just to mess with me, to which he/she already openly admitted in earlier discussions. These edits have also devolved into on- and off-Wikipedia harrassment of myself by the individual behind these edits, which has required some degree of intervention by Wikipedia's oversight team. And in the most recent episodes of vandalism, this same sock puppet has shifted to implying that I condone or support their edits, which I absolutely do not, as my encounters with them prove. I bring up this history to underscore the lengths this individual is going to to tamper with articles about the individual apostles named above. It is my hope that by reviewing this history, for which there is an ample paper trail on Wikipedia and for the truthfulness of which I can appeal to several fellow Wikipedians, including a few administrators and members of the oversight committee, it can provide further context for and support of the need for increased and prolonged protection of these pages. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)