Archives

'07—'11 '11—'13 13—'16 2016 '17—'18 '18—'19 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Moved toTemplate talk:Navbox#TemplateStyles hoisting in collapsible groups.Izno (talk)20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. You know how sometimes an old block can turn up again like a bad meal? I was reviewingSpecial:Diff/1267232330 at EFFPP, and couldn't help but notice that the last time this filter struck in this way was withRickRolled76 - obviously related. That doesn't look like an excellent block to me. Further, I notice that it was reported at AIVhere. I'd recommend viewing the CU log (and related) for this IP - it's notorious for poor AIV reports. Could you revisit this block to undo any potential complications with the current account? Thanks. --zzuuzz^(talk)05:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That block does look bad, yes. Unblocked shortly.Izno (talk)19:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno,

I was just wondering about your block of the very new account Moopaz. For two day old account, they seemed to know a lot about editing on the project but their edits didn't seem that promotional to me. Did you think they were a sock or a paid editor? Thanks for any additional information you can offer.Liz^Read!Talk!23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, we have at least one sock group running around lately that will do that kind of AFD editing with a clear spread of topics otherwise (all BLPs though). The editing is a UPE tactic to appear legitimate before attempting to save target topics of their own. I couldn't pin the Moopaz account directly to an existing sock farm technically but they had a confirmed sock doing the same thing atWagdar, so I issued the promo block. It would have been a sock block if I could point to the exact SPI where I've had to go over the same behavior. There is in fact a filter tracking this behavior now (see Moopaz's filter log), so it ended up at AIV via bot report, which is how I found it.Izno (talk)23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Izno, We have interactedbefore.

1) I am a good faith editor whose start on Wikipedia might have been not that good but I am getting better and now editing the space in good faith.

2) Theenforcement started as a retaliation as mentioned by me in the discussionhere.

3) I have edited on Wikipedia and in the past month, we can not find a single instance where I indulged in vandalism or POV pushes as mentioned in the enforcement.

I request you to Kindly share your opinion in the discussion.

Note: I am currently undergoing my semester exams in university till 15th jan, might not respond swiftly. I respect your fair-mindedness and have a good faith that you will take side of Justice.

Thank You !PPicazHist (talk)07:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. 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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

...but you don't have to check it, you can just delete it. Apparently someone finally did it and I should have checked one more time. Sorry to bother you.mftpdan^oops16:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just my luck, it looks like I have found yet another instance of sockpuppetry.[1]vs[2],[3]vs[4]HyperShark244 (talk)03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'll file apro forma SPI shortly.Izno (talk)03:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about[5] vs[6],[7] vs[8]?HyperShark244 (talk)03:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have additional accounts, please file anWP:SPI.Izno (talk)00:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please block Chicken147 rights to edit his edit page as well, thanks.Aqurs1 (talk)03:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not talk about how I didn't notice the username was incorrectly capitalized.... my phone was on black and white mode and it's been a long day. :P

On a serious note, thanks for all you do for the wiki, your prompt processing of vandalism requests is greatly appreciated.Doawk7 (talk)07:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you (correctly) blocked this user. Just a heads-up that they also made many edits logged out as 73.210.30.217.Fram (talk)08:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. 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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian.historian6947292 TPA should be revoked for making inappropriate replays, noticed this from antivandal, thanks!ModdiWX(You Got Mail!)19:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Other versions section ofFile:Flag of France.svg, the lighter blue flag should be changed to 1976 instead of 1975. The current Flag of France article also says so. The darker blue flag should also be changed to 1976 instead of 1975. Synchronize to 1830-1976 instead of 1830-19742401:E180:8800:BE97:12BA:A21B:710B:E15 (talk)16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may make an edit request on the relevant talk page or on Commons.Izno (talk)18:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons page says it has been modified, only the en-wikipedia copy has not been updated.2401:E180:8881:979A:69D4:724D:DF83:FE18 (talk)19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous advice applies.Izno (talk)19:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been raised on the talk page.2401:E180:8881:979A:69D4:724D:DF83:FE18 (talk)20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if no one replies? I just want the local copy to be consistent with the information on Commons and the current French flag introduction page.2401:E180:8882:4C7:D966:B9F6:88A0:1943 (talk)08:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to modify the start time of use of the lighter blue Flag, which is 1976.

Although this also required the use of the dark blue flag to be changed from 1830-1974 to 1830-1976.2401:E180:8882:4C7:D966:B9F6:88A0:1943 (talk)08:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can ask for assistance at a relevant WikiProject. My talk page is categorically the wrong way to get what you want resolved.Izno (talk)20:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about Request to make link as dead 7 days ago, but no one has replied yet.2401:E180:8882:4C7:D966:B9F6:88A0:1943 (talk)08:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isRecent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations. Thank you.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58 do you have the right people? I see about a half dozen you left this notice on last night but I do not appear to be directly or indirectly implicated in any of the relevant pages.Izno (talk)18:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno andNarky Blert: - no, I wasnot sure I had the right people. What I did do was to thoughthe page history of theWP:REDIRECT that the subject of theWP:ANI thread, and notify those editors who appeared to me to have had made non-trivial edits to it. If you, or any other editor Imotified - heh, my browser's spell checker says "did you mean mortified?" - notified thinks that was inappropriate, please do let me know, and undertake that I will learn from it.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58 Unless you can be certain who is of interest to a complaint made at ANI, I would suggest notifying nobody. You can make certain who is of interest by asking the aggrieved party.Izno (talk)23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration caseWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint atWP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) andWP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run aRequest for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. Thedigital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, thebalanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If asockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use theirexisting authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administratorsmay remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee,SilverLocust 💬23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Hello Izno,

I contacted you because you were the admin that helped me with a previous SPI report (User:Glordimes), and I didn't know where to turn to. I am very active in AIV and vandal fighting, so during my rounds of patrolling the "Recent Changes" section I see a userremoving vast amounts of content and giving poor excuses for why they are doing so. This was the behavior ofUser:Lamptonian (a user I also encountered during my patrols), so this person may be a ban evader. He/she has 300 plus edits already in 20 something days.Plasticwonder (talk)23:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a review, I would not say they are. If you believe you need administrative assistance, I would suggestWP:ANI. You should probably warn them first though that their behavior appears to be disruptive.Izno (talk)23:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well thank you regardless!Plasticwonder (talk)03:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m interested to know about your decision to revert edits to certain Sydney LGAS to revert them from their area to the broader metropolitan Sydney area. I personally disagree with this. What is your argument?Servite et contribuere (talk)03:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the question and going by context clues, I would say I was applyingWP:BANREVERT.Izno (talk)03:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK. I did thank them for some edits, but that has nothing to do with the accounts status, that is just because I agreed with what they did. It wasn’t about who did it, it was about what was doneServite et contribuere (talk)03:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izno Would it be OK for me to update regions back to say North Shore Region? (Within Wikipedia's Policies). It has nothing to do with which user I support, it has to do with what version is better, Wikipedia is not about winning. Thank You.Servite et contribuere (talk)14:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are always responsible for your own edits. So long as you aren't a blocked editor, you are mostly free to do what you want if you are acting in good faith.Izno (talk)16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from the TFDs for Template:AllMovie name and Template:AllMovie title, that AllMovie shouldn't be listed as an external link in an article anymore. If this is correct, then one user I have found is adding Allmovie external links back to articles at a rate which I can not keep up with. I don't want to get anyone into trouble, but am I correct in reverting the Allmovie links? The user concerned is Savolya.

Thanks for your help.Ozzieboy (talk)22:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably alert them to the fact that AllMovie is not an appropriate external link per ELNO. If they persist you can take it to ANI.Izno (talk)23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ozzieboy (talk)19:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,I am referring to thedraft:D. K. Pora, I have recreated it so please make sure to review the draft of this village before considering any deletion. I trust that you will not delete it.Itzkashmir (talk)06:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PerfidiousSnatch (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Vanished user 7365937 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Hi, I saw that you'd blocked Tamsyn Acton as sock of ZestyLemonz. The two hastily retired accounts above are also clearly behaviorally connected, if you wouldn't mind blocking them as well: PerfidiousSnatch wasposting weird meatpuppetry explanations about the vanished user and all three of them createdMellow Bird's andHollie Jervis together. Thanks.Belbury (talk)08:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury, neither of the two users were on the relevant network when I looked yesterday, so I would have very low confidence in your assertion without specific diffs. You can file an SPI if you want to pursue that connection.Izno (talk)18:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem,SPI filed. Thanks for stepping in with the original block.Belbury (talk)19:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please removeUser:Lego653 tpa as well.Aqurs1 (talk)09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm not even American. The rest was probably fair comment.Girth Summit _(blether)22:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like yourestored the vandalism that in turn waspublicized by some media outlets.—MusikAnimal^talk03:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this appeared on the page when I wanted to make an edit:Lua error in Module:TFA_title at line 48: assign to undeclared variable 'today'. Can you explain this? ThanksDenisarona (talk)09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP reported,back at it once the 31 hours passed (or maybe it's outside of the blocked range?). Thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 11:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers, you can file another case with additional IPs if you want. I was afraid that the traffic was simply going to shift to unblocked IPs. An actual case would definitely get review.Izno (talk)00:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reopen my case? More evidence is here now, you could probably merge it back intoWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.141.178.194~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they)Talk to me21:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this is or is this ain'tAidillia. If is, I will UTRS ban. If ain't, I will not. Thank you.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)05:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra How am I to tell? A CheckUser has no special permissions that I can see that let him see whether a request at UTRS is a specific person, and I see no information provided in the appeal itself that I could compare to onwiki.Izno (talk)05:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to see that as a check user. 😥 I will ask@Yamla:.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)05:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen relevant information on other requests, I just didn't see it here when I was looking at it. I guess I could just have missed it.Izno (talk)05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking, and I'll leave comments in UTRS. Izno, there's no big trick to it, you can run CU on a UTRS request and compare it with CU on the other themself. We have a user or two who likes to frame people via UTRS so we tend to be cautious whenever the UTRS request isn't verified. Izno, contact me by email if you want more specifics! --Yamla (talk)10:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Hmm, ok, I'm fine with the ticket resolution. For the future, what's the right button to click to see IP info when it's in the CU request state?Izno (talk)22:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: on the main appeal (https://.../appeal/100xxx), there should be a section right below the information, right above "Previous appeals". It says "CheckUser data". It lets you fill in a reason and then hit a green Submit button. If you are confused, fire me off an email and I'll send you a screenshot. Note that I think it's possible to have CU access on en.wikipedia.org but not have corresponding permissions in UTRS. They are two different locations that need to be set, I think. So, you might not have CU rights toggled on for UTRS, in which case you need to... contact... someone... but I don't recall who sets that. :) --Yamla (talk)22:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a secret! :DIzno (talk)23:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've often noticed you blocking without tags and closing the SPI, when tags feel appropriate to me. Although I can add the tags after the case is closed before archiving, it doesn't feel right to me because a case should be closed after everything is presumed to be done.

If I left a comment on the case after it is closed that I had added the tags, it would take another clerk/CU to archive the case. If I immediately archive after tagging, then it sorta misses the point that archiving is supposed to be a final review. So would you mind tagging the next time you close SPI cases? That would make clerking easier, and its just a few clicks on spihelper :)0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)10:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef, seeUser talk:Izno/Archive 11#Who's who. I've added another four reasons not to tag since, since this question came up in another (offwiki) discussion:

1. It's totally inconsistent to demand this of people who participate at SPI when arbitrary sock blocks in the wilddon't tag socks and sometimesdon't even establish who the master or other sock is literally anywhere. Yes, I can point to multiple admins who don't do the second, but I would be shocked to see an admin in the wild do the first.
   1. Corollary: Tagging is inconsistent with issuing block evasion blocks to IPs, whether at SPI or otherwise.
2. Adding tags (today) obscures user pages which are often used for similarity analysis. Investigation is always the long pole in the sockpuppetry tent and so everything that makes investigating harder Sucks.
3. User page badge of shame effect often discussed in regard to{{banned}}. (This is not a persuasive reason to me [in the context of socking at least], but it is a reason, and apparently a good reason for at least one other user.)
4. WP:DENY.

The couple good reasons to tag I've seen are:

1. Some people use it in their user flow. (I don't. It's literally never the first nor even second place I look given the inconsistency above about socks in the wild not getting tagged. Markblocked is always the first and usually sufficient.)
2. It's easier for non-admin clerks to change tags to associate socks with an appropriate case. We have few of those (1 active right now?), but I'm assured that sometimes we have more.
3. Some users use a script that uses the categories that tags establish to make identifying socks of a specific case easier when looking through archives and categories. (Extend to arbitrary sock tool, but the script or two that use this are the only tools I know of that work on such categories. There was some discussion in the context about machine learning but that's crystal balling to me, and we can fix this issue if and when ML materializes substantively for sock checking.) The categories themselves are effectively useless for casual human analysis.

Are those persuasive to me or anyone(!) to spend the time and overhead on managing tags given the now-7ish reasons I've collected not to? I haven't decided. I'm pretty sure 2 isn't, and honestly, I'm not really convinced by 3 either.

I distinctly think thatit would take another clerk/CU to archive the case is not a good reason not simply to archive a case. You're sorting a case after it is closed, and getting things absolutely perfect is time wasting.

(Don't read this in a particularly annoyed voice, any annoyance is not at you.)Izno (talk)22:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Mainly for the benefit of :0xDeadbeef, as you know, I'm strongly favor tagging, and your reasons not to are not persuasive for me. Therefore, I will continue to tag when I can; as I understand it, although you disagree with me, you do not oppose my doing it.--Bbb23 (talk)23:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tempted to broach this with you as well. While there may be reasons why, for whatever reason, we choose not to tag in a given situation, your decision to not tag by default is, honestly, a pain in the butt for your fellow CUs (ar, at least me). Given the concerns raised by 0xDeadbeef and Bbb23, it's also an issue for some of the admins clerking SPI. Whenever I come across a sock farm which you've blocked via SPI, I need to backtrack through SPIs, CU logs etc. to make connections that could have been made instantly with a tag. As the cases become more convoluted and more time passes, the lack of tags causes even more confusion. So if you don't want to tag the socks and masters in cases where there is no reason not to do so, could you please leave the tagging to the Clerks? It would be helpful to many of us active in SPI and related sock activities.--Ponyo^{bons mots}23:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical standpoint, I'm not sure whether that will be enough unless Izno expressly says that they will leave tagging to the clerk. Otherwise, I fear the clerk will just close or archive the report without tagging, assuming that the CU doesn't want the accounts tagged.--Bbb23q (talk)23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an unfortunate outcome.--Ponyo^{bons mots}00:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to Ponyo, you don't need to tag the accounts if you don't want to, but please consider changing the case status to completed instead of closed so that a clerk can close it after they have added the tags. I don't mind tagging before archiving, but it feels icky and I would much prefer archiving cases that didn't require these non-trivial actions.0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be extremely helpful. Just change the status to checked or completed with the CU results and let the Clersk handle it from there.--Ponyo^{bons mots}18:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This. If a CU does not want to bother with tagging (which is fine), please, let a clerk do it by not closing the case. I have recently tagged several socks in recently archived cases. I understand there are cases where we do not tag for various reasons, but unless specific reasons apply, tags do help me and others in many workflows.

Over the years, I have written many tools that rely on tags, and these save a huge amount of time. Nowadays, it wouldn't even cross my mind to perform any non-trivial behavioral investigation without these tools.MarioGom (talk)13:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to estimate how much time I have wasted over the years on re-investigating sockpuppet history which has already been investigated and put on record, because I don't know where to look to find that record. Also, apart from the waste of time on occasions when I do get there eventually, there's the question of how often I fail to eventually reach the right conclusion because I just don't find the evidence, when I would have done so had there been tags. I agree withBbb23 &Ponyo; certainly there are situations where tagging isn't very appropriate, but far more often it is, and a general policy of not tagging is very unhrlpful.JBW (talk)19:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this a few weeks ago, but I have been meaning to get back to this, and the text I wrote then isn't very far from what I'd write now. The stuff in bold is the stuff that needs to be absorbed to move forward.

Ponyo, you were actuallythe specific person I thought of when I said that some people use it in their workflow directly, based on an earlier interaction we had. But I suppose it's nice that others use the tags directly. Let me repeat that I basically don't (I've used the tags maybe twice). There is at least one user out there who blocks socks without listinganywhere who they're a sock ofconsistently, and that drives me actually nuts.

The request to tag may seem small, but it's really, really not. I originally didn't start tagging myself solely because of the uncertainty mentioned in October, but after having been asked to think about it for multiple more hours in the intervening time since, I now also have a practical and philosophical problem with doing it. It's fundamentally a ton of bureaucracy (and by bureaucracy I mostly intend expensive, mostly-unnecessary, overhead) that SPI inflicts on itself quite unlike basically anything else on wiki, and it's also fundamentally inconsistent with how socks logged inor out are treated in the wild: they are blocked, by most users without so much as an indication in the log of who. It is so bureaucratic I recently saw a clerk fail to completely fix the tags of a user when two cases were merged. Yes, a clerk.

I am quite aware that this opinion of mine appears to be a controversial opinion. As in the previous discussion with Bbb23, I have no issue with someone else tagging.

To explain a point,I send cases to closed on the assumption that clerks (or interested others) will clean up (however we define "clean up"), because that's a clear expectation laid on the clerking user before archival.

Leaving cases at CU-checked or open is worse in this regard IMO because it doesn't indicate that we think theactual problem is sorted - which is that the users socking who should be blocked are blocked and the users who aren't socking shouldn't be aren't. SPI does not exist to ensure its own cases are filled out with all Ts crossed and Is dotted. Literally everyone doesn't know that a case is done, only that it could possibly be done. That includes everyone - every admin, user, and CheckUser - looking at the list as well as each specific case. I source what needs to be worked on from the list. It would mean every admin, user, and CheckUser needs to triple check a case to ensure there's nothing else to be done. (I've even gone so far as to hide everything in Closed with CSS because of the amount of work I do when I'm working on SPI.) Fundamentally, there is no other state than Closed which so clearly indicates "paperwork may need to be done but the actual important work here is complete".

This is a far greater waste of time for what is the actual bottleneck at SPI, which is hours from volunteers with goggles or block buttons.

I do think it is completely and needlessly bureaucratic for a clerk to spend time tagging at Closed and then wait for someone else to archive a case. I appreciate a desire to have someone check to make sure things are done, but there will have been multiple eyes on a case already, and on top of that one of the supposed benefits of tags (in contrast to, say, the block log) is that anyone can tag. Just tag and archive and then move on; someone will fix it later, if the rare mistake needs fixing at all.

If there are clerking users not ensuring cases are ready before archival, that is an issue to raise with those specific users acting as case clerks. (Good on Deadbeef among others for checking, but I rather think Deadbeef's complaint here makes a point about the pain that tagging causes.) I know of one which perhaps you all might discuss this topic with also.

On a more general point, SPI's backlog seems to extend to infinity despite our best efforts, both in the easy-to-assess socks (number) and the hard-to-assess socks (difficulty), of whom most of the latter do not get dedicated work done on them by the SPIers. (I try to spend an hour or three a week when we run out of easy ones. I haven't observed anyone else but Spicy to do substantive work on cases that other users have started work on, and he's been AFK from SPI of late.) Wehave to find more efficient ways of working, because SPI just doesn't right now. I for one would be glad to have a dozen more admins working on SPI if it meant they didn't care about tagging, or whatever bureaucracy they feel gets in their way, because then I'd have a dozen more admins working on SPI.Izno (talk)01:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are too lengthy for me, particularly because you discuss not only tagging but also SPI generally, SPI backlogs, and other topics that I can't quite determine. I don't know why you feel that tagging is more "expensive". Tagging is easy. When I dispose of a case myself, I use the SPI helper script and in one edit I block (request locks when appropriate), tag, and close. The only thing left for a clerk to do is to make sure I didn't screw up and archive. As for the status you leave a case in after not tagging, I still believe "checked" is the best that we have for "your" non-tagging disposition because it says "now awaiting administration", whereas close says only that it "will be archived shortly". Otherwise, we'd have to train all SPI clerks that when you close a case, tagging still needs to be done. In essence, you're just shifting the work from you to the clerks.--Bbb23 (talk)13:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Izno, I find your response disappointing. You have a number of SPI regulars explaining how your idiosyncratic way of handling SPI reports and disdain for tagging is making thingsmuch harder for them and who are suggesting simple adjustments that would make thingseasier for all involved. All you have to do is note your results, mark the SPI as checked, and then a Clerk will handle the rest. You can block the socks with a link to the SPI (if you choose to) and leave the tagging to whoever moves the status from "checked" to "closed". This has been the basic flow between Checkusers and Clerks at SPI for, well, at least as long as I've been doing this. Even if you don't agree with the process, why would you purposefully do things in a way that makes tracking future evasion harder for everyone involved? SPI may have significant issues, but it's what we have for now and we all have to worktogether for it to function at all; your response doesn't demonstrate that willingness. --Ponyo^{bons mots}22:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disappointing when I say something and it apparently goes unread, goes unremembered, or when I say something and it isn't even discussed in response. I appreciate that a lot of users have now said "Izno, please adjust", and that's why I've been avoiding SPI for the better part of two months. I'll discuss the particular suggestion of "use checked" below.Izno (talk)02:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick points before a general comment:

1. Because anyone can tag the accounts based on the results provided, and it is not just the clerks who are trusted to tag, setting it tochecked instead ofclosed if a case awaits tags makes more sense. Only clerks/CUs look at closed cases and archive them. Patrolling admins and sometimes any user can help with tagging.
2. Tagging helps CUs find the last non-stale account and keeps things navigable. It is easy to go from a master to its socks and to go from a sock to its master. Leaving a username in the block summary does not help with going from a master to its known socks, doesn't help if cases get merged, doesn't give as much information as a tag on a user page (strength of the connection, whether or not an SPI casepage exists), and is hard to navigate (copy and pasting a username vs. clicking on links on the template)
3. On the point about looking at userpages for investigation, I feel like we can change our policy such that future tags don't need to blank the entire userpage but just need to appear at the top of userpages (which is what we sometimes do for CBANs, seeMathsci)

It is frustrating to see CU blocks that do not leave a trail such that others can easily follow. That doesn't help justify not doing something that is considered helpful to SPI regulars. It is true that SPI is backlogged and we need to find ways to be more efficient with our processes. I don't think we should consider doing away with tags at the moment.0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)13:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef:sometimes any user can help with tagging. I don't think we should encourage non-admins who are not clerks to tag.--Bbb23 (talk)13:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If non-admin non-clerks can do it well, I don't currently got a problem with it, but that's a different discussion than the current one. I can see your argument too (and wouldn't be opposed to others discouraging people for doing so) (there'sSpecial:AbuseFilter/1157 tracking stuff too)0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)13:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have two large issues with "set it to checked":

1. Checked is specifically "I used the CheckUser tool and here is a result" (see{{SPI case status}}'s output). It is not "I reviewed a case", it is not "I blocked a user (or even all the users)", and it is not "this is done except for the paperwork". SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures#Process notes, which incidentally is also where it says you're always supposed to tag socks (but we don't according to some undocumented set of rules) and where it says that clerksare already supposed to check that user pages are tagged before archive (since Bbb23 suggests above that clerks would need to be trained again to do what that pagealready says on the point).
2. Separately, not all SPIs with named accounts end or rely on CU results, even when you're a CU.

The suggestion made is to misuse that status to mean "I did the meaningful work and someone else needs to finish the paperwork" which is flatly not remotely a similar intent to "I clicked the special buttons and reported the results" and which separately doesn't account for non-CU-used cases.

(And though no-one has suggested, I think it would be categorically bad for "needs paperwork" to use "Clerk requested", which I think everyone would prefer to use for exceptional need for clerks.)

Tagging helps CUs find the last non-stale account Yes, I assume this is at least one of the scripts mentioned above. I haven't used it and haven't needed it. Maybe it really is useful and I might try it out, but for me, browsing the last couple socks in the SPI archive is usually enough (and when it's not, usually I need to resort to CU wiki anyway, and I'm/we're lucky if there's data there).

Tagging is easy. It is not. SPIHelper still sucks on this point. It doesn't fix cases which have been merged, sometimes dirtily. It's easy to mess up and then you've got 200 edits on your hand just with tagging a sock farm, once for the mistake and once for the not-mistake. It's non trivial to say "this is not a sock of this master, it's of this other master". (I have seriously no idea why it was implemented as dropdowns instead of entries perhaps with a default of the current master.) Socks of merged masters don't get updated to the new master, or if they do they walk around with seriously silly double-or-more tags. And that's all ignoring how SPI functions when SPI helper doesn't exist (consider that it is unmaintained just right now and just how frequently WMF breaks existing scripts, and we've got Parsoid Read Views barreling down on us).

copy and pasting a username Let's not misstate what the point is here. If we're all using SPI helper, and I guess that we are at SPI (because it's hard to be widely functional without at least SPI helper), the default is to leave a summary with a link to the case under which evidence was produced for a user to be blocked. Thatalways leaves a track record. (Though if SPI helper were maintained, maybe it would be good for it to link to the specific section under which the account was listed, which I suspect is a complaint literally everyone here including me has with it.) (I also personally try to ensure a user name gets left in a block log when I'mnot executing a block from SPI helper, as in the wild, or for when I want to avoid linking to the wrong SPI.)

Regarding strength of connection, I expect all users regularly patrolling SPI to state how positive they think the connection is before blocking or moving to further the case. Is that a bad expectation? Tags communicate it, but so does people actually communicating it. There's a wide variance between "is a sock" and "isn't a sock" and our current method of tagging basically puts that in a trinary "is, suspected, isn't"... with two flavors of "is" even, when what we need is the flavor in the "suspected" and "isn't" piles... which can't be expressed by the tags. So if someone is not doing the work to identify that at the SPI case, where are they doing it?

To reiterate the key point, Clerking users whether clerks or not are just as able to add tags when a case is Closed or even Archived as when it is in any other arbitrary state, that I think that is in fact the best state to mandate their addition because there is already that expectation mentioned above in the clerk/CU guidelines that specifically Clerking Clerks/CUs are required to tag users before Archival when tags have not been applied by the arbitrary other users in the SPI case, and because any other state induces a seriously uselesslist from which to identify meaningful work. Because that's myfundamental problem with these suggestions around not tagging versus tagging and if a regular isn't going to tag, where he's supposed to put a case. Paperwork is not interesting and doesn't help the arbitrary users with their problems whoneed our help to remove socks and being really obvious in displaying which cases still need that kind of help isimportant.

Heck, I'd even be amenable to another state somewhere to match{{sblock}} and/or the other states called out in #1 above. CU checked and Open seriously suck as the states for "CU has done a thing" and "admin/or-even-non-admin has done a thing" when what we probably need are indicators saying "what still needs to be done". Probably honestly CU checked might as well be useless for all that I've seen people actually work on CU checked cases that aren't their own (and sometimes not even then). (It's the exception, not the rule, to take other users' cases.) I've had a frank discussion with an SPI regular in private about this talk page section because I needed someone's "take the L" opinion, as it were, and "we vrooming but telling nobody useful information" was identified as one of their pain points also.Izno (talk)03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wilkinsson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·blacklist hits ·AbuseLog ·what links to user page ·count ·COIBot ·Spamcheck ·blacklist hits ·user page logs ·x-wiki ·status ·Edit filter search ·Google ·StopForumSpam) looks to be the latest reincarnation ofWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BouwMaster, doing exactly the same thing. -Amigao (talk)02:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please report to SPI. I am a few days backlogged.Izno (talk)02:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Balthazarduju has not given any reason for his vandalism on Nezha and some other sites. I hope you will deal with him properly. Many users are upset by his vandalism, but it seems no one is stopping this behavior. If he knows about something, he can fix it (which is very welcome), but his problem is that he fixes things he doesn't know about and doesn't care about, so it's clearly intentional vandalism. In this case, I should note that I have no personal problem with him and no desire to offend him or anyone else, I'm simply reporting an abusive behavior that prevents many people from improving the article.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKrostyr (talk •contribs)07:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke TPA forZiggurat75TornadoLGS (talk)23:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. 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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

Pbritti (talk)14:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isHistory Of Yoruba's continued disruption, edit warring, and Yoruba POV pushing after temporary block expired. Thank you.Vanderwaalforces (talk)16:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I need to bring toWP:SPI, but24.222.102.55 seems like a new and fairly obvious sock of Rubbaband Mang. Same pages edited, started editing immediately after the new SPI report, also geolocates to Atlantic Canada.TheKip^(contribs)21:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer reporting at SPI because ofbus factor and because the record keeping stays in one place.Izno (talk)22:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Know you said the duck test officially applies to socks in disputes, but I've always taken it moreso to be "new account acting suspiciously similar to old account" regardless of content.TheKip^(contribs)04:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just noticed you blocked that IP, so thanks for saving me the hassle as well, lol.TheKip^(contribs)04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	HiIzno, Thank you very much for digging through the mountain of bot reports atWP:AIV!The list was huge and suddenly resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk)23:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've blocked the IP in question. Can the SPI be closed?Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk)14:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he is back. SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indo12122. ThanksAbhishek0831996 (talk)13:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiIzno... thanks so much forhandling this block. I was wondering... I am 99% sure this is a sock ofBrandNameofc (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), a disruption only SPAindef blocked aftermy report here.

I'm pretty new to the whole ANI/sock/reporting stuff... can you advise the best way to proceed? Is it just to reportSandstorm78 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) as a sock? —Joeyconnick (talk)02:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyconnick If you believe it's a sock, you go toWP:SPI and follow the instructions there. Obviously the one account is blocked only temporarily.Izno (talk)02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, you blockedKing11105 (talk ·contribs) recently. They seem to be still having a homophobic rant. Usually I just ignore them and let them shout into the void, but this one is still angry.Knitsey (talk)15:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha,Stwalkerster has caught it, thank you.Knitsey (talk)15:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inzo. I'm a new and mostly confused wikipedia editor. I'm trying to update the page of my local nonprofit music festival, which is more than 10 years out of date. I'm having problems with admins, or possibly bots, undoing my efforts. So I tried to revert it back. Too many times, appartently. Now I'm blocked, and it seems it was you that did it. :)Can you help me out here? I'm seeking an unblock, and would love any advice to go with it.Thank you.QWB2112QWB2112 (talk)23:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isAbused power.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘03:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NintendoTokyoFan619 (talk ·contribs) appears to be a newly created sockpuppet ofPinkgamergirl (talk ·contribs). ~Dissident93^(talk)16:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 ConfirmedIzno (talk)17:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

98.151.203.232(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) is making the same type of edits, mainly addingCategory:Nintendo people toJun Ishikawa's page. ~Dissident93^(talk)16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe there is a strong chance that Remsense is a sockpuppet of recenly banned Thirurang Cherusskutty / Sheryofficial, he is editing pretty much the same articles in a similar way, he is edit warring over trivial data and the new account was created right after his older one was banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Remsense

For instance, you can check these two edits, it is the exactly the same thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=1283409863&oldid=1283252195

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=1284533822&oldid=1284533750

DzSolo, probably not.Remsense might want to be aware you reverted to a 'bad' version.Izno (talk)17:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be able to understand howthe new account was created right after his older one was banned was arrived at?Remsense ‥ 论17:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my mistake, sorry about it.DzSolo (talk)20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already raised it at WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1183#IP adds cast members without discussion) but nobody talked about relevant information or a block. Also talked to several non-admin users and pinged admins as well, but no admin is answering the pings. SeeUser talk:82.42.38.65#Proof via credits. What do I do?DareshMohan (talk)22:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan I would have taken a "3 months of unsourced editing" IP at AIV but I don't know that anyone/everyone else would. That's probably the easiest way to sell it in the future at ANI: "User is editing without responding to feedback on their talk page despite multiple attempts over the past 2 months" +- links to the attempts + "Can I please get someone to block it?". The ANI got caught up in "is this the same person?" which is valid in some cases but not for this trivial of one. Blocked.Izno (talk)22:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you created the module that detects items in this tracking cat. Is it possible that you can tweak the code to exclude pages that use an "info=" in their WikiProject banner, likeTalk:Kyneton High School. I know it's rarely used, but that should be allowed and not flagged an an error to be fixed.The-Pope (talk)23:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The-Pope no, this is not tweakable - the only control we have over the category is on or off globally, essentially (even now, it's kind of a hack to have it refine to just the Talk: namespace rather than all of them). The reason the issue occurs is because there is a signature before the first heading. I would suggest removing the signature, or commenting it out. In total, there are only some1800-some uses in a category of 133k. Or ignoring this set of issues (for now), there are clearly others to remove. Or the fourth option is to move the assessments into their own section on the page.

If I have an opinion about the use of such parameters, I might suggest they were never really appropriate and that there are definitely other alternatives as above. But certainly, 20 years down the road, they certainly aren't necessary or potentially even really reflect most pages. I'd hazard to guess that most of the 1800 are such archaic uses.Izno (talk)23:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what "horsedick" brings us? Darryl from The Office.https://imgur.com/a/eh54nVzPolygnotus (talk)23:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably report issues like that. :')Izno (talk)23:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah; he paid good money for that. I ain't no snitch.Polygnotus (talk)23:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Izno, it was not my intention, unfortunately. On a practical note, for some reason I find myself often logged-out while I have not exited my account (i know nothing of this so I have not figured out if it's my setting, device or whatever). On top of that, I have had for the longest time a problem with a network of infinite socks that I helped to report (seeUser:JamesOredan,User: Venezia Friulano etc.); as a retaliation, his IPs and socks came to insult me on my account's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barjimoa/Archive_1, I had it protected a couple of times) and disrupted most of my editorial activity (sometimes adducing various reasons, but really just because I did edits, as he made clear various times). Meanwhile, I continued to report. But it took up most of my time and energies on wikipedia. This persecution made me less attentive to remain logged-in, especially because when I was logged-in I was often attacked by these socks. I told this situation a number of admins. I never violated any wikipedia rule, not when logged-in and not when logged-out, not in my editorial activity and not in arguments. Basically, when I stayed logged-out it was because of my setting/device + possibly (due the situation above) I did not log-in because I was not in the mood to receive attacks by this blocked user. I myself am coming out of this and I am more attentive to make edits logged-in more consistently; these socks have also been less active for a while now (I am positive there are still some around, but not as much).Barjimoa (talk)07:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barjimoa Thanks for the note.Izno (talk)17:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Izno, I have revert several actions of the editor you identified as a sock puppet in accordance with the guidelines.Founding of Moldavia (GA),Revolt of Horea, Cloșca, and Crișan,Second Vienna Award,Northern Transylvania, could you hide the contents of these edits in order to avoid further abuses? Thanks in advance,Norden1990 (talk)20:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an inappropriate use of the relevant tools.Izno (talk)20:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking theFranco Nero vandal accounts. Unfortunately, the vandal also used the IP 47.25.227.27 and has vandalized the article indozens of Wikipedia editions. Can we block this IP globally? And can we roll back all these changes across all editions? Manually reverting them all would be a drag... Thanks! —Chrisahn (talk)01:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisahn I cannot block them globally. Yes, they would need to be reverted everywhere. You can trymeta:SRG for assistance.Izno (talk)01:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I posted a request at meta:SRG. —Chrisahn (talk)01:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On 4 April 2025 you blockedRealhistoryofiran (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) as a sock ofDeylamangilak (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). It appears that this persistent disruptive editor is back again asOnlygodofalltime (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). For example, comparethis by Onlygodofalltime withthis by Realhistoryofiran.CodeTalker (talk)20:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker please file anWP:SPI in the future to preventbus factor issues.Izno (talk)20:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Thanks for your help.CodeTalker (talk)20:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Izno,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing concerning the deletion of the Wikipedia page titled "Pranysqa Mishra," which was deleted on the grounds of being created by a banned user, "sitraaa."

As an editor who contributed to this page after its creation, I was unaware of the circumstances surrounding the creator's status. The content I added was developed in strict adherence to Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards, supported by reliable and independent sources. My intention was to enhance the article's quality and ensure it met Wikipedia's content policies.

Could you please provide further details about the specific reasons for the deletion? Additionally, I seek guidance on whether there is a possibility to have the article reviewed and potentially reinstated, assuming the content independently meets Wikipedia’s standards.

I appreciate the challenges involved in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and understand the need for strict adherence to its policies. However, I believe that the contributions made by myself and other editors subsequent to the initial creation were made in good faith and significantly improve the article's compliance with Wikipedia's standards. If the deletion was solely due to the original creator's status, I would like to know if there's a process for reconsidering articles that have been substantively edited by others who were unaware of the creator's ban.

Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to your guidance and am eager to find a resolution that allows for the continued availability of well-sourced and neutrally written content on Wikipedia.

Regards(~~~~)

Crysza77 (talk)22:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restoredPranysqa Mishra.Izno (talk)22:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate for your prompt response and for restoring the "Pranysqa Mishra" Wikipedia page. Could you please advise on how to prevent any future issues related to the page’s association with a previously banned creator?

It is invaluable to have your insight as I strive to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.Crysza77 (talk)22:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Pham Van Rang’s sockpuppet IPs -[9] and[10]14.188.217.68 (talk)04:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14.x, please report these at SPI to reducebus factor issues.Izno (talk)04:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I was a bit on edge because one of myprevious requests for the case to be looked into had been ignored. As someone who has all of these pages on my watchlist, it has been obvious that the IP is a sockpuppet for a while. I do not think you did anything wrong. Apologies if I came across too sharp.--NØ06:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, if the data is suggesting conclusively they're not the same guy then I think off-wiki coordination is likely.Simonm223 (talk)18:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for looking so promptly.Simonm223 (talk)18:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only account? I'm not seeingany vandalism. I'm seeing a mistaken use of "Ass." to represent "Assistant" instead of "Asst.", but that's it. They were attempting to add correct information, even if misguided in their attempts (we don't add assistant principals); seethis staff list, and compare againsttheir attempted addition. This doesn't strike me as an appropriate block. --Hammersoft (talk)02:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get a good enough look at the filter hits. Unblocked.Izno (talk)02:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. Last October you blocked2607:fea8:22a0:38f0::/64 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RBLs ·block user ·block log) for six months, having previously blocked them for one week and then one month previously. They are an uncommunicative editor who edit wars over English variants. The six month block has now run out, and they are back to the exact same edits[11]. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They indeed reissue them from WA not WZ perthis source. Please undo your revert.49.185.185.81 (talk)02:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant to block you earlier, smh.Izno (talk)02:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Izno. Remember when you revertedthis and CU-blockedRajputra unity? You have been reverted by 103.211.53.26. That seemed a bit obvious, and I also noticed 103.211.53.26 in the history, so I reverted back and blocked 103.211.53.0/24 for a month. I don't know if you'd like to check to see if a bigger range should be blocked? Or, indeed, to see if I was mistook.Bishonen |tålk08:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)09:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For putting an end tothis nonsense. Thank you!JeffSpaceman (talk)22:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. You blocked the IP149.108.166.124 for the reason of "Block evasion Megafauna Man". Looks like they are still posting megafauna content on their talk page (twice). Do you revoke talk page access for this?

Incidentally, I have reverted these same edits on other IP talk pages. I seem to recall an instance of a "megafauna vandal" in the distant past... I thought at one point there was a page atWP:LTA, but I haven't found any record of it. Is there a named account/SPI case that these should be linked to? --Drm310🍁 (talk)23:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one, no, else I'd have pointed to it. Most of my cues for this one have come from AIV reports.Izno (talk)23:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPA nixed. Re-report Somewhere when that block lifts, as I expect the disruption to resume.Izno (talk)23:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found sporadic mentions of the "Megafauna Man vandal", who apparently is an IP-hopping vandal who's been active for years. Here's another one from 2022:User talk:140.0.2.206

Anyway, I'm sure you're right, this probably won't be the last we've heard of them... --Drm310🍁 (talk)00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting these users' edits? They both included reliable sources on the information they added.Gold Luigi (talk)12:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gold Luigi:User:Nightmare0001 is an obvious sock puppet ofUser:Yukitanooki: the reason is simple—a newbie won't report others atWP:AN and know wikilink likeSpecial:Diff, while theydid.0x0a (talk)13:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gold Luigi, seeWP:BANREVERT. Users who are committingsockpuppetry can expect to be blocked and reverted on sight without any particular judgement on the value of their edits. Ifyou would prefer the content to stay, you may reinstate it, but then you become responsible for it, and any quality issues it might have.Izno (talk)15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticedthis followed bythis. I am trying to figure out what's going on with that user (see this) and am curious what happened with the template you added and removed. Thanks!i know you're a dog (talk)22:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iknowyoureadog, see the now-closed discussion atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xrimonciam/Archive.Izno (talk)22:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's helpful to know. Seems like there'ssomething strange going on. What it is, I'm not yet sure.i know you're a dog (talk)22:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno,I hope you're doing well.

I recently followed a Google search result for James Blake and landed on a deleted Wikipedia page through what appears to be a broken link. I remember this article being live not too long ago.

I can notice that the deletion appears to have been related to concerns about the editor who originally created the page, rather than the content of the article itself.

May I request that the pageJames Blake (TV presenter) be restored, assuming there are no issues with the article’s content or sources?

Thanks for your time.Needle Master (talk)14:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not restore the article. It was a creation of anunpaid editorsockfarm.Izno (talk)15:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Can you please restore it in draftspace instead?Needle Master (talk)17:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have a reasonable belief that you are another one in the relevant group.Izno (talk)17:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am simply a fan of James Blake. He has quite a reputation, you know? And I don't think you have reasonable grounds for a CU check.Needle Master (talk)18:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject banner shell/styles.css has beennominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.Gonnym (talk)09:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izno talk contribs deleted pageEthnic cleansing of the Russian population in Chechnya (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block

Please restore it in my user page: I edited it, and I know taht it contains usable references, and I can try to revive the article. --Altenmann>talk19:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann, now atUser:Altenmann/Ethnic cleansing of the Russian population in Chechnya.Izno (talk)19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. --Altenmann>talk19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,this user you blocked keeps vandalizing their talk page and making personal attacks. Just letting you know since I can't report it to AIV.Nahida🌷17:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally not a win for your time or energy to edit war with a blocked user on their talk page. TPA removed.Izno (talk)17:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, theyevidently used an IP a few days ago.   –Skywatcher68 (talk)18:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Report to AIV if/when the IP wakes up.Izno (talk)18:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of their targets is on my watchlist, although I'm not sure how it got there.   –Skywatcher68 (talk)19:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I have just translated an article (Elisabeth Fischer-Friedrich) from the German wikipedia, and when I went to move it from my sandbox to the English wiki page, I got a notice that you (quite recently) deleted a page with the same name. I obviously can't prove that I'm not the sockpuppet you recently banned, because I'm newly back to Wikipedia. But you can see the edit history on my sandbox page if you like, to see that I have just now translated this piece by piece. I would really prefer not to see my work deleted. With regards to notability, I believe it is satisfied by the combination of two national prizes plus the Heisenberg Professorship (I wouldn't have translated the page, otherwise).— Precedingunsigned comment added byA bunch of penguins (talk •contribs)02:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion criterion of interest doesn't apply if you are not a sock, and usually it is best to at least block someone for being a sock to delete the page. I don't think you're a sock of the person whose article I deleted. So this article will likely survive unless someone else decides it shouldn't :^).

That said, "newly back"? You should disclose your former names on your user page if you remember them.Izno (talk)16:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thanks. I was surprised when I saw the notice, and didn't want my work to go to waste. For personal reasons, I'd prefer aclean start.a bunch of penguins (talk)18:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the block so that we can change the article by removing wrong things, that is muthuraja is not telugu caste so remove telugu from that.2409:4072:785:3412:E899:127C:5FB9:DC62 (talk)03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page underWP:GSCASTE as it was clearly caste-based edit warring. You may still request an edit on the talk page using the{{edit request}} template. You will need to provide sources that explain your position.Izno (talk)20:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• NDalton69 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Hi there. You blocked the above account last year for socking. They've now made aWP:STANDARDOFFER unblock request. I'm minded to unblock on the basis that the history of socking is admitted and there has been an attempt to improve policy knowledge. Would you have any objections if I accepted the request and unblocked?Arcticocean ■22:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are satisfied, go for it.Izno (talk)20:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :)Arcticocean ■18:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you deletedAutumn Lockwood andMabel Cody for sockpuppetry? If you are referring to me, I'm not a sock puppet. I worked on both of these and believe I'm the only one. I'm an edit-a-thon organizer, so it's possible someone else worked on these as well at a recent gathering, though I can't see that now because they are both gone.Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk)16:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not you. You were not the creator of both articles. Autumn was directly created byWP:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4 under the guise ofMoogsaxa and was deleted for the substantial creation. The other was moved to mainspace under the guise ofYawnpawn. It still exists for further review atDraft:Mabel Cody and has not been deleted.

Slowking4 is a long-term abusive user on English Wikipedia and has faced two global ban proposals (with the second nearly passing). You can review the summary atWP:LTA/Slowking4. He is known to attend meetups, including particularly WM DC, and I understand he additionally has some position of authority there. You may wish to review whether it is appropriate that he be allowed in to those events and to sit in the position he does.Izno (talk)16:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. A newbie editor at theGeorgetown WHM edit-a-thon wrote most of the Mabel Cody article before it was moved by Yawnpawn, so I'm glad it's still there. I'll move that one. I remember working heavily on Lockwood, but I thought I had moved that one. I'm now also seeing thatPetrona Martinez was also deleted. Any way to restore Lockwood and Martinez as drafts so that I can review and move them myself?Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk)16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted Lockwood and Martinez.Izno (talk)16:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk)20:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creative coconut 93 recreatingDraft:Louisan E. Mamer while at a DC Meetup. Coincidence? --Ponyo^{bons mots}20:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yn240, also with a Slowking4 recreation. I'm not overly familiar with this master and whether the likelihood of collateral.--Ponyo^{bons mots}21:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, behaviorally these don't match, and neither do the technical aspects. I would guess these were made as newbie-abusingWP:PROXYING ("hey, we should make an article onthis person" shouted from some place in the classroom/library/hall).Izno (talk)21:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I didn't want to start running checks and reinventing the wheel. The accounts affiliated with the DC meetup just kept popping up in the "recreated" filter. Appreciate the quick response.--Ponyo^{bons mots}21:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovalam_Football_Club

this page had similar discussions, similar users, but was not deleted;i tried to clear "7s football, real malabar" to keep them as from experience know constructive edits even by socks can be used.but if story is over with long term locking, never mind. regards93.140.16.151 (talk)10:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This person you blocked is using their talk page inappropriately as well.Nahida🌷23:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked fora deletion review ofLucy Rose (writer). 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.Extraordinary Writ (talk)10:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Thought it would be prudent to alert you to the new open sockpuppet investigation atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson#07 May 2025, given your recent involvement atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson#05 May 2025.Justthefacts (talk)22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Added additional evidence atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson#07 May 2025. --Justthefacts (talk)20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help semi-protectWikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed? That IP hopper just won't relent. ~SG5536B02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They will find another noticeboard to spam. This one is sufficiently in the back water that it's maybe ok to hang out here. :/Izno (talk)02:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done byToBeFree. ~SG5536B03:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the ping. I've protected two pages and it stopped. And if it led to them finding a noticeboard where their edit wasn't immediately noticed and reverted, that's even a good thing.~ ToBeFree (talk)03:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I pinged Tamzin about this but due to her unavailability they suggested I try you. You can view my 1-sided discussionhere. The most relevant bit is that posted on April 24. Do you have any suggestions as what should be done here, if anything?Thank youMaskedSinger (talk)11:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the drafts willdie in a couple months if everyone collectively ignores it. The other is dead by promo draft hell. So from that perspective we don't have a particularly great issue.

I'm not greatly versed in the best way to deal with COI disputes brought onwiki.WP:COIN may be a better strategy to start. Lay out the specific pages currently impacted, any deleted pages, and any specific users you think are still causing grief from a COI perspective. You can ask when you file whether it's better to deal with this at ANI or if COIN is better. Wikipedians love to give their opinions about things they know.Izno (talk)22:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Do you think the Gaurav Srivastava article should be revisited with what he's saying about being the victim of a smear campaign? If you think so, I'm happy to take a stab at it.MaskedSinger (talk)10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question better resolved by reviewing ourcontent policies. BLP and NPOV are the obvious ones, but also RS.Izno (talk)17:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thank you.MaskedSinger (talk)17:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno FYI - Resubmitted anew draft.MaskedSinger (talk)08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a very long history of persistent vandalism by multiple accounts and IP addresses (sock puppets of Phạm Văn Rạng). It is currently temporarily semi-protected, but I would like to request permanent semi-protection as it is an important article. I fear that this important article will be vandalized as soon as the protection expires. This is a very important article, and there have been many vandalisms by many different people, Phạm Văn Rạng is just a recent prominent vandal. A proper protection for this important article is deserved.2401:D800:2FD:1A91:57D4:6E07:E69F:744F (talk)13:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking2806:10A6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) after I reported them at AIV. They appear to have already moved on to a new address,2806:268:2402:86FE:75FC:A0CB:16D4:DFE3(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) (see for example the overlapping edits at Lapurr Sandstone[12] and Gokwe Formation[13]. Would you be able to block this address as well? Many thanks.Hemiauchenia (talk)23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlockedSpecial:Contributions/2806:268:2402:86FE:75FC:A0CB:16D4:DFE3/48, which has similar effort from 6 months ago. I didn't go any further up the network address.Izno (talk)23:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're back on2806:10A6:C:75A5:0:0:0:0/64(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) making mass unsourced changes. Would you possibly be able to block again? Thanks.Hemiauchenia (talk)22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked that /48 as well.Izno (talk)23:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be back again making mass unsourced changes on2806:10A6:10:EF6:1C:A5AF:E0AE:A68F/32(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS). Checking the scientific literature many of their edits seem completely unfounded. Can I request yet another block? Many thanks as always.Hemiauchenia (talk)10:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the /51.Izno (talk)15:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blockedUser:Mohamed Farah Tahar for a period of 31 hours they are evading the block by using another accountUser:Mohamed Farah Tahar1.Theroadislong (talk)09:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Neiva#

Can this page be locked if not deleted please...Cenderabird (talk)13:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may request page protection atWP:RFPP. If you still want to pursue deletion, you may attempt anWP:AFD, but you must ensure you have researched the topic of interest as required byWP:BEFORE.Izno (talk)16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

help no can reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2600:387:15:4C1B:0:0:0:1

is different guys relationship no. i is no voter they english good too

OP keep adding OR too so accuse please look me edit— Precedingunsigned comment added by2600:387:15:4f16::1 (talk)

Hi,@Izno: could you please respond to this?Hairmer (talk)17:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I am writing to request the immediate removal of all content within this article that discusses the allegations and investigation surrounding Godfried Aboagye's removal from Ghana Post and the accusations of embezzlement. This content demonstrably violates Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The policy mandates the removal of negative, contentious material about living individuals that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or lacking clear evidence of a criminal conviction. The information presented details an investigation and accusations against Mr. Aboagye. However, it has been established that he was never convicted of any crime related to these allegations. Presenting these unproven accusations as fact is a direct violation of the presumption of innocence and causes undue harm to his reputation, contravening the core principles of WP:BLP. To comply with Wikipedia's stringent BLP policy and ensure fairness and accuracy regarding living individuals, I request the immediate and complete removal of all mentions of Godfried Aboagye related to these unproven allegations. Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matterXgewed (talk)09:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(FYI, this is aboutTalk:Eric Yao.) –Jonesey95 (talk)21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Every time I come across you and your work, almost always at SPI, which is a genuine team effort, I am always impressed with your work ethic, your analytical approach, your ability to say 'no' with confidence, and the results you achieve. Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Izno, sorry to disturb you. I want a change to be made inTemplate:Infobox company/styles.css but there's absolutely no mod who saw the talk page. Thus I would like you to see the talk page once and consider the change to be made.JGrass123 (talk)02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. Please take a look atthis discussion. What are your thoughts on it?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ14:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual admin to delete the page as a result of the AFD wasKaisaL. You will probably want to speak with them.Izno (talk)16:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.49.45.162 whom you previously blocked for sockpuppetry just madeanother edit that indicates the ip address is still being controlled by the same indef-blocked user.Srleffler (talk)22:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Please unblock at [[User:17 Lucky in Malaysia|17 Lucky in Malaysia]] this is my friend.}}19 Unlucky in Malaysia (talk)09:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuff said, I think 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸09:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other suspected users quite possibly related to sockpuppetBadgorges/PaullyMatthews areUmayyadconquesta,Hellaisin,169.224.4.51,5.110.155.104,5.163.161.42,157.231.188.51 (similar usernames and pattern of editing).GenoV84 (talk)11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked fora deletion review ofJamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka. 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.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ18:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking that vandal.Drewthescorpio (talk)07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking that vandal IP adress 42XXX too :)Woww guys (talk)05:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you increase the protection level on this article to permanent. I (Phạm Văn Rạng) currently have two accounts that are about to reach 500 edits (one has 427 edits and the other has 451) while these two accounts were created 4 months ago. Not to mention that if I fail, I will still come back to this article when it is no longer protected from May 25, 2026. You know that this is a sensitive article, especially the modern history part, right?2401:D800:174:6A95:81E9:D984:128:88DD (talk)14:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway thanks for blocking a Sotavino's account that just vandalized this article!2401:D800:174:6A95:81E9:D984:128:88DD (talk)14:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. After the blocks ofAetolia for edit warring and socking expired, they continue to make personal attacks and inflammatory comments, though already warned more than once. They are removing well-sourced content as "Albanian piece of propaganda"[14], making racist comments such as "irredentist policies won’t bring Albania closer to its European dream of joining the civilized nations of the EU"[15], referring to other editors with "Some nationalistic cycles are altering the international borders and historical cultural topographical facts"[16], making legal threats[17], accusing editors of "revisionist policies"[18] and so on. Can you take a look at this?Ktrimi991 (talk)01:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a new version of Chirag Shah page hereUser:Hairmer/Chirag Shah.

I have made sure all content is unique and nothing copied from the other version not made by me. If it looks good, please move it back to AFC in the same position it was.Hairmer (talk)17:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Sorry to bug you again, I see that you have been active after I have posted this, so I just want to make sure you saw this or you didnt forget about it.Hairmer (talk)16:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairmer I have already answered your questions atthis comment a week ago.Izno (talk)20:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 90.186.42.50 is clearly a sockpuppet of ConsumersDistributingOnline. It attempted to delete a request I made on the talk page ofThe Source (retailer) asking to revert an edit made last week by the sockpuppet Cameo Kneuer you've just blocked. Would it be possible to block the 190.186.42.50 and revert Cameo Kneuer's change on the article. For more information about the situation, see[19] and[20]76.64.220.154 (talk)09:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be preferential to revoke TPAhere. They're just spamming their talk page.🪷nahida21:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed your closing note atWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rob97dc about reporting the broader incident at ANI. I didopen a DR/N case, but do you think just sending to ANI would help resolve this? --ZimZalaBim^talk23:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim, DRN is for when there is a good faith dispute about what the content should say. Lacking references, our articles should say nothing. That's pretty clear according to relevant policies. So yes, sending to ANI will be a much quicker resolution.Izno (talk)23:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, would you mind if I undidthis edit of yours? The master account listed in that case is locked, but that's because the account namedBest known for IP is a sleeper account of anunrelated xwiki LTA who has nothing to do with the SPI about the person commonly referred to as "Best known for IP". To my knowledge, the "real" BKFIP has no history of cross-wiki abuse, so locks aren't really a good use of time there. --Blablubbs (talk)14:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undone.Izno (talk)15:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can collaborate on something? I am not good at writing articles, but I am good at typofixing and factchecking.Polygnotus (talk)22:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly spend time onMediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do andWP:LINT fixing. Working ongetting our manual infoboxes down to 0 is especially high on the former list.Izno (talk)22:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a dumb question, but wouldn't converting "manual" (read: fake) infoboxes to real infoboxes fall underWP:COSMETICBOT? It seems like a pretty easy task for a simple script but people get real mad if you make cosmetic edits.Polygnotus (talk)22:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, most conversions are to an existing template, which has larger changes in the HTML (e.g. microformats), and may change what information is provided in the context of the infobox (some infoboxes don't support all the creative extra information people mostly-2-decades-ago thought was important for an infobox), and between the two you probably don't have an issue with COSMETICBOT. (Unless you were simply replacing uses with{{infobox}}, which is not the goal [and I really need to look into whether there are ways to prevent that template from being used directly in mainspace without being an issue for actual infoboxes]....)

If anything, you would probably have an issue with CONTEXTBOT going full automatic, so we're limited here to scripts and supervised changes.

Right now probably one of the bigger sets of things that need to happen is the creation of some sort of{{infobox person sports awards}} and{{infobox person television awards}} or something like that. I haven't decided whether it should use{{infobox}} or be its own custom creation. Aton of the existing articles in the list are of that flavor.Izno (talk)22:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of research. Templates and modules are one of the few technical areas on Wikipedia I haven't really investigated yet. And it looks like people use the.infobox CSS class to make those tables look like infoboxes. Not sure I am qualified to deal with all that.

But some of thoselint errors seem fixable. For example themissing end tag thing.

lintHint is great, but it relies on humans to actually solve the problem.

It may be possible to write some code that automatically proposes a fix, and checks theREST API to see if it would actually solve the error.Polygnotus (talk)23:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few lints that I think a script could do wonders for, likemissing-end-tag. PHP isn't smart enough to get to a conclusion because it's too general here, but I think a script with enough rules could get there.Izno (talk)23:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the class is being used and in many cases it should not have been. Many uses are however were added in that period where we could add tables left and right with arbitrary classes but didn't yet understand that templates were good for that.Izno (talk)23:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try. It sounds like you can just remove pairs of tags until you're left with something unbalanced. I may skip italic tags at first because those may contain book titles and stuff like that (in which case one should probably add the end tag and it can be hard to figure out where exactly in code).Polygnotus (talk)23:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this was why I suggested RuLeS. :') Like a bunch of the missing italics cases are in citation templates, so adding them before the | indicating the next parameter would be safe at least as a suggestion.Izno (talk)23:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Poly. Izno just blocked me for being a gamergate sock despite never having an account here, and not editing about video games. Can you tell them about the time I was the only person to back you up at ANI when you reported that COI account that was editing for Dior? It was when a bunch of admins nearly boomeranged you, despite being correct about hajer-12 working for an ad company. I'm sorry I didn't email wp as you asked, but I don't have an email on file here.74.254.224.12 (talk)06:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@74.254.224.12 Hola! Not sure I understand (but I am pretty damn tired so that may be me). You appear to be referring toSpecial:Contributions/107.116.165.108 inWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Undisclosed_paid_editor_spamming_promotional_material this discussion. I don't actually control Izno or their account, they are a separate being who operates independently from myself. Maybe if you tell Izno you are collateral damage they will listen? A year is rather long for an entire IP range. I have no clue what happenedhere. It may or may not be related tothis stuff. As I am not a checkuser nor an admin I am not sure what I can do.

@Izno Please take a look.Polygnotus (talk)06:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Happy summer!Andre🚐05:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that the emotion I'm supposed to feel?Izno (talk)05:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This, too, shall pass and we will overcome... right? Anyway, can you look atSpecial:Contributions/142.189.254.248 if you get a chance? They are back.Andre🚐22:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, this would appear to be them alsoSpecial:Contributions/2605:8D80:5E2:8D0C:4B6:9A7C:1D62:9D95Andre🚐22:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back again...Andre🚐20:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this was unintentional?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Altenmann&action=edit&redlink=1voorts (talk/contributions)22:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... people should be banned from redirecting their talk pages.Izno (talk)23:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Izno

Are you the same editor as 173.79.19.248 please?Chidgk1 (talk)06:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lol epic.173.79.19.248 (talk)10:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don’t understand - does that mean yes or no?Chidgk1 (talk)15:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Chidgk1: well, to be fair, yes: you areobviously getting trolled by this IP, going by your user talk thread. But, also, if you don't mind my saying, it's bizarre to suggest that an admin/checkuser—etc.—with 20 years of tenure and over 120,000 edits is likely to go around leaving weird messages logged out. I mean,really?!  :)—Fortuna,imperatrix15:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to logout to be weird.Izno (talk)16:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:)—Fortuna,imperatrix18:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are being trolled.Izno (talk)16:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok then sorry it must just have been a coincidence. But please could you comment those types of undos which are not obviously repairing vandalism. That would save me time having to click through to anything if I knew someone was undoing edits made by a user who is now blocked.Chidgk1 (talk)06:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Izno hope you are well, this editor [[21]] has already been reported on WP:ANI, warned multiple times on their talk page not just by me but from several other editors (see their tp [[22]]) but they just keep with theirWP:ICANTHEARYOU policy and edit warring, i.e. on this page [[23]] or on this one [[24]] and several others, not using talk page for their inclusions, usually not even using sources but their own personal opinions. I think that this is now a bit too much. Can something be done ? Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk)05:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask for assistance atWP:ANI if you are having trouble getting a user to tune in.Izno (talk)05:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were already reported to wp:ani [[25]] but without decision.Theonewithreason (talk)06:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a year. You can bring it up again there.Izno (talk)06:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks.Theonewithreason (talk)06:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello izno,sorry for disturbing just want to say can i be a admin?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/chloe— Precedingunsigned comment added by37.159.116.75 (talk)20:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, dear admin! Beat the heat and have this delicious cold drink and dessert. Cheers!M.Billoo06:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. 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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

M.Billoo23:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. 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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

M.Billoo15:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. 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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

M.Billoo18:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Izno! I was trying to revert a vandalism edit, but the disruptive editor had done multiple, making it harder for me to revert it. Can I have rollback rights please?Floating Orb (talk)19:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may request rollback rights atWP:PERM/Rollback.Izno (talk)19:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thank you,Floating Orb (talk)19:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sir/Ma'am,I don't know what mistake, I did. But please look at the whole matter before blocking someone. I have been editing and managing the page since 2023. I don't deserve this. And someone who doesn't have minimum knowledge about the topic, and deliberately disrupting wikipedia is really uncivilized uncultured. He/She started the edit war. You can check the history.KJKDITY (talk)03:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Izno,an IP you recently partially blocked has continued to be disruptive in removing and/or refactoring article talk pages that they don't like, particularly atTalk:Disney Star andTalk:List of Hindi films of 2025. Just thought I'd let you know, especially since they are one of many Indian dynamic IPs that have targeted the Disney Star article. Cheers!—Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss ·contribs)}15:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have deleted the Battle of Kahori (1843) article, which has deeply saddened me. I think you made the right decision to ban Eltabar243 because he is a ban evader. However, with him banned, the Battle of Kahori (1843) article has been removed. I personally think two people were running this account because he recently started editing Pakistan-related topics based on his old edits, and his edit count jumped up to 588 within a week. Since the Battle of Kahori article has been deleted, I’d like to ask if I will be able to republish this article?

ThanksHistoryofKashmir (talk)16:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit included some changes that were made by a sockpuppet edit that you reverted, but of course that doesn'tnecessarily mean that the other new editor is also a sockpuppet...BOZ (talk)13:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's TotalTruthTeller24.Izno (talk)14:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which adds a few others.

• Shukufuku o! (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
• Pastasynch (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
• Medring (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
• Parsmippy (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)

Izno (talk)14:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's always more.BOZ (talk)14:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't revert, but just in case?[26]BOZ (talk)20:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else visible.Izno (talk)20:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. OK thanks! :)BOZ (talk)20:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one?[27]BOZ (talk)01:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else, but likely.Izno (talk)03:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved, but I'm sure they will be back in year. :)BOZ (talk)22:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Just wondering what happened with the ApricotAvalanche037 SPI - shortly after you said that you were nearly ready to block BeatrixGodard another admin moved the SPI file somehow and then it's just been sitting since. I ask because I've had BeatrixGodard showing up in some odd places where I've previously been involved and stirring the pot since.[28][29][30][31]Simonm223 (talk)18:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Izno, i have a doubt which i’m unable to do so. Can you Please checkThis andThis Case. Thankyou.2405:201:C410:3058:7917:E27E:1857:E3F8 (talk)16:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. I understand a previous draft related to Tony Han was deleted due to suspected sockpuppetry. I’d like to note that I’m an independent editor submitting this draft in good faith. I've just started making edits to various AV pages - Pony, WeRide, Waymo. My goal is to meet Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards, using independent, reliable sources. Just checking in to confirm it's okay to proceed with drafting. Thanks!Syerozo (talk)03:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Izno, I had a question aboutPS Manokwari Selatan, which you deleted earlier this month under G5. While I understand the reason for that, I noticed that there wasan AfD discussion about the article back in April. It's generally been found that an AfD closing in Keep is an argument by other editors for retainment of an article even when G5 applies, unless there are other potential issues related to the banned account's editing like copyvios and the like. That doesn't appear to be the case for Jellywings19 though, who appears to primarily have the issue of adding unsourced content (and changing airport information, but that doesn't seem relevant here). So, is there any real argument for the article to have been deleted under the G5 provision?Silverseren^C03:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren That does not appear to be an understanding discussed inWP:G5 or anywhere inWP:Speedy deletion in fact, where I would assume such would appear.

I am however generally willing to restore articles that respected and obviously good-faith users wish to take responsibility for underWP:PROXYING, if that is what you are asking. Is it?Izno (talk)03:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would. Unless you're aware of any other issues with Jellywings19 that would need to be checked for.Silverseren^C04:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren Done. You will want to correct the POV and sourcing issues, I suspect.Izno (talk)04:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've just made the language fixes at least. Is it possible to undelete the team logo or is that completely gone since it was a file?Silverseren^C04:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren Restored, though I probably wasn't the right one to ask. That looks to have some file description issues.Izno (talk)04:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that was a new one for me (not that I have a lot of experience with files). I went and looked up the proper link to their instagram account logo. Hopefully that's good enough?Silverseren^C04:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably.Izno (talk)04:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the !vote by4025MG inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois ODP should be struck since you subsequently techinically connected the account toMilicz? --Marchjuly (talk)09:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly there was never a duplicate !vote at that discussion which is usually my personal threshold forremoval or striking of comments. I would instead suggest prominently placing a comment about the socking beneath Milicz's first comment. 4025MG's !vote has one now already, but we all know readers of English read top to bottom.Izno (talk)15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Given that some else has added a comment beneath the !vote in question, nothing else probably is needed. The earlier comments prior to that particular !vote seem to have all been made in good faith, and none of them try to piggyback off the !vote. The administrator who closes the discussion most likely will just ignore the sock !vote when figurng out what to do. --Marchjuly (talk)21:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - had just decided that I was all out of AGF and blocked AliveNull seconds after you did. I left another indef with comments that your checkuser block had precedence.SamKuru(talk)03:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the timeliness was funny.Izno (talk)03:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PatrickStewartRingoStarr1940221220 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). Thanks! —Chrisahn (talk)21:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is something I'm missing in the new blocking interface, but this looks like a partial rangeblock but I can't figure out from the blocking page what exactly is blocked; the block params page says "editing (sitewide)" but it's using the partial block template.OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to ask exactly the same question. Also[32] indicates that the block maybe isn't actually doing anything, or perhaps it's only allowing mainspace edits.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇}16:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon@Ohnoitsjamie So, when I blocked this range I suspect I changed course inadvertently when I went to block it. So it was somewhat accidental on that question.

However, now that people are actually asking questions, my understanding is that you can partial block IPs/ranges from creating accounts effectively, and you can do so by designating no targets. And in that perspective, this is a deliberate block. Jpgordon, you should be able to see who this block is targeting. I haven't checked to see if it's working the way I was told that it does.Izno (talk)20:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha! It does seem to work -- people are using that range unfettered, but there's been no account creation since the block was imposed. Cool!--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇}02:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has our friend shifted his attention there?BOZ (talk)03:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ please report future concerns at SPI.Izno (talk)15:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, gotcha and thanks! :)BOZ (talk)15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, looks like HelenHIL/ARBRSH has a new sock:[33]. Thanks,Khirurg (talk)14:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg Please file a new case at SPI, laying out sufficient information for any admin to act on it.Izno (talk)21:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno,

I wanted to report a suspicious website:https://vn-wikipedia.com/. It appears to be aclone of Wikipedia, running on MediaWiki, but isnot affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Some concerning issues:

• They have created a user profile impersonatingMathXplore, who is an administrator on Simple English Wikipedia: ➤https://vn-wikipedia.com/User:Mathxplore
• They seem to be offeringpaid Wikipedia article creation, which goes against Wikimedia’s core principles.
• NOTE:https://vn-wikipedia.com/index.php?title=Shubham_Gaming_Dude — This exact page was previously created on Simple English Wikipedia and wasdeleted by you. It has now been reposted on this clone site.

This could be a case of user impersonation, content scraping, and policy violation. I believe this site should be brought to the attention of Wikimedia administrators or possibly WMF Legal for further investigation.

Thanks for your attention.

🪫 LexiFixer^{Talk •Contribs}LexiFixer (talk)15:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LexiFixer You had best contact WMF for this issue.Izno (talk)21:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Izno, How can the Emanuel Casablanca page that you deleted be added? What edits need to be made?Munchtoomuch (talk)17:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may work on a different copy atDraft:Emanuel Casablanca. The page I deleted was created by asock.Izno (talk)20:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've noticed that the articleCoat of arms of Aceh has been removed due to it being made by a banned user, although before that, I've made several edits and fixes on the article itself. Is there a way to readd the article, and if not, am I allowed to make a new page for it? Thank you and best regards.Zayn Kauthar (talk)13:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zayn Kauthar I have restored it at your request.

By the by, I noticedMoved account, copied user page from old account in your user page history. Please disclose on your user page your prior account. This will help you avoid future accusations of illicit sockpuppetry.Izno (talk)03:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks for the heads up!Zayn Kauthar (talk)04:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of the articleCreighton Abrams has been reverted. The full caption of the picture contains the date 'December, 1968". For this reason I have reverted your edit.Cuprum17 (talk)12:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you placed a block on 2405:201:a804::/48 last month. Is there, by chance, a long term abuse or sockpuppet case associated with it? I'm not having much luck locating one, if it does exist. I think I found the same person using an IPv4 address now.Orxenhorf (talk)09:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orxenhorf I think that may have been via a report at AIV. I don't see anything to suggest it was deliberately associated with a case. When I search Wikipedia and User talk space, the only interesting page that comes up isWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niravnaik1991, and the discussion there post-dates the relevant blocks.The other results.Izno (talk)19:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I didn't know of "insource" as a search option. I'll look through those.Orxenhorf (talk)20:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could these all be samesock? Accounts created after last block ofIranian.Shah.Special:Contributions/Eastern_aryanicSpecial:Contributions/NewHistory101Special:Contributions/Amankhan4.RangersRus (talk)14:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: SubmittedWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yasin1747.RangersRus (talk)14:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, Do you have CheckUsers blocked?47.50.231.182 (talk)22:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LepYd258#ANI

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reez95

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mathew_D%27Marco

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DaDeadzombie

(1-2 and 3-4 similar pattern, check needed)Cenderabird (talk)22:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenderabird, please file a full SPI. You will need to provide more evidence than you've supplied here.Izno (talk)22:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you're familiar withWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckfinley94/Archive, do you thinkAppro7 andIgnatiusjreillythefirst are both the same person? Not socks of Chuckfinley94 (or maybe they are, but unlikely since checkuser would've gotten them both by now), but of each other?

Appro7 createdCraig Rothfeld; an editorGheus, moved it back to draftspace, noting possible COI issues[34]. An admin also gave them a message about managing a COIUser_talk:Appro7#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. Appro7 stops editing the article on April 3, then on April 4, Ignatiusjreillythefirst moved the article from draftspace to mainspace[35] and then removed the undisclosed paid editing tag[36].

From the initial report atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckfinley94/Archive, Gheus noted that Appro7 spammed comfax.com onFax. Ignatiusjreillythefirst made an edit toFax server to add a link to the comfax.com website[37]. Both stopped editing early April, until now when Appro7 popped back after three months to !vote Keep in theCraig Rothfeld AfD.

Anyway, lemme know what you think. Thanks.Some1 (talk)01:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1 I think that's probably at least a possible connection. There's a couple other similarities.Izno (talk)16:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear lzno the socks of the above user is back with various new accounts I am not familiar with the templates of reporting socks but you closed the last investigation of this sock. They are targeting the usual articles Mass Sexual assault[38],[39] and[40] all three of these accounts appeared in the last 2 weeks or so before that his last account Khadim Haq[41] was blocked also they have various sleeper accounts all editing similar articles such as sexual assault, food and massacres in Kashmir like this one:[42] and also Germany article on new years eve assault[43] account named Proud Muslim fron Africa another obvious attack on Muslims which is another give away I have only listed a few of the ones I found and they probably have dozens more already active I think admins should maybe try and protect articles and revert their edits I could revert myself but it will be very time consuming plus they will return within 2 or 3 weeks again spreading their vandalism. Thank you.GuptaShenastri (talk)21:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. Use the form onWP:SPI next time to get other users looking at it earlier. I added a bunch toWP:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox.Izno (talk)22:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have resumed their previous behaviors after the one week block today. More random forum-like comments on talk pages.2600:4040:A5E9:7400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range ·block log (global) ·WHOIS (partial))wizzito |say hello!16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Informational ping: when you merged the twoDraft:Jamal Tazi pages did you also merge the histories? One was an autobiographical page which was turned down multiple times at AfC; the other was created directly in main by, apparently, a different editor. SeeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible Sock and/or inappropriate behavior. A bit of a mess as there is evidence of LLM as well, beyond my competence as a lowly NPP.Ldm1954 (talk)23:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the histories were merged.Izno (talk)23:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Since my talk page have been vandalized by lots of socks, and one of the two IPs belongs to a blocked user (See here), which seems to be thepuppet of a banned user (Michelbiter), could you protect my own talk page? Because one the IP who have have insulted me (probably a crosswiki harrasment in revange tothis) after a new checkuser request have permitted to discover a newMichelbiter's sock.Panam2014 (talk)08:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very high bar to protect a user talk page. 2 edits is not sufficient for that in my opinion. Your section on ANI is sufficient to alert other admins to your request though.Izno (talk)19:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I noticed that you deletedOleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II on July 23 perG5. The article was recreated by a suspiciously competent new user who hasn't edited any other articles since then, so I'm curious if you can see any similarities to the old version that was deleted? It might be up for another G5. Thanks.Zeibgeist (talk)00:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sotavino came back:2402:800:61F9:F380:6CD8:5A22:7DA1:F136 (talk ·contribs). I think the articleBảo Đại needs to be semi-protected. Also, you forgot to undo Sotavino's edits in the articleOperation Léa.2402:9D80:870:9260:CCF7:3FDA:E96C:C878 (talk)06:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also here:117.5.147.204 (talk ·contribs)2402:9D80:870:9260:CCF7:3FDA:E96C:C878 (talk)06:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. Thanks for going after the spam I initially reported as "Stealthy addition of spam links:" at AN/I. Can I message you when I find more instances? I found another one today:Barellio (talk ·contribs). Kind regards,Robby.is.on (talk)10:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on please file a report at SPI in general. I will look at this one.Izno (talk)15:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Barellio (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
• Takumu Zaba (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
• Matteoza (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)
• Tachi Musa (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)

Izno (talk)15:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks a lot. I've removed the spam added by the three accounts you found. I've also found more socks which I've added to SPI. Happy editing,Robby.is.on (talk)17:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a sockblock of yours hit an innocent bystander. Their story checks out and I don't see anything inherently nefarious about their edits - am I clear to unblock? Not sure if we should also unblock the other sock from the same SPI. --asilvering (talk)21:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even ifyou did, @TheSandDoctor sent them to lock jail at the stewards, so someone will have to convince them to unlock also.

UTRSlooks reasonable to me but I'm not personally sure I buy it in its entirety - it's unusual at-best for a new account to be dropping a{{sfnref}} on edit 1 (and it doesn't appear to be a copy-paste).Izno (talk)21:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's at least reasonable enough to give them some rope, anyway. Those accounts are real, dating back years. I figure the master would have burned this one ages ago if it were actually them. --asilvering (talk)21:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Snosibsnob was created 29 July 2025.Izno (talk)21:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See their message at 00:50:34. --asilvering (talk)22:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Ok, yeah, that can sell me.Izno (talk)22:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That lock was just per the state of the master and CU comments, but it appears thatAntiCompositeNumber was to the rescue with the unlock. I'll defer to the CUs and stews on this one. Do we want to unblock/unlock MarkDenton'sSmile too given that this one was done or wait for that account to appear to UTRS?TheSandDoctor^Talk01:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose their unblock under clearWP:PROJSOCK intent, but I've already suggested to ACN to issue an unlock. ACN will do as they please. :^)Izno (talk)01:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, sorry to bug you about this user again, but they'reback fresh off their block and socking again on the exact same IP address. You'll almost certainly find this address is from a VPN, which this LTA likes to use to hide his real location and evade blocks.Trainsandotherthings (talk)20:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion over atTemplate talk:Uw-gaming1 regarding potential improvements made to the Uw-gaming template series. Please feel free to leave any suggestions there. Thanks!Gommeh 🎮17:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there any chance you can add some:hover magic toTemplate:SPIstatusheader/styles.css so that when you hover over a row it becomes slightly darker/lighter depending on dark-mode? On a larger display it would help make it clearer which row goes with which when scanning across. :D I'd muck about with it but it's TE protected. :( —Locke Cole •t •c03:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole, I'm not a fan of hover effects on tables in general.

You can experiment in your personal CSS, and regardless of whether a template editor enacts such a change, can have it there. You could probably do something like.spi-statustr:hover{opacity:0.9} and hit everything (maybe even dark mode), rather than futzing with any of the specific colors (which would relatively blow up the sheet between selectors and color choices).Izno (talk)22:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that pointer, was more hoping to provide a solution that made it more palatable for everyone that might happen across it. Might first instinct was to suggest :even / :odd where alternating rows were tinted differently, but with all the colors that would end up looking messy.

On a totally unrelated note, can you advise ifthis is a good idea? My gut says no, especially since it seems like{{format link}} can preserve underscores where{{format linkr}} cannot, but if that's the only significant issue maybe there's not a good enough reason to oppose merging. —Locke Cole •t •c02:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only immediate reaction to a merge there is that there are likely to be different needs depending on the kinds of URLs you're dealing with.Izno (talk)02:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{please see}} utilizes it for links to subsections, and IIRC there used to be issues with linking to sections if URL encoding was expanded to actual characters. I'll see if I can dig into it more, thanks for the feedback. =) —Locke Cole •t •c02:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey: I'm trying to improve the pageKB Brookins and seem to not be on the same page with one of the editors (see talk page). How can I fix this issue?136.49.183.56 (talk)21:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continue discussing on the talk page. Your edits are disputed, so you shouldn't continue to make them. It becomes anedit war if you do.Izno (talk)21:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Well, uhh... can i ask you for some advice? You recently removed some song lyrics from my draft. There was a translation that ended up being ProPublica copyright, and it ended up being redacted, so i added my own - which i got from running the original Mandarin through Google Translate. But then the revisions with my lyrics got copyvio'd and removed as well.

What exactly was the issue? I'm relatively new to WP, and i don't exactly know everything. The copyvio detector only returned 31%, so i thought it was safe. But apparently, it wasn't. Was it the Chinese lyrics that are to blame? Or was my translation somehow at fault? And how exactly can i prevent this in the future?RedDeadGuy (talk)04:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDeadGuy, China is a member to theTRIPS Agreement, which means the original lyrics cannot be put on Wikipedia based on the date of when the lyrics were created. Translations thereof are a derivative work, which also cannot be put on Wikipedia.Izno (talk)14:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I'm so glad WikiProject Accessibility has a volunteer! Hey, please can you appropriately check all my work of marking allWikiProject Accessibility andWikiProject Usability subpages with{{Historical}} and{{Superseded}}, where appropriate. Thanks!waddie96 ★ (talk)02:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardingthis comment: as the following is an unsolicited suggestion, of course please feel free to ignore it. I believe I understand what you mean and agree that it's highly desirable for any reporters to provide comparison diffs. Perhaps you might consider using wording such as "to save duplicated effort" instead of "we don't have to ... do our own work", so as to not undersell the work performed by checkusers even when provided with diffs? Thanks very much for all your concerted efforts in dealing with problem editors!isaacl (talk)21:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Izno: you recently blockedanother sockpuppet ofUser:Urabura (many thanks for that). It appears the user has returned with more sockpuppets, see the latest investigation here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urabura.The evidence is again very clear. To avoid further disruption, could you review this and, if you agree, block the user? Your help is much appreciated.JeanClaudeN1 (talk)18:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Izno: /@IznoPublic: It seems there is another sock ofUser:Urabura, see the latest case atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urabura. Could you please take a look at it? Many thanks in advance!JeanClaudeN1 (talk)00:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Izno: You said that you believe this user is unrelated; however, I remain convinced that it is the same user and that my assessment is accurate. Similar to multiple other sockpuppets of Urabura, this user once again edited theGdańsk article today. Also theGermany article. We have been trying for several days to improve the Gdańsk article so that it can be rated as a “Good Article”, but the user seems to be sabotaging these efforts, for example by inserting information that cannot be found in the cited source (the user appears to have a nationalist POV). Just as with Urabura, the edits seem to be based on personal opinions, without any source verification. The user’s manner of communication is also consistent with the previous sockpuppets of Urabura. Could you please take look at this again and reconsider your assessment?JeanClaudeN1 (talk)22:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Next proof: shortly after PJK 1993 editedGdańsk today, an IP address also made changes:[44] The same IP had previously editedRevolutions of 1989, attempting the same change that the confirmed sockpuppet PahlaviFan had recently tried to make (in both cases restoring a specific image in the infobox).[45][46] The IP is also very similar to a previous IP sock of Urabura, seehere. Furthermore, this type ofWP:LOUTSOCKing is consistent with the previous behavior of Urabura; see the closing comment on a previous investigation: "Also a lot of obviously deceptive and intentional LOUTSOCKing. Blocked and tagged.“[47] As a sidenote, this user’s disruptive edits caused the GA review for the Gdańsk article to fail:[48] I have been monitoring Urabura and their sockpuppets for quite some time, and in my view it is fairly obvious (invokingWP:DUCK). I’d be glad to hear your opinion.JeanClaudeN1 (talk)01:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeanClaudeN1 you can reopen the SPI if you want, but I am fairly certain in my conclusion. I doubt another CU will come to a different one, but I suppose it is possible.

Given your other comments, you may also wish to pursue action atWP:ANI, since it sounds like you could get a response there.Izno (talk)02:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: thank you for your reply. I have deepened my analysis a bit further and am convinced that the sockmaster is another user (see investigationhere). From my perspective, a connection with Urabura is still possible, but I have left it out of the discussion for now and proceeded on the assumption that there is no connection with Urabura. I think it is almost certain, given the editing behavior shortly after the account creation, that these are sockpuppets. And I believe I have also provided strong evidence to show that the accounts listed in the investigation are connected. Since they are now proceeding with baseless counterattacks against me (which in itself speaks volumes, see the investigation page), I would be grateful if you could take appropriate action against the user, provided the evidence is plausible to you. If you still disagree, I would kindly ask you not to take any action and instead let someone else conduct the investigation, as in that case a second opinion would be important to me. Thank you also for the note about WP:ANI; there is certainly enough evidence of misconduct; however, it is important to me that sockpuppet cases are documented for future reference wherever possible.JeanClaudeN1 (talk)16:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Izno: There is new evidence in theUrabura / PJK 1993 investigation. I would greatly value your opinion.JeanClaudeN1 (talk)23:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Sockpuppets of User:AttackTheMoonNow affecting WP:ITNC.BangJan199918:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rdugjsftd568, with a newly created account, has been creating only-nonsense edits - seeSpecial:Contributions/Rdugjsftd568, including creation ofUser:Rdugjsftd568/vector-2022.css, which can only be edited by interface administrators and the creator. (So no CSD#G1 deletion). Does this page need to be deleted? —ERcheck (talk)12:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]