User talk:Izno

Navbox

Moved to Template talk:Navbox#TemplateStyles hoisting in collapsible groups. Izno (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

An obscure previous block

Hi Izno. You know how sometimes an old block can turn up again like a bad meal? I was reviewing Special:Diff/1267232330 at EFFPP, and couldn't help but notice that the last time this filter struck in this way was with RickRolled76 - obviously related. That doesn't look like an excellent block to me. Further, I notice that it was reported at AIV here. 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)

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

Query

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)

@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 at Wagdar, 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)

Hello Izno, I need your help

Hi @Izno, We have interacted before.

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) The enforcement started as a retaliation as mentioned by me in the discussion here.

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)

Email

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 can 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. mftp dan ^oops 16:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetery?

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)

Yup. I'll file a pro forma SPI shortly. Izno (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

If you have additional accounts, please file an WP:SPI. Izno (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

re

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

AIV request -- whoops!

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)

StateoftheUnionStrong

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)

You've got mail

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 can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

TPA

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)

File:Flag of France.svg

In the Other versions section of File: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 1830-1974 2401:E180:8800:BE97:12BA:A21B:710B:E15 (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

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

@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)

@Izno and Narky Blert: - no, I was not sure I had the right people. What I did do was to though the page history of the WP:REDIRECT that the subject of the WP: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 I motified - 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)

@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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia: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 at WP: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) and WP: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 a Request 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. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing 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 administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

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

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

This looks suspicious

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 user removing vast amounts of content and giving poor excuses for why they are doing so. This was the behavior of User: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)

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

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

Sydney LGAS

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)

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

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 done Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Template:AllMovie title

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)

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)

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

Concern Related D. K. Pora

Dear Sir, I am referring to the draft: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)

ZestyLemonz socks

• 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 was posting weird meatpuppetry explanations about the vanished user and all three of them created Mellow Bird's and Hollie Jervis together. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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

re

Please remove User:Lego653 tpa as well. Aqurs1 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean...

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

Rollback with care

Looks like you restored the vandalism that in turn was publicized by some media outlets. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Strange notice

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? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sevgilerde

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)

@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)

SPI

Can you reopen my case? More evidence is here now, you could probably merge it back into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.141.178.194 ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #100071

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

So there is a secret! :D Izno (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

SPI Tagging

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)

@0xDeadbeef, see User 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 wild don't tag socks and sometimes don'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 that it 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)

(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)

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)

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

New sock

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

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