User talk:Izno

Main Page styles.css

Hi sorry to disturb you on your wikibreak. I just want to ask a question about styles.css file (sorry I'm still a learner). I'm an admin on niawp (the only one who knows how to edit the main page) and the community agreed that we simplify the Main Page maintenance by being as close as possible to enwp while keeping it appealing for the eyes of the target readers.

I already spring cleaned the niawp Main Page, but I see that you put the enwp styles.css file in the project namespace (Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css). How to do that? When I created such styles.css file in the project namespace, it's not recognised as css styles but as a normal page. Thank you. slaiatalk 11:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Either create it in template namespace and move it to the Project namespace, or use Special:ChangeContentModel to change the content model of the page to sanitized-css. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery This might be something to add to WP:TemplateStyles, since it's not the first time I've seen a question like this. Will need to note the special case for user space TemplateStyles, which requires some help from an int admin. Izno (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you a lot. slaiatalk 07:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hi Izno, I wanted to thank you once more, this time publicly, for all of your contributions to the Arbitration Committee over the past two years. While we only directly overlapped for one of those years, I have seen, while getting up to speed, how much work you've put in as a whole in areas that are key to keeping committee business going but are invisible particularly to the community, which include anywhere from appeals to email management to documentation. Your presence on the committee will be sorely missed, and I hope that after a well-deserved break, you may consider coming back. :-) Maxim (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	in absolute awe at this mad lad answering all of my technical questions without telling me to go fsck myself even the couple times when i deserved it jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Article alerts box help

Hi, I know you've worked on Template:Article alerts box, but isn't the template supposed to show article alerts as a listing? I've checked the backlinks and it's just showing the line that they'll be generated shortly. I don't know how to fix this, could you help? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Funandtrvl, not right now. Please ask at WP:VPT to see if assistance can be provided. Izno (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Does anyone know how to change the RefToolbar so that it is compatible with sfn?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Account as a sockpuppet of an IP

Hi there, this account (AyunaKawai) seems to be a sock of this IP 123.195.224.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Will this hold water on WP:SPI? I'm not entirely sure what the original sockmaster account is. John Yunshire (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This IP seems to enforce his own peremptory to frame other IPs as sock puppets who have disagreements with his interested topics, which demonstrate in his frequent reversion in specific themed topics even the edits were in good faiths, reverted by him with no sensible explanation and abusing the reporting mechanism by framing opponents as sock puppets. AyunaKawai (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Abusive sock is back

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Observer1989. Thanks. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminding. Your help is still needed. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You will need to find someone else to help you. Izno (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrapping fmbox

Hi, re this edit - why not add |class=mw-parser-output to the {{fmbox}}? This would eliminate the need for a wrapper div. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It must be a wrapper div, because TemplateStyles CSS is .mw-parser-output .class-of-interest with only one kind of exception, which this case does not meet. Izno (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a plan for Template:Memory types/styles.css?

Do you have a plan for {{Memory types/styles.css}}? I poked through the talk page and the template's history, but I did not find any mention of it or implementation of it. If it is not needed, you could put {{Db-g7}} on it (I think this works on CSS pages, but I'm not sure), or I could take it to TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 [1] removed somewhere in the meantime. I have no issue G7ing it. Izno (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just trying to keep Template space tidy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moosstore

Hi Izno, you closed this SPI earlier. Can you please merge this case to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lithuaniaball2? The days-of-the-year vandalism in Lithuanian is as WP:DUCKy as it gets to WP:LTA/LB2. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Prodraxis, I am not a clerk or a current CU, so I cannot. You will need to request it on WT:SPI. Izno (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ARCA clarification

Hey,

Reaching out to you here as I'm cognisant of the word limits at ARCA. Are there specific diffs in the filing I made at AE that you think are out of scope of ARBATC, as it was written in 2017? It seems to me as though you're implying that the filing I made is partially out of scope, but I can't quite figure out why you think that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, I slightly may have possibly not at all checked every diff for it being in scope exactly when I wrote the ARCA up. That said, the specific page being edited, and the specific dispute spawned at AN(I?) as a result, isn't in the set of AT/MOS pages, nor a change proposal for them living elsewhere, but instead an essay/information page living elsewhere about how MOS functions. (The original dispute's locus was on the talk pages of AT and MOS, which is why I think I have it in my head considered it to be scoped as such.) This is the quality that makes me less certain the diffs in the present filing are in scope for the 2017 wording. I am definitely more concerned about the 2023 filing either way. Izno (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

the specific dispute spawned at AN(I?) as a result, isn't in the set of AT/MOS pages There were two disputes at AN recently. The first was about the capitalisation of NFL draft article titles, and a rather contentious RfC. The second was about Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ. When selecting diffs, I deliberately excluded the former, as I felt that was out of scope per your clarification at Tamzin's AE report. The second though I did select diffs from, as I felt that was a discussion on the MOS and its content, as at the time it was linked to on MOS:FAQ having only been removed on 22 February after the AN discussion started. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there have been two. I'm referencing the latter also, as the former I think clearly fits into the clarification of "page names of specific pages" in the 2017 wording as you also believe. I haven't said anything at the present AE largely because I think the 2017's broadly construed probably does reasonably include the MOSXFAQ despite my uncertainty. My parenthetical above was about the actual originating case in the early 2010s. Izno (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think I understand where you're coming from now :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Friday musa

Hi @Izno. Hope this message finds you well. I write to you with respect to the Indefinite blockage set to User:Friday musa's account on the English Wikipedia. I am appealing not just on his behalf but on the behalf of the Tyap Wikimedians User Group to unblock his account as this posseses a big setback to our operations as an affiliate. Please review your stance on his account status and remove the indefinite block set on it. Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings again, @Izno. I am back again to ask for your permission to begin a thread asking for a review of Friday musa's account block at WP:XRV. If you don't think this is necessary, please help unblock his account. I am appealing to your understanding as the leader of my affiliate to please act swiftly to save my user group the troubles. We have invested so much effort in growing this young group and we must obtain financial support from the Foundation to drive our activities. The person blocked is an active participant and co-signatory to the account of our organization. This sudden block on his account is threatening the progress we have made thus far. I once again appeal to your understanding to do what is just and reasonable. Warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC).

@Kambai Akau, 1) We do not take third party appeals. It is only the person who is blocked's responsibility to appeal. 2) As such, Friday musa is not limited in the number of appeals he may make. This is what 331dot suggests when he says Please tell us in your own words, in a new request what Wikipedia's license is, what copyright is, and describe how to properly use copyrighted content on Wikipedia. in the decline of the previous appeal. You should encourage Friday musa to appeal again. I have already said my piece. 3) Whether your affiliate is in good or bad standing is not my concern. If they are to edit English Wikipedia, the users who have a membership in it must understand our policies and guidelines, whether or not they are a member of any other organization that does work in the Wikimedia movement.

As an FYI, you and others in the affiliate group should understand WP:Meatpuppetry and WP:Canvassing. They are guidelines to take care with when you are editing as part of a larger group. Izno (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Izno, I indeed understand your position. I will encourage him to do the necessary. We shall also do our best to better understand and educate our community on WP:Meatpuppetry and WP:Canvassing. Thanks for your time. Kambai Akau (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern about a new report

Hello Izno, I've come here after noticing something here. Could you please inform me who is managing the sockpuppet accounts here? Additionally, has the issue of sockpuppetry within group two been resolved? I was about to submit a report regarding a user involved, but I'm unsure about the identity of the sockpuppet manager in group one and whether the sockpuppetry in group two has been confirmed. Regards. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado I think you mean master, not manager. I do not really understand what you're asking or how I can best clarify what I already said at that SPI. What more do you want? Be very specific about your questions, particularly using specific names. Izno (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can lay a brief summary of your new report and I can suggest where you should file that, since I think that is your primary question. Izno (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the sockmaster. I noticed that the suspects were divided into two groups, but upon further investigation, I found some similarities between group one and group two. These similarities were evident in their editing patterns, as well as in some external cases. Would you mind if I share some external links here for reference? The external links include Instagram and YouTube, as I've been closely following this matter due to its interesting nature. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Instagram handle provided by Shakib ul hassan here [2], @manik.edits_, which is similar to the accounts in group 1, namely ManikSharma8969 and Manik69, initially raised suspicions for me. However, I dismissed this as mere coincidence. Yet, upon encountering the report about Jonharojjashi, I decided to investigate further by searching these names on social media platforms. To my surprise, (Redacted). Given that RagedBrahmin, Manik69, and ManikSharma8969 were already identified as the same user, this additional similarity heightened my suspicion. Moreover, what intensified my doubt was comparing the userpage of RagedBrahmin [3] with one of the articles created by Shakib ul hassan [4]. I have came across multiple instances, where the edits of confirmed socks having similarity with Shakib ul hassan. I find it difficult to believe that all these connections are merely coincidental. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado, please review the rules in WP:OUTING regarding connecting identities that have not been established onwiki. Where relevant to a sock investigation, you should contact a CheckUser privately instead.

Given that I was possilikely with technical data, your report is sufficient to convince me that the user is a sock of that group. I've now blocked both of the accounts in group 2. Izno (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my actions. I was unaware of the existence of such a rule. Thank you for taking the time to investigate this matter. Regards. Imperial^[AFCND] 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Style templates

Hey, the following templates are ones you created and are unused:

• Template:Announcements/New featured content/styles.css
• Template:Archives/styles.css
• Template:POTD row/styles.css

Any plans for them or should I send them to TfD? Gonnym (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym if the question is "are any of these experiments", then no. If the question is "when will these be used", IDK. I could implement the first today, and the second months from now, but the third depends on social effort I haven't been willing to expend. You can just as easily ask if I want to csd-author them you know... Izno (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

EC Confirmed access removed? Why?

I noticed you removed my extended confirm access, why is this? I haven’t even edited any extended confirm articles that I recall. I apologize for any perceived wrongdoing, but can you explain? Thanks. LoneWolf803 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@LoneWolf803, you quite clearly gamed achieving the permission. You may re-request it at WP:PERM/EC after several hundred more productive edits. Izno (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Er, wait, I see the contributions on WP:VPT that you're having issues. My mistake. I will reinstate in good faith. Izno (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Again I apologize for any confusion and/or time wasted. LoneWolf803 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)