User talk:Izno

Archives

concerning the Doors and Robby Krieger

I don't feel like you had rhe right to delete my edits.Ronby Krieger is credited for thise songs. Plus the Doors yelp site its oll legit you at Wikipedia are just avoiding Jim Morrison Jr for some reason you just refuse to recognize him ~2026-31386 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the topic of Morrison Jr. I reverted your edits because they introduced external links in the body of the article, which you are not supposed to do (see WP:EL). Izno (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the closure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24#Template:Sanitize_HTML_attribute

Hello!

I'm here on User:Grufo's behalf to request you re-open the discussion of the deletion of {{Sanitize HTML attribute}}, for two reasons:

One of the participants, The Banner, was recently brought up at ANI and indeff'ed for a pattern of continued antagonism against Grufo. Their !vote to delete was likely in bad faith, and thus should not have contributed to consensus. See this ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_antagonism_by_The_Banner_towards_Grufo.
Grufo had argued for the usefulness of the template well, both at the deletion discussion itself and at the ANI thread. I feel it would have been more appropriate to relist rather than delete.

Have a lovely day! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since the discussion was closed. I do not intend to revisit it. Izno (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Do you think that there are sufficient grounds for me to start a deletion review instead? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 06:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the list items you've presented, no. You are, of course, free to pursue it despite my suggestion otherwise. Izno (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MEN KISSING: Thank you for this. However Izno might be right. If you look at several comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 December 18#Template:List with serial comma, it is likely that it will be argued to you that there is no ground to review the deletion, because there are no mistakes from Izno, the closer. It is true that point #3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review § Purpose mentions “substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion”, but if we remove The Banner, it is likely that it will be argued to you, as it has been done already in the review of {{List with serial comma}}, that the errors here are substantive and not procedural. @Izno: Do you think there are sufficient grounds for WP:RFU instead? --Grufo (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, banner blindness. This page is not for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page. Izno (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Izno, good point. Then I guess a hypothetical deletion review will have to rely on “substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion”. If we remove The Banner (for procedural reasons), that discussion saw only the participation of the nominator, me, and another user; if I am not wrong, such a scarce participation would be easily followed by a relist; and if we add that the template is currently needed elsewhere, there should be enough ground to re-open it. Would you be willing to give it a chance and relist it without going through deletion review? Under this light, the significant period should be the time since the The Banner's ANI was closed (and the month passed since the TfD discussion was closed should not matter much). --Grufo (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave an opinion on whether I would revisit the discussion. Izno (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you for clarifying. I don't know if I will have the time to open a WP:DRV right now, but if I will, I will make sure to clarify that I believe that there were no errors from you. --Grufo (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temp accounts and SPI's

I was under the impression that the change from exposed IP's to temp accounts would overcome the checkuser issue in that area. Can you explain why that isn't the case? Also, as this is not a short term issue, are you able to soft block the underlying IP of both temp accounts anyway for the same reason? If you want other temp accounts listed let me know. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517 There is a user group, WP:TAIVs, who can see the IPs of temp accounts. (Admins and CUs can also.) These users do not have sufficient permission for checkusers to disclose IPs to (and will not have generally signed the ANPDP on top of not having the correct roles/social groups associated), which is what a checkuser would do if they connected a TA to a named account. Izno (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the question of whether I can block the underlying IPs, yes, any admin can. I can disclose that I have blocked specific IPs in certain places but it's just a little messy to do so so what you'll probably here is "it's been taken care of" or "no comment on underlying IPs" etc.

If there are other temp accounts feel free, but I suspect the ones that matter will already have been blocked by IP. Izno (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. I understand. I didn't know the change had spread the IP viewing underneath. A bit of a pest, but that's the way it is. Thanks for the note about blocking the underlying IP. Hopefully that will take care of this for now at least. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Izno 🎉

Hey @Izno. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 19 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 16:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026

Hello! I noticed you're a bot operator, so I thought you might be interested in a hackathon we're organizing: the Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026, on 13–14 March in Arnhem, Netherlands.

It's a two-day, technically oriented hackathon bringing together Wikimedians from the region. Whether you want to work on bot frameworks, tools, or other technical projects, this could be a great opportunity to collaborate with fellow developers. Registration closes mid-January or when full. Let me know if there are any questions. Hope to see you there! Daanvr (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RAIFKISLAI

Hi there, IP hopping socks of RAIFKISLAI are active again at Indomania and Great Game. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strange styling question

Hey, I noticed that some pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All have an additional space between the namespace and the page title, while most don't. When inspecting I can see that the span class with mw-page-title-separator is different but I don't know why or where it gets this additional styling from. Do you happen to know? Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T315893. Izno (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I read that correctly, it was only enabled for talk pages, right? If that is correct, then where does WP:RFC inherit that style from? Gonnym (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I know there was discussion about broadening where this is happening but I was also not under the impression that it was going to. Izno (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, was hoping you'll know. I'll ask in the VP/T then. Thanks for pointing me to that phab ticket. Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inconsistent mess. I have added some examples to the Phab ticket. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Sudarshan Soi (3rd nomination)

Can we also revert the IP vote? It is solid WP:DUCK as they also edited Draft:Shreya Kulkarni in their few edits, the same draft user:Priya Kumar Khan was working on prior to being blocked. CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]