User talk:Johnuniq: Difference between revisions

By /

I’ll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Hi John, Could you take a look at bn:মডিউল:ConvertTime/খেলাঘর? Before updating the main module, I would appreciate it if you could review the code and confirm that it’s ready to go, i.e., that there are no errors. The code is based on your code (see comparison).

The module basically does this, but replaces points 3 and 4 with “Change any bn digits to en digits” & “Change the full bn name of a month to its en name”. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Yes, that looks good. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Johnuniq. It seems Afrika1997 decided to ignore our messages on their talk page. Just yesterday, 3rd August, they added unsourced content once again on Alex Quaison-Sackey. Based on their actions, this editor is obsessed with linking biographies to the Guan people and their contributions are largely POV motivated. Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwesi Yema: I agree but Wikipedia is a strange place and I have to allow more than two edits (one of which at least involved a reference) before taking action. I will do something if it continues. There is no need to reply now but please remind me if there are, say, six more edits in the same fashion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon?? Afrika1997 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrika1997: Wikipedia is accessed from the internet, but it is very different from most other websites. This is not the place to post cute but content-free comments. If you have to something to say, say it. If you have a question, ask it. In general, editors need to demonstrate a willingness and ability to contribute to the encyclopedia with neutral and reliably sourced contributions. Continuing to use Wikipedia to label as many items as possible as Guan may result in you being indefinitely blocked. As I mentioned at User talk:Afrika1997#Procedures, you should respond at the ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take time to do your own research before you come dismissing everything in the name of personal conflicts. Afrika1997 (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,as you can see false accusations and personal attacks are been leveled against me. Afrika1997 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Johnuniq, you said I should remind you if Afrika1997 makes 6 or more similar edits. On 24 August, they made additions to several pages. I’ll share these contributions for clarification on how appropriate they are. On Alex Quaison-Sackey, he added that “Winneba is a Guan community” based on this source. But the source actually states Winneba is home to original Guan speakers, and it even states that other languages are spoken such as Fante, which is the main language. In addition, this information that was added has nothing to do with the biography of the person because the source is not related to the individual at all. Afrika1997 is trying to force some link to the Guan people.

On Gertrude Torkornoo, they did the same thing. The person in the article was said to have been born in Winneba so Afrika1997 tries to force a link to Guan people. It’s like claiming any person born in Arizona is an indigenous American because the city hosts pre modern native Americans. It would have been fine if the source outright states Getrude is a Guan. But Afrika1997 is trying to create something out of his own original research. On Clemence Jackson Honyenuga, it is stated in the early life section that Clemence was born in Nyagbo-Gagbefe. Afrika1997 adds that it’s a town of the Guan people based on this source. I checked the blog and it says the Nyabo are a Guan people who founded communities like Gabefe. And that’s fine. However, the source itself mentions nothing about Clemence, and should we make an assumption that Clemence, is therefore a Guan? It would have been better if he had a source that said “Clemence is a Guan hailing from…” I’m not sure on the decision to take for the changes on this article.

On Kow Nkensen Arkaah, Afrika1997 adds that Senya Beraku, the town Kow Nkensen was born, is a Guan town with this source. But then again, the source doesn’t say anything about Kow Nkensen at all. Ironically, this book on page 184 called Kow Nkensen an “Akan (Fanti).” This editor made similar additions on Okomfo Anokye but this time the source they used is unreliable as it is it a blog with “http” instead of a secure https link. I wouldn’t have had any issue with Afrika1997 if they made an effort to add reliable sources focused on the subject matter. But for 4 months now, they have been obssesed with the Guan ethnic group even going as far as original research just to justify their contributions. Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwesi Yema I would be amazed if I did break any rule so far as academic writing is in concern.You should be appreciating my hard work towards providing reliable source to articles here.I am doing a great job providing references and citations and you should be appreciative. Afrika1997 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwesi Yema Wo maame tw3!! Afrika1997 (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Greetings Johnuniq. As you can see, the first thing Afrika1997 does upon returning from a block is personal attacks and insults. These have been archived here: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Kwesi Yema (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwesi Yema Sorry..That was a typing error not an insult…By the way..I have not returned from a block..You helped to get me blocked for 4 months..Hurray…!!! Afrika1997 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwesi Yema Kwashiaaapanin Afrika1997 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

Hi Johnuniq,

I saw that you had reviewed my page protection request for Diego Pavia, and that you had declined it. I wanted to reply to your comment, but the request got moved or deleted, so I am doing that here. Pavia currently plays college football for Vanderbilt University, and on his player profile from the university, his height is listed as 6 ft 0 in. Also, ESPN has listed Pavia on their website as being 6 ft 0 in. However, there are multiple IP users that keep changing his height to 5 ft 10 in based on a recent Netflix docu-series called SEC Football: Any Given Saturday in which Pavia is featured. There is one particular IP user that is edit-warring with me about Pavia’s height. I don’t know if I should file another request for page protection, but I wanted to give you context and factual information on Pavia’s height.

Thanks, GigglyGoose (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GigglyGoose: The archiving is fast and hard to follow. For the record, it is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/08#Diego Pavia where I wrote “The latest IP has a claim about a Netflix documentary in the edit summary. I do not see a reference although possibly one of the links includes it. When something like this is disputed there should be a section on article talk inviting a discussion regarding sources. In that you could say how the number in the article is verified.” My point is that an assertion should have a clear reference, particularly when challenged. When people repeatedly challenge it, there should be a brief statement on article talk where anyone interested can find it. The section title would be something like “Height” and it would have a link or two with a brief extract of what the links say regarding the height. That saves a lot of hassle in the long run because we need an easy way to explain to people (even drive-by IPs) why the article provides a certain value. Also, others might join in and provide other references with a differing account and that might be beneficial. After putting something on article talk (not here), please wait for the height to be changed again. Then remind me and I’ll protect the article if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have created a new talk page message here explaining where his 6 ft 0 in listed height comes from and that we cannot source his height from a Netflix series. However, this same IP user has once again changed his height from 5 ft 10 in and does not seem to care what I say to them. I have once again reverted their edit and have directed them to read my talk page message. Although, I unfortunately don’t think they will listen or care and will continue to change Pavia’s height on the page. GigglyGoose (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Diego Pavia#Height is good. Another admin has semi-protected the article for a month. Let me know if it continues after that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have just seen that. Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it! GigglyGoose (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure to which thing you are referring. It changes nothing if in the infobox I take the www out. It’s even advised in there. Where I stopped taking the www out is in external links (which is on the bottom of the page). That should be fine. Efficacity (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your talk. It is standard procedure to keep discussions in one place and any replies should be where the discussion started. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not sure by standard procedures but no, this site has major difficulties with simple stuff including links. Since when do you threaten to ban someone (permanently) when you just arrived and haven’t even been apprised of what is happening? Nevertheless, you didn’t answer my question. Infoboxes, right? You know what they are. If allowed and there’s definitively no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to change the URLs only from something like %20www.jensonavenue.%20com to jensonavenue. com. It doesn’t do anything to links. It makes them clearer and as I told you it instructs users in many of the infoboxes (there is more than one format) to NOT USE www unless it is necessary to link. I suppose I could have avoided all of this if I had just checked EVERY single link-but that may be water under a bridge now since I am only changing http:// to https:// in external links (NOT the ones in infoboxes). I find all this tedious and really not necessary. It would have been easy for any users to jump in and FIX stuff, but no, just complaints. Efficacity (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The % is supposed to be https:// Efficacity (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example of incorrect linking is that the LA Times being referred to in the External Links section, is a site with https:// not http:// thus if I leave the www in place and change the wrong form of http:// to https:// it’s fine. Again, you’re not noticing this sort of thing, I would guess. Efficacity (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to reply further given that you have again deleted my comment at your talk (diff), and have again posted here which makes following the discussion difficult as I previously explained. If you want a substantive reply, restore my comment at your talk (it can be seen in permalink) and reply there. As I wrote at your talk, the issue is not a question of whether the claims about www are correct. The point is that repeating edits against objections is disruptive. The objections have been from other editors—I have explained what the www is doing but have not objected. Any block would be to prevent disruption from continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As in most disagreements, rather than simple ones when there is more than one topic involved, there are not enough answers. I have been very clear. We’re talking about two separate things. Infoboxes and External Links… They’re not the same. Repeating I will continue to improve infoboxes by taking out the www which does not belong and is even addressed in said infoboxes. I will leave the www in external links. I will continue to change the incorrect formats in external links from http:// to https:// when necessary. Efficacity (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may add LockeCole and ButlerBlog, while they may do some things in a right manner, are involved in too much controversy, it seems. This is not how Wikipedia functions. Efficacity (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at your talk permalink where you restored the deleted discussion with a new comment. Your account has 439 edits and was created on 23 June 2025. It might be an idea to ask questions rather than tell others how things will be. I am not going to continue a disjointed discussion occurring on two pages. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We’re getting nowhere, I posted at the teahouse. I asked you a simple thing and couldn’t get a reply to that. I understand why you try to keep conversations in one place. I thoroughly explained to you what I felt was a solution, not changing the kind of meaningless www in external links. You were unable to say, feel free to edit infoboxes where the www is displayed (which it shouldn’t even be there). I didn’t ask you about the perpetrator’s name being in bold and how that shouldn’t be on an article either. Efficacity (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John. Do you agree with this edit?: Morissette (singer): Difference between revisions – Wikipedia — Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is a need to alert readers of Morissette (singer) that they might have been looking for the singer Alanis Morissette. I don’t know what would be the appropriate template. {{Distinguish}} (according to its documentation) is for stuff like coma vs. comma. The doc mentions {{About}}. Perhaps restore whatever you think is right, or ask at WP:HELPDESK about the correct hatnote. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I couldn’t figure out how to make the About tag work here, since it automatically puts in a disambiguation. How about [this?]. — Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a much better idea ({{For}}). Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you blocked a user for talk page POV and BLP abuse from numerous IP addresses four years ago. [1] Just to let you know, it’s back (see my last edits), just so you know any sanctions should not start from zero. Thank you Unknown Temptation (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown Temptation: Thanks but in a quick look I did not see anything sanctionable. The comments at Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting#Anti-Catholic hate crime? have an AGF interpretation namely that the question arose because the term “hate crime” is usually (I think without being at all sure) directed towards frequently targeted minorities and it might be a surprise to see it in this context. The reply that the article is simply following sources seems to have resolved the issue and the IP is responding politely. Let me know if bad things occur. I will watch their talk for a while. BTW I don’t think I blocked the IP; I just closed the long discussion saying I would block 46.97.170.0/24 if further problems were revealed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please downgrade the protection of this draft title to Extended-Confirmed? I am looking at a sandbox for which review has been requested, at User:মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন/sandbox, and was trying to move it to draft space. However, I am told that title is template-editor protected. I see that there were persistent attempts by sockpuppets to move drafts into that title two yeas ago. The current submitter appears to be a good-faith editor, and in any case I would like to be able to review the draft, and decline it if notability is not met. I see that the title in article space was deleted in 2019, and I think I am likely to decline the draft. But can you unprotect the title in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Strange, I don’t remember the protection in December 2023 but I have unprotected now. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It appears that some sort of protection was in order at the time due to the sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t think that I would accept it, but a review of the sources showed that there was significant coverage by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
  • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Should this be removed and hidden? Talk:Mackenzie Ziegler: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia — Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the comment but it doesn’t need revision deletion as it is just trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. — Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m considering challenging this close or just waiting for someone else to do it. What do you think is best? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DN: The issue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi gun control argument (2nd nomination) which was closed as consensus to merge Nazi gun control argumentNazi gun control argument to Disarmament of the German Jews. Politically motivated voters will be pleased that the distinct topic of the modern argument has been buried in the who cares historical article, while a significant group of clueless voters will repeat POVFORK. Sorry, but I would admit the battle is lost and move on. The close is very reasonable given the votes and I don’t think a challenge would be successful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance, I still feel policy is being misconstrued in forms such as vote quantity VS quality, but I trust your judgement, enough to avoid picking up a stick at the wrong time. If the pattern continues to erode political articles in this way, I may ask for further dialogue in the appropriate venue. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User contributions for Beshogur – Wikipedia keeps removing valid information even after I provided a source. Murad I: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia The user has a history of reverting edits without explanation across multiple pages, and is also very confrontational with other users. User talk:Beshogur – Wikipedia User talk:Beshogur – Wikipedia User talk:Beshogur – Wikipedia With this user reverting sourced edits without explanation and being very confrontational with other users, I ask that he be banned immediately. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:F0C4:991:FC03:F0F7 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting unreliable sources. Beshogur (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isin’t unreliable. It is a source, and you have a history of reacting angrily to people correcting your edits, and also a history of reverting edits without explanation. I said it was sourced, and you still chose to remove it because you could not accept that you were wrong.2607:FEA8:7221:F600:F0C4:991:FC03:F0F7 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you even know me? Looks like personal beef. Maybe use an account instead of IP hopping. Beshogur (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page and your block history shows you have a history with this type of behavior, and all of your edits can be seen on your contributions and it mostly consists of revisions, on multiple instances without explanation. You also removed information that was sourced multiple times. That is a pretty severe act given that remvoing sourced information is greatly frowned upon. Furthermore, you never showed any proof at all that the source is unreliable and given your attitude and your previous actions, I am not going to take your claim that it is false at face value. I also don’t see any proof that it isin’t unreliable, and is actually quite a good source. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:F0C4:991:FC03:F0F7 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t even know you dude. Your source is literally a blogpost. given your attitude and your previous actions who are you to judge? Again, I don’t even know you, but you seem to know me well. Maybe start an account so we can talk more. [2] Orhan is the first sultan to use that title. The worse is that you’re defending your wrong edits. Beshogur (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered why the IP might have picked me to raise the issue. It turns out that I left a message about Turkey at your talk in September 2022 (three years ago!). It’s not relevant to the IP’s current concerns, but perhaps the IP saw that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP hopping happens a lot. Beshogur (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns Murad I. The last edit at Talk:Murad I was in January. A discussion at that page should occur when changes are disputed. I see that the article has been semiprotected to stop the edit war. See WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Murad I[reply]

Hi Johnuniq,

I saw you’re actively patrolling edits, and I was wondering if you could please take a look at a draft I submitted for review via AfC: Draft:Jeffrey M. Gabriel

It’s a fully sourced biography of a notable domain broker and entrepreneur, with multiple references from reliable sources like Forbes, DomainSherpa, and DNJournal.

I’d greatly appreciate your time and any feedback you might have.

Thank you in advance!
– User:Fruzsimolnar Fruzsimolnar (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at Draft talk:Jeffrey M. Gabriel. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Johnuniq, sorry to bother you about this again, but it seems we have another user continuously reverting edits at Naoya Inoue without wanting to discuss at the talk page. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid that articles on fighters are often like that. You will see that I have commented at the user’s talk and at article talk. You had better do no more than one reversion next time. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand.thanks. If you’re an administrator , please participate in this discussion. Because, looking at the conversation between GOAT Bones231012 and Songsten in the previous discussion history, I think it will be difficult to reach an agreement on this topic without the intervention of the administrator.
My argument is consistent with the policy of Adding information to Wikipedia. “be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable and cannot be original research.” However, GOAT Bones231012 continues to assert only his subjective impressions without providing any sources to support his opinions, which is against Wikipedia policy. Rocco30 (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not post a duplicate message. You don’t need to alert me to the fact that you replied at your talk, but you can if you want and all that is needed is to say “I replied at my talk”. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Hi, I’ve been having an editing dispute with a relatively new user Tremfab, and they’ve had a pretty uncivil tone. I and another user (Danners430) have independently advised them of WP:CIVIL and their response seems to boil down to: no u. It seems any time I try to point them towards policy pages to teach them how things are done, they just rehash the old content dispute, so I don’t think I’d do any good trying to get them on track. Would you be willing to try to get them to edit inside Wikipedia’s guidelines? They’re new, so they likely can be taught, but at this point I’m not 100% certain I can engage with them and still be civil, so I’m trying to disengage. Thanks for your time. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: OK, I will watch a couple of relevant pages although I might miss stuff. Feel free to remind me if it blows up. Meanwhile, I suggest ignoring the off-topic snipes and focusing on article content. I see that has happened but just keep it up. It’s too late now but a little more emphasis on what the Turbofan history shows might have helped: the -204 means that 204 bytes were removed which means that significant content was removed, and it is too hard to determine what that was when rearranging at the same time. That was said, but I would have repeated it a couple of times without raising the temperature. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged! And thank you for the advice. Yeah, I let myself get a little too annoyed before disengaging, and so didn’t cover myself with glory. Ah well, live, learn, and do better next time, I guess. Thanks for keeping your eyes out; I appreciate it! EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So regardless of if any changes are made to Module:Age per the current discussion, I do think it would be beneficial to have some Module:UnitTests for the module. I found that with a tiny change to the module I can call the functions directly which will allow the unit tests to function. Can you review it and merge it if it looks good? Here is the comparison. I followed the format I have seen in many other Modules. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a discussion that should be on the module talk page! Please don’t reply here but I’m slow and methodical and would need quite a bit of time to ponder the fact that the frame args are referred to in several different places. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to block this IP? User:76.37.31.101? — Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard to say whether 76.37.31.101‘s edits are wrong but the edit summaries are certainly misleading and the edits are unsourced. I blocked from editing articles to give them an opportunity to respond to the many issues raised at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous people have asked them to cite their sources. I hope they make some effort. — Ssilvers (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone didn’t take you seriously. Girth Summit (blether) 17:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, likely no action needed per this statement on their talk. Hopefully that’ll be an end of it. Girth Summit (blether) 19:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for monitoring the Magomed Zaynukov situation. The MMA people are enthusiastic! Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the chances would be of getting consensus to ban any mention of nicknames for sportspeople anywhere on the site? Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards is the only person I can bring to mind whose article would incomplete without one, and I’m not entirely sure he really qualifies as a sportsperson… Girth Summit (blether) 18:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that would be too simple! I have no idea about Magomed Zaynukov and what his nicknames might be. I also don’t know if “John Pork” is offensive but given what has been said it sounds dubious. I’m afraid it will have to be battled out article-by-article. However, I think all the emphasis given to “reliable source” is misguided. By definition, there cannot be a RS for a nickname. If nicknames are handed out by official decree, there should be an official decree. Otherwise, Sherdog is just reporting what they think are amusing names that were used at least once, with a bit of clickbait as a side benefit. The issue is WP:DUE. Wikipedia certainly is not a repository of nicknames. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right about that nickname and WP:DUE. What concerns me more though is this idea that some members of that Wikiproject has about demanding that all BLPs in their subject area must rely on that one source for their information. It would be wrong even if the consensus was that it’s ‘generally reliable’, but it’s not even that. Not sure how to get that across to them, and I doubt this will be the last drama about it. Girth Summit (blether) 14:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is simple: move all the MMA articles to fandom.com. But they probably wouldn’t like that either… Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Someone severly vanadlized the Batman: Arkham Shadow – Wikipedia page, removing its plot sections. I restored part of it, but since only an admin can restore multiple edits without having to rewrite the entire section and rewriting the plot page would mean having to watch the whole game again, Iask that you please undo his other vandalism edit. Batman: Arkham Shadow: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:B9FA:2F0D:D1BC:D16C (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed this message on recent changes. I have restored that plot, and you don’t need to be an admin to do that, thanks for catching it. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 20:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user also has a history of vandalism, so whether or not you want to ban him is up to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.156.181.34 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:B9FA:2F0D:D1BC:D16C (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting and thanks to HurricaneZeta for cleaning up. It’s true that Special:Contributions/130.156.181.34 is not productive but the edits are infrequent and don’t warrant a block at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remove the post on this talk page? It’s clearly just nonsense/vandalism but I’m not supposed to remove any talk page comments Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I’m glad no one has checked my contribs lately because I haven’t done much apart from rollback IP comments and moan at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you gave the user a warning, and mentioned on ANI (now archived) to let you know if the user continued with their disruptive editing. They just made this edit after I had reverted their previous edit for using retail websites as refs. It is becoming very obvious that the user is going to keep editing however they want, no matter how many warnings or reports are made. – Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then created a new article with zero refs at all, which has since been draftified… clearly just doesn’t care about the rules… – Adolphus79 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79: This would be a lot easier if the edits were actually bad. However, as someone unfamiliar with standard procedure for watch articles, this editor’s changes seem similar to what is there. Yes, they are too reliant on promotional retail websites, and it’s frustrating that there is no communication, but the refs in Antimagnetic watch seem equally weak (although I only glanced). Are you able to spend a bit more time on this by leaving a polite message at User talk:会黄 with no templates or mention of bad things. Just a simple explanation of what they should have done. Is the text not appropriate at all, or is it the fact that piling more stuff into something with “unreferenced section” or “citation needed” is not satisfactory, or both? The user is reading messages and edit summaries, and is trying, so I’m reluctant to block without a bit more effort to assist them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not an outright vandal. My main concern is that they went from adding poorly sourced content (blogs, retail storefronts, etc.), when I first noticed their edits, to now just adding statements to an article with no sources at all and a CN tag, or creating an article (not a draft) and not bothering to cite a single source. All of these are blatant violations of WP:BURDEN, especially after multiple users have left multiple warning templates over the last 10 months. This user has not made a single comment on a single talk page (except one apparent test/mistake). I personally gave them two unsourced4 warnings 4 days apart, they simply deleted them and the only change to their pattern was to go from using bad refs to using no refs at all. In their 2100+ edits, they’ve only left an edit summary 41 times, even after getting a friendly message about that. Hell, they didn’t even bother to comment at the ANI report! We have tried the talking thing, it didn’t work. How long do we let them do whatever they want regardless of the rules, and refusing to communicate with anyone else? I’m not looking for indef, but maybe a few days would at least get their attention that rules are rules for a reason, especially WP:V. – Adolphus79 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: A few days was the suggestion instead of 31h because they are not a daily editor, and may not even notice 31h…) – Adolphus79 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You indef fully protected this. Did you mean to set an expiration time? * Pppery * it has begun… 18:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Well yes, but I have a reminder to unprotect it as soon as I get a chance to judge the mood at article talk. I think they need another RfC to put an end to the current back and forth. Feel free to unprotect now if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed an RfC with reduction of protection to semi soon. See Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#Edit war resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnuniq. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users’ IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/e/ec/Editing_with_Temporary_Accounts.webm/Editing_with_Temporary_Accounts.webm.480p.vp9.webm
Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user’s browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account’s name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/2/21/Temporary_Accounts_demo_-_IP_Reveal.webm/Temporary_Accounts_demo_-_IP_Reveal.webm.480p.vp9.webm
How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won’t be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67’s IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if “reasonably believed to be necessary”. (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can’t be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account’s activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I can now get Grokipedia to provide a summary of the above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq,

I have a question about how to get consensus for the edit request.
Talk:Hasan_Piker#Fully-protected_edit_request_on_30_October_2025

I thought I addressed everyone’s concerns in the thread for the reordering. Is there more official or better way to get consensus? Like do I do a call for a vote?

Note that this is a separate change request from the “dog collar” change. That change definitely doesn’t have consensus. Sibshops (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibshops: Hasan Piker has been fully protected for a couple of weeks, presumably because there was an edit war. Particularly under those circumstances, an edit request has to be for something completely uncontroversial. That is, the change is straightforward (something like fixing a typo would be best) and no one has raised an objection. I doubt whether the rearrangement in your sandbox could ever reach consensus while the article is fully protected because the change is too hard to follow. It might be possible to use Special:ComparePages for a digestible diff if you had copied all the article (but not the categories). However, the comments on article talk indicate an objection. There is no good answer to your question but the official response is dispute resolution. That starts with a normal discussion. See WP:NOTVOTE. The Wikipedia equivalent is WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and advice. Yeah, there’s been an edit war and lots of vandalism. It sounds like it would be too difficult to do as edit like this while the page is protected, so I’ll hold off and possibly revisit in a few months. Sibshops (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Previously administrators used to hide private details of kids. You are not doing it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aakash_Chopra_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aakash_Chopra_2016&action=history ~2025-32807-15 (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-32807-15: This page has now been suppressed in accordance with the Oversight policy. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice an edit request at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) on 20 October 2025 and responded (diff) politely to a new user, and left a welcome on their red-linked talk. I have not seen their user page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that this comment of yours LEGIT made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the sense of humor about all this. Have a good one. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you immediately deleted my suggestion and sources for Nangpa La section in Henry Todd story. I’m rather new to this process. What was wrong with it? Lhotserunner (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lhotserunner: I reverted you at Talk:Henry Todd (mountaineer) because your comment is not in line with how article talk pages should be used. Only concrete proposals to improve the article should be on these pages, not complaints about other editors (“my new Dutch friend”) or generic mention of “several books covering this highlight of his life”. Instead, a couple of reliable sources are needed (specific books with page numbers and brief quotes) along with a proposal to add or change specific text. Paywalls are frustrating but articles depend on information from reliable sources, not our opinions about whatever happened. Regarding WP:BLP which you have encountered, think of it this way: Wikipedia is open for passers-by to add claims or to accentuate alleged wrong-doing. The BLP policy is intended to guard against the accumulation of dirt that naturally occurs when people add their grievances to a biographical article. Regardless of whether that explanation is convincing, the fact is that editors are prevented (with persuasion, then blocks) from pursuing that path. That policy also applies to the recently deceased. The Henry Todd (mountaineer) article is not appropriately written—there is far too much detail and waffle. Many phrases such as “his enthusiasm for mountaineering provided a springboard” should be severely pruned. The article would be good on the website of a mountaineering club, but it needs a lot of reworking to be suitable for Wikipedia. I gather that some recent activity has concerned claims regarding murder. At Wikipedia, someone is a murderer only if they have been convicted of murder in reasonable court of law. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this and for the detailed and thoughtful response. I never thought the article was good or accurate, either. I tried to take a stab with a few edits which I thought were well documented in respectable publications which I cited (and not a single one of my own, btw.). I don’t think I called anyone a murderer. I’m new to this, I write for newspapers and magazine where no one cares about the background of the journalist, only whether the article was well-written and accurate. I obviously know a lot about this subject…I’ve been up Everest twice and have spent a lot of time with the Sherpas. That’s why all this hagiography seems a bit off-putting. Like….gee, Henry Todd brought LADDERS to this primitive mountain tribe! Sherpas fly and own their own airline with helicopters, prop and jet planes. They have hardware stores! With ladders! For their multi-story buildings often made of poured concrete with indoor plumbing! To come after me for calling out this racist nonsense seems odd for an academic in a progressive college. I don’t get it. I’m happy to step away from this mess. I only jumped in as I immediately saw what was going on and since I had a pretty specialized knowledge I thought it would be welcome. I can indeed provide the actually PDF’s from these books, but it’s work and I don’t want to do it if it just is going to be cut within two minutes because I’m suspected of BLP crime. My suggestion: Cut the whole thing. Start fresh. Keep things to their succinct Wikipedia format. All the raw material is in the bibliography (though I’d cut anything from the Himalayan Database and other personal blogs and online fiefdoms). I’m guessing there are a lot of eager smart editors at Wikipedia willing to read some of the source material. I can do all of this off the top of my head…it’s what I do for a living after all…but you don’t really need me. Lhotserunner (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the topic but I can point out a couple of points regarding diff. Even if “three-time felon” is correct and sourced, adding that at the start is inappropriate due to the accumulation of dirt issue that I mentioned. Compare with Adolf Hitler which covers the facts without focusing on evilness. Wording like “despite over a dozen tries never managed to realize his ultimate prize of summiting Everest” is editorializing—particularly in a biography, edits have to stick to the facts without fluff. I have already acknowledged that there is far too much fluff already present. I can see that there are lots of negative views that might apply to the subject of the article but it is a feature or a bug (depending on point of view) of Wikipedia that many articles will omit excessive negativity. The procedure here would require finding good reliable sources then paraphrasing what they say without any added editorializing. The issue of ladders is too esoteric for a general encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three-time felon is from the book “Operation Julie” which is available online. I mentioned Todd’s failed summit dreams as it’s probably his most unique accomplishment: He holds the undisputed record for most failed attempts on Everest. Every season from 1995 to 2008 (though he was forced to take a hiatus in 2001). His highpoint was short of the feature low on the SW Ridge called “The Balconey” when he ran out of steam despite forcing a client to switch his working oxygen rig for Todd’s failing one (I only have the emails from the client and his wife who was also climbing so not up to Wikipedia’s standards I’m guessing). That story currently on the site about Todd having to turn around in 2000 to rescue a climber is pure baloney The only parts of Todd’s life documented up to what I imagine are Wikipedia’s standards are limited to his three felony conditions in the UK, his 2000 conviction in Nepal for assault, the failure to convict him for Michael Matthew’s death in 2002, and his attempt to cover up the 2006 Tibetan shootings. Everything else I would imagine would be challenging to fit into Wikipedia due to contradictory and complicated narratives. Lhotserunner (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“despite forcing a client to switch his working oxygen rig for Todd’s failing one” – this is libel.
“the failure to convict him for Michael Matthew’s death in 2002” is a crazy way to write it. It wasn’t a failure, he …was exonerated in 2006, with the judge finding that there was “not one scrap of worthwhile evidence” that Matthews’s oxygen had failed. [3] – once again, this is libel.
“his attempt to cover up the 2006 Tibetan shootings” – this is libel. You have offered no actual evidence, beyond vague references to newspapers and a book. I have no idea the quality of the book, and my searches have turned up nothing in relation to those newspapers. Provide specific evidence that can be verified, e.g. book quotes, links to articles, etc.
You continue to make libelous accusations, in the article, on the article talk and now here. STOP. At this point it’s just WP:IDHT. Timtjtim (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing “vague” here. Check out the bibliography at the end of the article. EVERY SINGLE thing mentioned here are in: The New York Times, Forbes, Outside, the Spectator, and “Operation Julie,” “High Crimes,” Murder at 19000 Feet.” Every. Single. One. Pages and paragraphs that went through other editors, lawyers and stood the test of time as no one ever sided any of the authors or publications for putting out the exact facts you just called libel. I don’t mean to war with you. But that’s just the facts. Lhotserunner (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve been indeffed, but if you ever come back and read this look at what I said:
Provide specific evidence that can be verified, e.g. book quotes, links to articles, etc.
and look at what you responded with:
The New York Times, Forbes, Outside, the Spectator, and “Operation Julie,” “High Crimes,” Murder at 19000 Feet.”. 0 links, 0 quotes. Nothing I can WP:VERIFY.
Literally just giving me a single link to a specific article that supported your claims I would have carefully read it and considered it. Instead you continued with your WP:ICHY. Timtjtim (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually have evidence that someone forced a client to swap a working oxygen rig for a failing one, I would suggest contacting the police or a journalist, rather than adding unevidenced claims to a Wikipedia article. If that investigation corroborated your claims, it would then be reported in RSes, and be added to the article. Timtjtim (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s already been, done! Check out the Forbes tale and “High Crimes.” The emails and story of he couple in question, the Woodmansees, reproduced and discussed in detail. Probably also elsewhere but those are the two sources already mentioned but not actually used in the story. Lhotserunner (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“I’m happy to step away from this mess” – a pretty good idea. That’s what everyone has been saying to do. Nobody else things this article is as much of a mess as you.
If you’re unhappy he’s being praised for bringing ladders (what an absurd complaint), well, don’t read his obit I guess… [4] Timtjtim (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Khumbu Valley has plenty of ladders! Todd tried to make himself a middleman (look at his prior career as a drug dealer and gangster!) between the Ice Doctor and climbers to collect fees for himself until the Gov told him to knock it off. Does that really strike you as absurd?
As for libel…are you guys getting sued a lot? I’ve spent 30 years publishing this kind of stuff and though my papers and magazines were threatened a couple of times never once had to deal with a complainant’s lawyer. The story, as it now stands, kind of libels others, though not to the extent anyone is going to pound their hands too hard on a table about it! Lhotserunner (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is moot as Lhotserunner has been indeffed but, for the record, most of us are not concerned about someone suing Wikipedia. The issue is that we don’t want articles to smear people without really good sources and a good reason related to improving the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Khumbu Valley has (sic) plenty of ladders that might be true today, but that’s not what the sources I’ve read say about the 1990s, when he started importing them. e.g. [5] [6].
I’ve spent 30 years publishing this kind of stuff and though my papers remarkable that you were unable to provide any actual links to your extensive coverage… Timtjtim (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. Sent through wikimail. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 01:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will reply soon. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

Valereee

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

  • Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
  • Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

Hey @Johnuniq, it looks like another user is continuing the original edit war at Naoya Inoue without discussing. Can you please protect the page again? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lie. I did not engage in any edit war. All I’m asking is for you to stop removing things that are sourced. ~2025-41291-00 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat! I like a bit of optimism. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version