User talk:Yamla

Piotr Kamler page

Hi, Yamla. I just created a stub for Polish film director Piotr Kamler. The page name came with a warning that another page under that name had been removed by you in 2015 because it was created by a banned user in 2015. I couldn't find a reference to it in your logs so I proceeded, but thought it best to check and see if there is any issue I am missing. I believe my stub is all original content. Wrightjack talk

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

  • Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
    The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.
  • Crossword: Pop quiz
    Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

Unblock request from User:Panachewrites

Hi Yamla. Per UTRS appeal #110433 this user is not blocked directly but has been accessing Wikipedia using a number of IPs, all of which are now covered by rangeblocks. (The rangeblock reasons sound fairly serious, often mentioning spam or proxy use). One of these IPs asked for unblock in March 2025. You declined the unblock but stated "if you don't have an account, one may be provided to you via WP:ACC." Does this mean it would be OK to tell Panachewrites to try to log in via an IP that is not blocked by Wikipedia? For someone that we know so little about, granting IPBE sounds like too much. Undoing any of the range blocks appears unjustified though at least one of these blocks is not a hardblock so he could theoretically use it with his present account. Thanks for any advice, EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are specifically hitting someone else's IP address range block, one that isn't anon-only. Let me take a look at that and get back to you. It'll take maybe a couple of hours, as I'm about to get the partner up for coffee. :) --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I granted them IP block exemption. They don't appear to be related to the problematic users operating from that particular IP address range. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


So, i was looking at the backrooms reddit and this rando is claiming of a story that happened with the back to the future article, and that he got falsely blocked by you, for all i know, he is probably lying (especially with the whole "you cant comment on wikipedia aritcles" being blatantly false. plus he seems to be in bad faith too. here is the thread. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough information here for me to be able comment on this, nor, frankly, do I want to discuss it with you. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification

@Yamla this is a clarification of the replacement that happened with my account at [1]. I reverted it immediately at [2]. I know I am not allowed to use the script here (as explained by voorts in my unblock request), bcoz of this only I've always been (First mistake in 7 months, since this unblock was granted) careful not to use Global replace script at files covered by my topic ban. This was an instance where I forgot to opt-out of the script. This was completely unintentional, sorry again. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added this clarification at talk page of voorts. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond over at voorts's talk page, so the discussion is a bit more centralised. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]