Archives

'07—'11 '11—'13 13—'16 2016 '17—'18 '18—'19 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hello, can you please undelete Liz Pelly? I added material to the article and had nominated it to appear on Did You Know. Thriley (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Izno (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Josias Wenitte Apiou (aka Wenitte Apiou) has already been recreated from a draft yet again (which I already rejected), I'm suspecting Joshleefan (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of 65sugg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can you please look into this? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please file an SPI. Izno (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just letting you know about this RFD, because I linked your edit there. Graham87 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're correct that Wikipedia:Contentious topics is transcluded, but if you take a look at the page (click on WP:STANDARDSET), I think you'll also find that the formatting is broken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the devs left a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Markup issue on Wikipedia:Contentious topics last week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using Parsoid, it is broken. If you are not, it is not. Izno (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make it work for everyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Izno, could you please let me know if I'm required to file a separate request for suspected UPEs, I've already mentioned the user on a SPI.

Thanks. Retro music11 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UPE/paid editing, where there isn't a strong sock concern, is best reported to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. There isn't a guarantee that a patrolling admin will process a block at SPI for UPE/paid editing. Izno (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno : Thank you for responding. I recently added a suspected sock to a SPInvestigation. It seemed like a strong sock concern based on behavioural evidence. Additionally, that particular contribution also seems to be an outcome of an undisclosed paid editing activity. In this case, should the user be reported to WP:COIN or is it recommended to wait? Retro music11 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The technical conclusion is effectively that it is not a strong sock concern. If you want something done sooner than who knows when, you should report elsewhere. (See also User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive.) Izno (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Izno. I read through User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive and it helped! Retro music11 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, I had not seen SPICOST either. If the SPI that I filed (and you just commented on, which is how I ended up here and seeing the essay) is too "costly" to be "worth" the time investment, please feel free to just close it. Like I said, this has just grated me and I mostly just wanted to have done my part. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to report to SPI when you have a suspicion someone is editing outside the rules by having multiple accounts. We can tell you when it would have been faster for a specific sockmaster to go another way, if you don't already know.

Regarding the essay, I think it's wise to treat that essay in the way the author treats the conclusion: SPI is slow because it's optimized for accuracy (well, optimized is a strong word) and more for issuing blocks when there is foul play from prior editors than it is for users that aren't already blocked for another reason. I have to come to a separate conclusion that one of the editors merits a block for disruption that isn't socking, and the separate conclusion that there is abuse of multiple (or logged out) accounts.

I'm generally less concerned about the amount of time I spend there (which is probably too much but that's a me problem :) and more concerned that you (general) will or won't get relief Soon or Immediately from the problem you think is occurring. Which is perhaps something that essay doesn't say quite loud enough: it's not written to put people off reporting at SPI, it's written to tell people that they may have to request other assistance to get something done on a timeline they prefer.

In the specific case you filed, I moved it to Open because another patrolling clerk or admin may come to a conclusion about what should be done and action it. Izno (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Izno, that was both informative and interesting. I have spent a lot of time in various administrative and support roles, with varying degrees of "authority" given to me, so I have a somewhat deeply instilled respect for the time of other people in roles like that (in particular on Wikipedia). I don't come here to argue or to waste peoples time, though it all too often feels like that is all you get back. (I am here to contribute to what sometimes feels like one of the last corners of the internet that hasn't been enshittified or commodified, in no small thanks to people like you.) So thanks again for taking the time (here, and on SPI). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what I did wrong - I must have copied and pasted the text "Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Thcsphuninh2025" while reporting a sockpuppet instead of "Thcsphuninh2025" which would be the more sensible location. Initially I didn't realise the error until I noticed you moved the page recently. I've managed to spot something odd while keeping an eye on the Wikipedia talk: edits recently. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For blocking that TA sock of Andrew5. I appreciate your help! JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you help me please? In 1 January 2026 you moved John Gallacher (politician) to John Gallacher, Baron Gallacher which is the correct way.

Could you do the following please:

• George Darling (politician) to , Baron Darling of Hillsborough as a peer
• George Brown (British Labour politician) to George Brown, Baron George-Brown as a peer
• Michael Spicer (politician) to Michael Spicer, Baron Spicer as a peer
• Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes to Lady Jane Fellowes as a daughter of an Earl she should be styled this was as Lady Joan Zuckerman, Lady Pamela Smith, Lady Jane Lacey and Lady Susan Hussey are daughters of earls (Lady Joan Zuckerman daughter of Gerald Isaacs, 2nd Marquess of Reading) and have husbands who were Life Peers.
• Maie Casey, Baroness Casey to Maie Casey, Lady Casey as a wife of a Life Peer she should not be called Baroness as she was.t one in her own right.

RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may request renames using WP:Move requests. Izno (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you did on my behalf please? RugbyFan88 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this user but I see you blocked The Ladies' Journal as a sock of theirs and then nuked them. Would you mind undeleting Star Legend? I don't think it was eligible for G5 since they created a redirect which I had since converted to a dab. (You also deleted the page but left the talk page.) I'm not familiar with TTT24, so I don't know how essential it is to nuke everything they do. lp0 on fire () 18:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to restore it. Izno (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't feel strongly either way so you can consider it G7 if you like, but in that case you'll need to delete the talk page as well. lp0 on fire () 19:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is causing quiet twitching at AFC/R. Can't put my finger on it 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that one if so. Izno (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I may have oversensitive antennae. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is not an ALTACCOUNT, but I thought maybe you would want to know about WhyIzno? (talk · contribs · logs). He was an HDI stats gnome for five days in November 2025; inactive since. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are a sock but I couldn't say of who. I haven't intersected with the specific account. We have about half a dozen socks that find themselves on these pages. Izno (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun: you appear to have three star-crossed admirers, one stalker, one legal beagle, and two copycats (search results). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you're quick! I doth my cap, Tex. :D Halbared (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Izno, I'm currently creating a sock report. It is OK to refer to temporary accounts that are under the one IP? Also, if I believe a sock is using different providers, can I say that, or just refer to the fact that the posting behaviour connects different IPs/providers? Halbared (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Same IP as previous" is fine. "Different providers" isn't a ton of value because it's not something in common, and because it's common (phone versus home computer regularly has a different provider at least in the US). Izno (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll use that terminology. The provider thing, well it seems to be a VPN type company. I'll phrase that appropriately too. Halbared (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, no sure if this is worthy of a log taking up volume in the sock report. This edit by ~2026-10765-29 has the feel of Nik jumping right back in. In going through the logs I actually missed this edit by ~2026-55144-8 which is Nik. You can see the info behind the curtain. Should I make a new log? Halbared (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

If you want those actioned you should file an SPI showing how you think they're similar. Izno (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring {{IPA navigation}} to its previous state? The vowels are no longer centered, and the notes and navigation links should appear inside the horizontal edges of the table above them. IIRC that's the primary reason it used table. Nardog (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rv'd for now. Nardog (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog This was the fix. What was still an issue? Izno (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that. This edit to IPA consonant chart with audio indicates something was still an issue, but we could investigate that. Re-rv'd. Nardog (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I can fix that. That was probably occurring before my change since floating items can fall out of their containers even if those containers are tables IIRC. Izno (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Andrew5 is now thanking you for not wanting your talk page protected, I think page protection is appropriate now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a user has been warned against editing in a ECR topic because they do not meet 500/30 and they then go and ask an extended-confirmed account to make edits on that topic to bypass the restriction, would that be a violation warranting arbitration enforcement? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd treat that as a violation, yes. Izno (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now, whether you just want to, as a singular admin, tell them to stop, issue an actual remedy yourself, or report to AE, is up to you. Izno (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! They were told to stop a few times before the proxy editing but I'm on the fence about an appropriate remedy. I might post at AE instead. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we object to your closure because I feel it did not receive enough participation and it is a large template with intricate syntax. It contains over twice as much code as {{Infobox neon}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I think this this TA you blocked is back in January is LeandroTelesRocha1983 (and I think there was another TA or two you blocked at the same time who also intiated RMs) but not 100% sure. It appears they are back as Mariana de moraes silveira and this TA and probably more. I don't mind filing an SPI but can you tell me if I am in ballpark? S0091 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those all hit the mark. [2] feel free to go revert those if you want. Izno (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the account in a bit to see if there's anything else. Izno (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think even with the blocks I might still file an SPI as their MO as shifted from AFC/R and Requested articles to now RMs which is even more of a time-suck for the community, unless you suggest otherwise. S0091 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The block beneath Special:Contributions/~2026-63897-7 is intended to stop the problematic behaviors, so it's more that they made an account and also Special:Contributions/~2026-96034-9 which is on a different network. Izno (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And no, please don't file a new SPI until we have new accounts named or otherwise to go with it. Izno (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Side note @S0091, all changes to RA. The subpageof filter was added recently but hasn't been advertised because it has no GUI yet. I picked off a few more issues there. Izno (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Izno! I'll bookmark that filter and keep my paws off the SPI unless there's a new account. :) S0091 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'tis indeed. Izno (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to that elsewise, I wasn't convinced that was the same user (the TA or rather its /64 may still merit a block - but a brief review of the /64 indicates no prior blocks). Anyone else can take a crack at it. Izno (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent off wiki evidence to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @331dot to have a look if they have time. S0091 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, thanks. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your off-wiki evidence got sent to a few other users too, which is why I looked. Izno (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly....interesting. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed I might not be the only one. I despise items like the one I was sent. I apologise for accepting the draft in 2014. I will not raise any objection if a valid reason is found to remove it and salt it, plus the other one referred to, 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 and 331dot: and hi Izno. I have just been through Andrew Stroup, removed much unsourced clutter and checked all the references I am able to check, flagging many as failing verification. A couple I am prevented from seeing because of the GDPR. Stroup appears to me today to be a run of the mill self promoting business person, borderline notable.

The blocked account only displays self interest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

S0091 and 331dot and hi Izno. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stroup. I've stripped out all I have found to be unverified and puffery. If I have revealed more than I should please will one of you organise redaction and suppression of the relevant parts of the nomination, replacing them if able with better words.

There it relatively little point that I can see in troubling SPI with a report. User:LeverageAI is also blocked. And the creating editor of the autobiography was in 2014 and was an SPA, not editing since. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thanks for your important contributions in finding resolutions to the challenges presented in the Archive Today discussion. It's a pleasure to watch you working to problem-solve. Risker (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There was a recent December 2025 TFD about a bunch of COVID-19 templates in which I wasn't notified and, as such, wasn't able to cast my "userfy" vote. In a newer TFD, I asked Primefac (who actually made the deletions) to userfy those for me, however, it appears we need your approval to do so. Are you alright with it? I believe there were no graph-based templates in that December batch, therefore the userfication request would be for all 28 pages. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with userfication of those. Undeletion and userfication is just a pain to do, however, at mass, so I might implore you to ask another admin for that part. Izno (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]