Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Unblock/unban request for 20 upper: unbanned |
|||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
== Unblock/unban request for 20 upper == |
== Unblock/unban request for 20 upper == |
||
{{atop|result=20 upper is unbanned under two conditions: |
|||
a) one-account restriction |
|||
b) this is a last-chance unblock - any further misconduct will result in an indefinite block. |
|||
— [[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]] ([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|contribs]]) 02:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
*{{User5|20 upper}} |
*{{User5|20 upper}} |
||
| Line 69: | Line 73: | ||
*'''Support conditionally''' per Eggroll97. [[User:ArvindPalaskar|ArvindPalaskar]] ([[User talk:ArvindPalaskar|talk]]) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Support conditionally''' per Eggroll97. [[User:ArvindPalaskar|ArvindPalaskar]] ([[User talk:ArvindPalaskar|talk]]) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support conditionally''' as per Eggroll97's request above and also ST7733B's request that the user understand this is a last chance reprieve. The community has a tolerance level that once breached the offender may not be able to come back from. I believe 20 upper would also benefit from some mentoring/guidance though it needs to be understood that whether they select to accept mentoring/guidance or not they, and they alone, are still responsible for their edits. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Support conditionally''' as per Eggroll97's request above and also ST7733B's request that the user understand this is a last chance reprieve. The community has a tolerance level that once breached the offender may not be able to come back from. I believe 20 upper would also benefit from some mentoring/guidance though it needs to be understood that whether they select to accept mentoring/guidance or not they, and they alone, are still responsible for their edits. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{abot}} |
|||
== Botched move needs fixing == |
== Botched move needs fixing == |
||
Revision as of 02:59, 23 December 2023
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Open tasks
| V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 17 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 5 | 17 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 20 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 53 sockpuppet investigations
- 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 0 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 12 requests for RD1 redaction
- 83 elapsed requested moves
- 1 Pages at move review
- 32 requested closures
- 94 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 31 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Unblock/unban request for 20 upper
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 20 upper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- This has been carried over from UTRS appeal #81911 pursuant to the discussion there.
- @Yamla: found no recent evidence of sock puppetry, so checkuser consideration has been cleared.
- Talk page access has been restored.
- User was WP:3X banned earlier this year, and had been blocked earlier for one year by @UtherSRG: for unsourced content, and other concerns which user has addressed in this request.
Request carried over below. (Formatting adjusted.)
- I'm writing to request the removal of my block placed on me in February 2023. Despite the fact that the block log stated that I had been barred for repeatedly adding unsourced content, there were other reasons for my blocking. I was originally blocked because I included redundant deletion requests, produced original research, tried to game the system, removed talk page notices, failed to properly cite my sources, and included copyright infringement in publications.
- I've since been studying copyright, and have devoted numerous hours to honing my skills in avoiding plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing. After using AI for several months, as well as YouTube tutorials, expert assistance, and publications, I now know enough about copyright to be able to paraphrase properly. In an attempt to see if I could create an account and make changes, I made my first sockpuppet account (Kodfounder). I had no knowledge of the sock puppetry policy at the time and naively believed it to be acceptable. After a failed attempt to request an unblock on my main account, I was furious and decided to edit using my sockpuppet. However, there was a catch: the sock account had been automatically blocked. At this point I understood that having multiple accounts while blocked was bad, but I instead issued an unblock request to deceive any administrators that this was an instance of collateral damage. The administrator who was evaluating it and who also happened to be a CheckUser was simply intrigued by this. As a result of the affirmative check, I was indefinitely blocked.
- My fury increased as a result of the block on my sockpuppet, so I went ahead and built another sockpuppet (Dancing Dollar). I edited on this account for a few months in an effort to show the community that I could be a useful editor. I then made the decision to indirectly confess to my behavior after learning about the UTRS and standard offer, and as a result, I was banned per WP:3X. I gave up trying to maintain the act and decided it was for the best.
- My sockpuppetry behavior was completely unnecessary, and only made things worse. I couldn't control my urge to edit Wikipedia. I feel awful for my sockpuppetry. I never intended for my behavior to be disruptive but failed to acknowledge the sockpuppetry policy. I humbly admit to using sockpuppets, and I have now permanently disclosed those accounts. While I was blocked, I went ahead and personally insulted some of my fellow Wikipedians (SandyGeorgia and UtherSRG), which caused access to my talk page to be suspended. My behavior was wrong, and I shouldn't have done it. My block was also brought on by a lack of understanding and communication (WP:CIR and WP:IDHT). I was incompetent to edit Wikipedia, as can be seen in the Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349#User:20 upper, because I disregarded straightforward directions, gave the impression that I hadn't read everything, and worst of all, I made no attempt to collaborate with the community.
- Since then, I've come to understand the value of the community. Since my block, I've improved my communication abilities significantly, and I truly feel competent to edit Wikipedia. I have now been gone from Wikipedia for 6 months without any sock puppetry or block evasion. In that time frame, I've been editing Wikimedia Commons. I've read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines extensively and I'm happy to respond in my own words to any inquiries the community has on policy. If unblocked, I will concentrate on undoing vandalism, general copyediting, new page patrolling, and taking part in community forums like the Village Pump. Even though there are no justifications for my conduct, I am prepared to take action in order to demonstrate to the community that I genuinely care about this project and never intended any harm. I'd like my talk page access to be restored, and this request to be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sorry for the long read.
carried over by-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- User:20 upper, you say a lot of the right things, but I can't help thinking that we couldn't believe what you said before, so why should we now? I note that you say you "couldn't control [your] urge to edit Wikipedia". Please try to control it: editing Wikipedia should be a pleasant experience, not an urge. And I also note that you say you will take part in new page patrolling. I don't think that someone with your history should be passing judgement on others' work. One last question (which you may choose not to answer for privacy reasons): how old are you? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Reply carried over-- @Phil Bridger: Regarding your initial query, I have changed my ways. In the past, I've said good things while acting inappropriately. However, I've since realized that socking is wrong, which is why I've chosen to acknowledge my actions and finally abide by the rules. Considering that I haven't socked, complied with the policies & guidelines, and edited Commons while away from Wikipedia, I believe that the block is no longer necessary. How old am I you ask, well, all I can say is that my brain has not fully developed, so yeah. 20 upper (talk) 4:46 pm, Today --carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The whole "brain development lasts until 25" is a myth, for the record. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- That just goes to show what I believe: that some teenagers are very mature and some old people are very immature. The difference is that young people almost always change faster, i.e. that the first differential is usually greater. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's not really a myth, brain development still happens into the 20s, it's just that there is no hard boundary, e.g. 25 or 24 or 26. Laurence Steinberg is quoted in the piece you linked saying "There's consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there's far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood." It should be noted, though, that "brain development" is a relative measure, not an absolute one, so a 20-year-old may not be as mature as they will become, and yet already more mature than some other people will ever be. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The whole "brain development lasts until 25" is a myth, for the record. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Reply carried over-- @Phil Bridger: Regarding your initial query, I have changed my ways. In the past, I've said good things while acting inappropriately. However, I've since realized that socking is wrong, which is why I've chosen to acknowledge my actions and finally abide by the rules. Considering that I haven't socked, complied with the policies & guidelines, and edited Commons while away from Wikipedia, I believe that the block is no longer necessary. How old am I you ask, well, all I can say is that my brain has not fully developed, so yeah. 20 upper (talk) 4:46 pm, Today --carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support conditionally Based on the ban on 3X, personal attacks made towards others, and their last socking activity being just over the usual 6 months, I'm hesitant to support at all a ban appeal, but their extensive editing history on Commons since is what tilts me over to supporting. However, given the first few problems, I'd only be able to support this on the condition that 20 upper is restricted to one account, and may be blocked without warning for any continuation of unsourced content additions. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support conditionally per EggRoll97 above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very weak support - it deeply concerns me that an editor blocked for copyright violations now "know[s] enough about copyright to be able to paraphrase properly". To me, having spent several months working with AI tools to learn how to "paraphrase properly" strikes me as learning to more covertly copy from copyrighted works, rather than learning how to write properly in their own words. We also know that LLM content generators are capable of crafting completely fabricated references to support their completely fabricated content. It would be an oppose from me, but EggRoll97's assertion that their contributions to Commons have been productive tips me into the WP:LASTCHANCE column. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Non-administrator note User:20 upper, if you want to be unblocked, you need to show the Wikipedia community that you are competent just like you are with your 700,000+ edits on commons.wikimedia.org, not only promise that you will change your behaviour. If your UTRS appeal gets accepted, this will likely be your last chance here. We, at English Wikipedia (as well as all other wikipedias), take a serious view against personal attacks. Personal attacks are very harmful towards the community and deter other users in a negative way. Also make sure you cite a reliable source when you add or change content. Furthermore, you must not use more than one account for inappropiate reasons (please also read about that). So to summarise, always stay cool while editing and do not repeat the same behaviour that caused you to be blocked. This is all so that the Wikipedia community can trust you again. ST7733B (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support conditionally per Eggroll97. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support conditionally as per Eggroll97's request above and also ST7733B's request that the user understand this is a last chance reprieve. The community has a tolerance level that once breached the offender may not be able to come back from. I believe 20 upper would also benefit from some mentoring/guidance though it needs to be understood that whether they select to accept mentoring/guidance or not they, and they alone, are still responsible for their edits. --ARoseWolf 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Botched move needs fixing
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Counter-terrorism_Police_SubdivisionPolicji&action=history where the history is. First we have one user moving something to a new mispelled title, then another "fixing this" with copypaste of the content. I RfD the mispelled title before I realized the entire history is there. Sigh. Please revert and restore under original name, as the new English name (Independent Counter-terrorism Police Subdivision) may be ORish. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- History merger and swaps (for the talk pages) done to fix up the copy-and-paste bogus "move". Independent Counter-terrorism Police Subdivision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) now has the full original history and Independent Counter-terrorism Police SubdivisionPolicji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the redirect history that is at RFD. I leave it to others to determine what the right name is. But the edit history is in one place to be moved (with the right tool) around as decided, now.
It has travelled from Samodzielny Pododdział Antyterrorystyczny Policji to Draft:Samodzielny Pododdział Antyterrorystyczny Policji to Samodzielny Pododdział Antyterrorystyczny Policji (AfD discussion) to Independent Counter-terrorism Police SubdivisionPolicji to Independent Counter-terrorism Police Subdivision so far.
Persistent unhelpful IP edits on Singapore Wikipedia pages, despite attempts to engage in dialogue
A number of IP editors have adopted a few Singapore-related pages, particularly on politicians and elections, for themselves. They edit templates arbitrarily without heeding consensus, add and remove content without sources or edit summaries (often inaccurately), and refuse to engage in talk page discussions despite their edits being commonly reverted. Because of the similar nature of their edits, which are done often on the exact same pages and consecutively, I suspect that these IPs belong to a single editor. Even if they aren't, their persistent unexplained and unhelpful edits, combined with a lack of interest in engaging in the rules of Wikipedia, make their edits troublesome, difficult to deal with, and non-constructive — I seek, for at least the first two IPs, a block on their editing abilities.
Examples:
- 121.6.221.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- refusal to engage in dialogue; see User talk:121.6.221.174
- 121.7.146.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 121.6.220.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Year-long extended-confirmed protection of Lara Trump
Lara Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello. Following discussion with Dennis Brown at his talk page, I am bringing his protection of the Lara Trump article to this noticeboard for wider review. In short, I am contesting it because extended-confirmed protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure when no disruption from autoconfirmed accounts has occurred. I would be happy with a proportionate length of semi-protection. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe Sdrqaz is acknowledging substantial disruption from non-autoconfirmed accounts, just pointing out no disruption from autoconfirmed accounts. The deleted edits from non-autoconfirmed accounts are pretty offensive. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- The protection level involves a broad range of disruptive behavior from a particularly nasty LTA. I believe the issue is that the LTA who has been posting threatening misogynistic messages about female celebrities has been known to use autoconfirmed accounts, and is particularly persistent in their abuse. An appropriate level and length of protection the subject of an ANI discussion during the last attack by the LTA a couple of weeks ago.I am not certain about the autoconfirmed disruption, and will look for the ANI thread. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#Marla Maples. I would have to look farther to find evidence of autoconfirmed accounts doing this, but the accounts would easily have become autoconfirmed with a little more persistence and restraint. See the recent editing history at Lara Trump. I think IAR is a reasonable response. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- That thread started by the very same sockmaster. It's extremely rare for CalebHughes to do vandalism with autoconfirmed accounts. In fact having blocked hundreds of his socks, I can't recall it happening once. Caleb doesn't have any particular interest in Lara Trump. He vandalises a huge range, hundreds of articles, and we really don't want to ECP them all. Brand new accounts = semi-protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't sure about whether CH had used autoconfirmed accounts. I am OK with semi. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Dropping it down to semi seems like the best course of action. For what it's worth, I tend to set random expiry dates on protections in cases like this but he'll be back no matter what we do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't sure about whether CH had used autoconfirmed accounts. I am OK with semi. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- That thread started by the very same sockmaster. It's extremely rare for CalebHughes to do vandalism with autoconfirmed accounts. In fact having blocked hundreds of his socks, I can't recall it happening once. Caleb doesn't have any particular interest in Lara Trump. He vandalises a huge range, hundreds of articles, and we really don't want to ECP them all. Brand new accounts = semi-protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ECP actually doesn't allow jumping straight from unprotected to ECP in most cases, but that rule gets broken pretty often. Not particularly a criticism of Dennis, mind you: We should either all do a better job at holding ourselves to that rule, or just get rid of it. As long as the rule is in place, though, if this is going to be ECP'd, it should be as an AE action (ARBBP or AMPOL), which is one of the four exceptions to the rule. That said, on the facts, I tend to agree with downgrading to semi. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have dropped it to semi per the consensus above. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Possible bug on Wikipedia
To begin with, I had no choice where to post my issue but here, even though I may not be in the right place. My issue regarding a welcoming message posted to new or unregistered users, particularly the one on my talk page, is that there is no space after the exclamation mark. This is situated at the first line of the concluding paragragh. Can this coding glitch be addressed?197.3.152.166 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Aaron Liu may be able to explain. (Looking at the edit summary, it appears Aaron started with a template and added modifications, so that missing space might not be in a template.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's basically why. I created a sandbox for the template at Template:W-graphical/sandbox and there's a missing space after the exclamation mark. After posting the welcome message I noticed that and fixed the sandbox, though I may have forgotten to edit your welcome message; sorry! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, you probably want to post to the Wikipedia:Help desk or maybe Wikipedia:Teahouse next time unless you need some stuff that only administrators can do :p Aaron Liu (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Dozens upon dozens of questionable redirects created by now-blocked user
Today I've discovered that Special:Contributions/JailBrokenIPODGoneWild, a user now blocked for harassment, had created dozens upon dozens of questionable redirects related to public transportation. The redirects are all from color terms to a specific transportation line or service in systems where lines are depicted with colors on maps but not referred to by color in conversation or in official operations. The problem is that these redirects have qualifiers in front of the color terms like "Dark" and "Light", when nobody speaks like that, at least not in America. Nobody will say "Take the Dark Red Line"; people just say "Take the Red Line". If a given system has multiple lines or services that share a core color with different shades, the core color title should be a disambiguation page. Example of redirects that I just turned into disambiguation pages today are Green Line (Metra) and Orange Line (Metra). Again, very few if anyone would actually use the color qualifiers in conversation and thus I'm led to conclude that these redirects are implausible. The issue is the sheer quantity of them - way too many to list at RFD. How do we proceed from here? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Holy crap. This user has created a whopping 12,000 redirects, and that's not including the 500ish additional redirects that have already been deleted. There's no way that all of those are valid. This may be a bigger issue than it seems on the surface. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Some redirects appear valid (e.g. List of countries by calling code) but the majority appear to be nonsense. I think we need community consensus to allow admins to review and delete at their discretion. GiantSnowman 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like a 13k editor that was not blocked for socking, so WP:G5 and WP:NUKE is not an option here. Their activity and the block were both over a year ago. Looks like they were on the redirect autopatrol list at the time of their blocking, so all their stuff got autopatrolled. RAL at the time of their blocking, with them on it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- (from RFD): This is, uh, not good...
The worst part is that many of the redirects look plausible, at least the most recently created ones.
I think the best way to proceed is to have a formal, community-wide discussion on Are Such Redirects Helpful or Valid, preferably at the Village Pump, and if community consensus is that they are not, and that they would be deleted at RfD, then mass-delete them as a community action. (Non-administrator comment) Cremastra (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This user has had plenty of redirects come to RfD before and I think they should probably continue to be handled that way; I fear that the mere fact of being blocked for an unrelated reason could place unwarranted scrutiny upon these redirects. While some of these redirects may be undesirable, their problems seem at a glance to generally be in the class of "implausible search term", not very harmful, rather than "targets wrong place", actively harmful. At the least, the most recent redirects are very helpful creations. J947 ‡ edits 01:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Was it unrelated? Was it for harassment at all?
It is unclear from Special:Diff/1106477198 what prompted the 2022 block by Daniel Case, or the determination that this was a trolling/harassment-only account. I haven't found any noticeboard or talk page discussion since the 2009 discussion of the creation of redirects at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#Redirects for every street in Manhattan. I haven't found a single talk page contribution from this account in 13 years, so it is perplexing what the trolling/harassment was. And the block log entry is no help.
Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like it was in response to this AIV report, which just expressed concerns about the redirects. I'd be curious to hear how people reached the conclusion that this was a vandalism-only account/troll: at a glance most of the redirects appear to be pretty clearly in good faith, whatever one might think of their usefulness. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Changes to two MediaWiki pages
Could a sysop please implement the changes proposed here? Seems to be uncontroversial and hasn't had any objections for a while. To summarize, proposed changes are:
1. To delete MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-email.
2. To move MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallow-email to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-email.
Thanks. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Did those talk pages get notified? Perhaps the folks that created those pages would want to weigh in. @Dragons flight and Primefac: –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Notice tossed on the talk pages of both MediaWiki pages as well as the talk pages of both creators, and WP:VPT. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- VPT probably wasn't necessary, and I already pinged the creators, but I suppose it doesn't hurt. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Notice tossed on the talk pages of both MediaWiki pages as well as the talk pages of both creators, and WP:VPT. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)