User talk:CoffeeCrumbs

Winter Storm Nemo

Hi! I noticed that you previously expressed an interest in seeing February 2013 nor'easter renamed to Winter Storm Nemo. You might be interested to know that there is currently an official vote regarding a move at the article's talk page. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Wikipedia:WikiProject WMF Relations

You may be interested in joining this project; it's only just starting up, but will become more active as we move into trustee election season. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I like your cool userpage. All you need, really. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not a fan of excess! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogatory

Was not aware of the limit. I like that word, which I found appropriate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's part of discovery in trials, to clarify stuff before a trial. And the limits are there to keep dudes like the editor in question from bludgeoning their adversaries with a massive coatrack! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice

Greetings, thank you for your advice of communicating with the editor more softly, which I'll try to follow.

However here we are again at the situation Talk:25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes#Russian claims, where the editor is rejecting the context of the Russian claims given by the RSs and is advocating to either leave those claims as is ("That may indeed be what the sources you used say. But that doesn't guarantee inclusion, nor balance, nor due weight"), or to add own context. Which is, in my opinion, is against WP:RS, which tells us specifically to use secondary sources, and giving context to facts is what distinguishes secondary sources from primary, and the context we should add should be not ours, but RSs. Maybe you can advice on how to communicate that, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not in expert in all the sources in this area, so I'm probably not the best one to reach out to. But if you're having issues with Alexis or another editor, I'd recommend stepping out, getting a cup of tea or whatever relieves stress, and if you still want to do some editing, look around on a fun or silly topic. Yes, getting these things right is important, but when you battle too long, it starts to get built into your mindset, and we're all better off when we avoid that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, regarding the topicban, while I don't accept using tg and Russian state-controlled media as sources, the editor is quite active in the area and can produce productive contribution if those false balance edits could be taken care of. Maybe a limit to reverts until the consensus is reached on a talk page could serve the purpose and satisfy those who want to preserve productive contributions, instead of a TB? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my feeling as well, but the continued use of Telegram is really a deal-breaker for me. Productive or not, these Telegram inclusions are raising the temperature of a part of Wikipedia that is boiling over and does a disservice to readers. I don't think there's consensus for a topic ban though; admins seem to be nope-ing out of jumping into that one one way or the other. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande discography

Hi, I noticed you left a comment on a user’s unblock request stating that their attempts to revert album sales’ inclusion on Ariana Grande discography did not seem to align with MOS or the WikiProject Albums one at WP:ALBUMSTYLE. I’ve opened an RFC for this debate and I would appreciate if possible if you could leave a comment regarding your thoughts on the matter if possible. No worries if not, thanks! Flabshoe1 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs,

I find your recent edits puzzling. For some reason, you are spending your time going to the User talk pages of blocked editors, making comments and trying to give them advice. While your activity on Wikipedia might have spanned years, you have a relatively small number of edits and I don't think you are in the position of offering advice to editors who are probably angry and frustrated. In fact, depending on your remarks, it could be seen as antagonistic or grave-dancing which, in some cases, can result in a sanction.

I recommend that you spend less time talking to editors who are blocked from participating on this project and more time improving content. Work on some articles that are of interest to you, dig up some useful references, help build the project instead of chatting with editors who've lost their right to edit here except to appeal their block. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! An admin friend of mine always bugs me to try and get me more involved in the project rather than my usual pattern of mostly being interested in the occasional governance issue. But I had seen the backlog in the requests and a lot of questions were going unanswered due to the heavy workload, so I decided I could pitch in a bit more by answering questions and clarifying matters for people who found themselves in a bit of hot water. To my surprise, it felt pretty good those times I successfully talked an editor into dropping the stick and helped them get unblocked, and I won't lie; the thanks messages for many of those replies from admins suggested to me that I was being constructive.

I certainly had no idea I was coming off as antagonistic, so since that's the perception -- and I don't doubt it given your very good reputation as an admin -- I will back off from interacting with blocked editors, and default back to my typical pattern of quiet indolence. This is the closest I've gotten to even an informal warning over the last 12 years, despite being involved in some pretty tense discussions, and I certainly don't intent to break that pattern. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs, I've found your comments on unblock appeals really helpful actually! It's good to have some non-admins who know what they're on about clarifying things for editors who are getting lost. I think non-admins have an ability to level with blocked editors that admins simply can't access, since we control the block button. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been extra careful to take Liz's advice very seriously, and trying to slow down and focus on the editors that do have a chance of being unblocked so that it doesn't come off as gravedancing, since it's not my intent. If I ever do step on any toes, by all means let me know. I'm kind of COI'ed out of the articles I'd be most helpful in by virtue of working as a journalist in those areas (I believe in being excessively careful for ethical reasons), and being a possible citation source occasionally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate any help you can give me on draft:shelbymackay. You are a rockstar to me. Thank you for exsisting and i have learned a lot from your pressence . Have a great day and no worries if ur 2 busy!!! Jacquelinelove (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnatus

lol I'm from Cincinnati. Maybe I should change my user. :D Valereee (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnatus would be a great 'nom de guerre' for an admin! OK, he may not have been all for the common man, but we have few example in history of people who, when given nearly absolute power for a specific task, happily and voluntarily relinquish it when they've accomplished the task. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs,

I noticed on User talk:TahaKahi you stated that there were 60 million articles on the English Wikipedia. While there might be 60 million pages (including talk pages, project pages, categories, etc.), there are actually only 6 million articles although it is edging up to 7 million at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, brain fart on my end added a zero! Though I think the general point I was making stands; even the worst 1% of Wikipedia articles represents an astonishing number of articles that would be a monumental project to deal with as a block. Was just trying to explain the consequences of WP:OTHERSTUFF with an example as I didn't think the other editor quite understood what people were getting at. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[Incoherent, racist text deleted]

Between the poor spelling, the repetitive nature, the lack of creativity, and the capitalization that would embarrass a seven-year-old, this scores very low, in terms of insults. There's not even a personal touch; this could have been targeted at anyone. On top of the obvious bigotry, this is lazy, and incompetent. Very poor effort. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

I appreciate you taking the time to try and better explain to blocked editors why they are blocked and what they can do to successfully unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:CT/A-A and Extended confirmed

Hey, saw your comment at ANI (which is semi-protected): looking at WP:CT/A-A it does not look like that topic is restricted to extended confirmed accounts.
Is this restriction mentioned elsewhere? – 2804:F1...48:45EA (::/32) (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That topic became so in January 2023 by WP:GS/AA, with updated language in September 2023. Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding the question! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I thought every topic was like WP:CT/A-I, where it shows all remedies in the contentious topic page itself, which made me assume there were none, just the contentious topic designation.

Thanks, that answered my question. – 2804:F1...48:45EA (::/32) (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About that Page

You know what, guess what. YOU CAN GO LOOK UP THE Name: KIRK CULBERSON 1964, AND YOU WILL SEE WHY IM DOING! CUZ YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. NOW WHOS TALKING😒. Look IT UP. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just use random pictures you find on the internet. If you're having trouble understanding Wikipedia copyright policies, you may find it a more rewarding experience to participate on the Wikipedia for your first language. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, Ok. How abt looking at all my drafts before seeing the problem. but ok. Smarter Than90 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's very hard to understand your English, so I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I speak acceptable enough French or German if you know those (I don't know what your native language is). You could also try Google Translate, which is certainly adequate enough to get the basic meaning of things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, du bist also Deutscher, oder? Ich bin Englisch. Ich verwende Google Translate Smarter Than90 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ähh, ok. Wie wäre es, wenn ich mir alle meine Entwürfe ansehe, bevor ich das Problem sehe? aber ok. Smarter Than90 (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not German. I'm just trying to find a language in which you can communicate comfortably because your English is hard to read. It's challenging to parse things like "AND YOU WILL SEE WHY IM DOING! CUZ YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. NOW WHOS TALKING" and you did not appear to understand anything said at AFC. In any case, I've spent enough time on this, so I wish you luck in whatever you're trying to do. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		there's more WP:PEACOCK than in NBC's ads for a year [1] brought an outright snort from me. Well played! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs,

I saw your message at AN and I'm so sorry to hear about your situation after so many years as an editor on the project. I hope you can find a way to recover your account. I'm not sure how this is done but I hope it's possible. All the best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz, it's greatly appreciated! It is what it is; it's likely my fault for not having as good password security as I could. Hopefully, the fact that I reported it immediately, rather than just shouting WP:COMPROMISED after the account vandalized or spammed or something will make it easier. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oof I'm so sorry to hear this. Good thing you reported this asap so the other accounts involved can also be blocked before they do anything. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request in from the stewards, we'll see what they can do to restore the account. Hopefully them or a checkuser can sort it out from the technical data. But I have a disclosed alternate just in case! ToffeeThumbs (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have a catchy name for your backup account. Bummer this happened to you though. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock Request After Password Reset Enabled by T&S

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CoffeeCrumbs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After reporting this WP:COMPROMISED account last week to WP:AN, I filed a report with Trust & Safety. My account has been restored to the previous, long-term associated email account, and I was able to log on with a temporary password and change it to a new one (which I am definitely not using anywhere but here!). I'm unsure if a checkuser is allowed to check my IP address as matching (or close to if my ISP bumped me to another one) or logs contain anything useful to help me be unblocked, but I thought I'd try a normal unblock request first. If more details are needed that require confidential information about myself or the two people from T&S I interacted with, I'm happy to do a UTRS request instead. Naturally, a CU will find my ToffeeThumbs account, which I disclosed publicly as an alternate, and which I will only use in the future if for some unknown reason I cannot access this account. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Welcome back. Spicy (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that Abhii singh 0's unblock request is written by an AI?

I find it unclear that it was written by an AI. I feel that you or another admin should either unblock them, or give them the standard offer. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 05:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like obvious AI, 100% on three different AI checkers, and you can see a massive difference between their obviously non-AI comments and the AI ones. I am not an admin, so I cannot unblock them, and if they want to invoke the standard offer, that's something that they could do after following it for six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if I had been an admin, I would not unblock them without a topic ban from castes as a requirement. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts to leave multiple questions on Teahouse

Hello there, I’m anonymous. But what if you create multiple accounts like 2+ for example and leave multiple questions on Wikipedia Teahouse? What would happen if you use a bunch of alternate or alt accounts to ask questions suggesting that they are new to Wikipedia? Will they respond positively to introduce them to Wikipedia? 2600:387:15:4915:0:0:0:5 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine on using more than one account, and asking newcomer questions on Teahouse. How would you feel about this? 2600:387:15:4915:0:0:0:5 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How I would feel about it would depend on the context of the messages themselves. If someone was purposefully making multiple accounts to just ask alternate questions on Teahouse, I would find that to be disruptive. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason though? Are they new editors on Wikipedia? 2600:387:15:4915:0:0:0:5 (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian military history case opened

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase of Indian military history extended by three days

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf

Hi dear,
I have searched a lot to find a valid content which proves the Persian Gulf has another name, but I was unsuccessful!
I need help. How can we correct the Page of Persian Gulf? Because there is no valid resource which proves this sentence:

The Persian Gulf,[a] sometimes called the Arabian Gulf,[b]...

I have talked with the user @Skitash, who persist on the name arabian gulf with no any resource. No answer since 3 Months!
This is an official historical theme, if you confirm, I kindly ask you to change it back to what it since 1000 years (at least) has been.

With warm regards
Payam A. PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PayamAvarwand has posted this message to five different user talk pages. I started writing a fairly detailed answer to the copy on my page, but I then looked at PayamAvarwand's editing history and saw the other four posts of the same message. I am therefore abandoning my half-written answer to PayamAvarwand's message about the Persian Gulf naming dispute, and instead I shall post a message to their talk page about such matters as dropping sticks and forum shopping. JBW (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, PayamAvarwand has now posted copies of a different message on the same topic to yet more user pages. I have therefore abandonned plan B, outlined above, and instead implemented plan C, which is just a two sentence warning that if they don't stop now I shall block them from editing. JBW (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the consensus, you have to convince the people who disagree with you, not fight them. I see no reason to think there's a change in the best approach from the RFC a few years ago. There has been a long contentious debate on that article, and I pretty much have no interest in stepping onto those beehives. There are far more important things to do on Wikipedia than obsessing over something being noted as sometimes being called something else. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This IP appears to be a user (Vazulvonal of Stockholm) evading block. They keep posting to this article talk page. Should these entries be removed given the circumstances? OyMosby (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send it to the SPI page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just saw it was one of the ones he made in June (I had forgotten). It could be removed since that IP was blocked for WP:EVADE, though I think I left it alone at the time since it was generally harmless. He's not a high velocity block evader and seems to only try again every few months after he stumbles onto a Stockholm IP address he hasn't yet used. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! CoconutOctopus talk 07:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! $Salvio giuliano$ 07:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! CoconutOctopus talk 07:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks guide

Hi CC, I've been putting together a how-to guide for handling unblocks. It's still mostly unfinished and not really in a state to receive comments, but I'm wondering if you have anything you'd like to share for this section in specific: User:Asilvering/Unblocks guide#Advice for non-admins. Most of that is a light rewrite of something I recently told a non-admin who had asked me about helping at unblocks, so it's totally from the admin perspective at present. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very useful section! Only suggestion that comes to mind at the moment is emphasizing to the non-admins that they're not there to act in a punitive manner, but to assist in an orderly resolution of the issue, and judgments about what should be done ought to be clearly made by the reviewing admin. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if it's horrifying or affirming that that was my blind spot. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's good that you're putting some of this stuff into a guide. There's just not a lot of info out there for non-admins helping out in this area, and I think it would be great if more community editors got involved in a productive manner where tools aren't needed. I don't think it's great for the encyclopedia or admins when a dozen or so admins end up having to be a 19th century frontier judge 24 hours a day. I would not be surprised if burnout was a big part of the reason a number of admins have lost their gavel. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Let Me Have a Turn

@Let Me Have A Turn the reason I restored your declined unblock requests is that while you are allowed to remove most things from the talk page, one of the explicit exceptions is that you may not, per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK to remove. That you turned a simple enforcement of a basic Wikipedia policy and what could have been a feasible unblock request, into having little chance of an unblock is pretty shocking. And that you turned basic housekeesping into FÙCK YOU ALL. You cant blame a guy who tried. Sigh. So I will create another account to behave myself like I always been. you will Never BLOCK me Again Meat Loaf Dumb Heads is a pretty good indication just how honest your apology was. If you act childishly on your new sockpuppet account as well, it will be caught sooner or later, and then an unblock will become even harder (and any edits you made with it will be subject to removal). There is still a pathway for you to become an editor in good standing again; I for one am not particularly bothered by elementary school-level insults targeted at me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

(Sorry if you feel barnstars are a bit naff, I can swap it for a beer or goat if preferred!)

Just wanted to say I'm continually impressed by your efforts at various talk pages etc., explaining things to confused or distressed users in a clear, calm, and courteous manner. Great job, and an example to all of us to try to emulate – keep it up! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments

I would like to let you know to please stop making hurtful personal comments about myself. It was funny. However, I took your AI comment seriously. I had no reason to start an edit war. But, it has evolved into a big discussion at this point. I never "threatened" anything. It's my choice. Not yours. I am stressed out right now. Please, don't bother me anymore. I am not a WP:FLOUNCE like you say I am. It hurts my real life feelings. I only want to make Wikipedia a better place. CostalCal (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal comments towards you. Your behavior, however, was typical WP:FLOUNCE, telling us we have to discard our policies that ensure quality content or otherwise you will leave. It's emotionally manipulative to act in this manner. This is a serious, collaborative project, and even those who are not adults are supposed to act like adults. If you'd like to stay, stay, and participate in one of the biggest experiments in humans sharing knowledge in the history of mankind. If you'd like to leave, then leave; you have agency over your decisions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in joining us...

Go over to User talk:Baangla#Mentoring and look at where we are. If you'd like to offer to mentor, say so there directly to the user. Give them an out in case they prefer not to accept your help at this time, but I suspect they'll be more receptive than 24 hours ago. Indef blocks tend to get folks' attention. Before signing it would be good if you had a brief talk chat with Baangla in which you came to some personal agreement to join. Don't take it personally if agreement doesn't work out at this moment. We're here for the long haul, not just what we may improve today. Personally, thanks for your interest. BusterD (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Banglaa has a good rapport with LordCollaboration, so I think it may be best for now to just keep track how things are going and be ready to step in an help should either of them need assistance and leave a note to that effect. This has given me some thought about joining the Adopt-a-user program as something I can do to help, however. Out in real life, mentoring young journalists is something I have been involved in for a decade, so it's the kind of relationship I have experience with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome to have your help. Don't be a stranger. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs. 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?

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

How to enable IP Reveal

Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

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

How to use Special:IPContributions
How automatic IP reveal works
How to use IP Info
How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My friend did make a mistake but I have made peace with it, and regarding my words to my friend @Spike 'em I have made peace with him and can that be extended, you are not religious if you cannot forgive someone@CoffeeCrumbs ~2025-32793-82 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you should only be editing from your account while logged in. Just because you are at peace with a mistake you made doesn't mean anyone else is, until we're confident that the problems you've created will not repeat. You are not blocked from interacting at ANI (at least not as of about 15 minutes ago), to discuss the underlying issue of the poor English you've been adding to articles. If you care about forgiveness, you'll show up using your account, and honestly and transparently deal there with your conduct issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]