User talk:XYZ 250706

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XYZ 250706 you know how to request a draft. Creating it without attribution is disruptive. Given the concerns raised at ANI and at the AfD, I have partially blocked you from this article. You remain free to edit elsewhere, but if you continue to be disruptive you'll lose further access. Star Mississippi 14:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XYZ 250706 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC) I did not know about the rule stating that a draft cannot be created without attribution. I may have made mistakes during AfDs but I didn't vandalise the article and made any disruptive edits in the article. Therefore I am requesting to be unblocked.[reply]

Decline reason:

You know perfectly well that this was not the only concern. You know because you were told so here on this page and you deleted that comment. I have to assume this unblock request was therefore made in bad faith. Stay away from P. Shanmugam. Don't make another unblock request until you have a substantial history of trouble-free edits in unrelated subject areas. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A. Balasubramaniam (politician)

Use primary sources only for uncontroversial claims please. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira Ok sorry for that. But can I add his leadership roles in the CPIM like state secretary or central committee? XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides can you please say how controversial or uncontroversial is determined? XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PRIMARY. Any information apart from leadership roles must be supported by reliable and published third-party sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XYZ 250706 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The main concern of the partial block on the page P. Shanmugam (CPIM) was because of my creation of draft without attribution. Yes, I may have made mistakes during AfDs (bludgeoning), but I had (have) tried to rectify that. This block possibly also prevents me from using citation bot.

Decline reason:

Having reviewed this, I'm not convinced unblocking is a good idea. I'd echo what was said when your last unblock request was declined, I think a substantial history of trouble-free edits in unrelated subject area would make your case more compelling. There are still nearly seven million pages you are not blocked from editing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, you were blocked because you were disruptive at the AfD and elsewhere. I told you I wouldn't give you the draft but another admin might and instead of following process, you end ran it. Nothing you have shown indicates you're ready to edit this article without even more disruption. I will not decline, but I do not recommend accepting. You can edit literally every other page of the project. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I'm trying to make sure I understand what went on here before accepting or declining this. I can see the bludgeoning at the AFD easily enough, what with all the unnecessary bolding, I take it that this user asked you to restore it as a draft, you declined to do so because you didn't trust them to handle it responsibly, and they recreated it by apparently copy-pasting a cached version of it from somewhere? Is that about right? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct @Beeblebrox.

Note I will try not to bludgeon and here's the ANI. They do not appear to respect consensus or listen to feedback. The draft is now back in mainspace thanks to the work of two other editors and I don't think XYZ editing it will be productive. As with the draft should they have gone to Refund, I have no objection should you choose to unblock. Star Mississippi 22:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I also don't think I have to edit the page as per the current condition of the page. But I also cannot use citation bot as it blocks me from using it to other pages. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging @Smith609 as the maintainer for their insight here. Star Mississippi 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually, they appear inactive. @AManWithNoPlan, @Folly Mox might you have any insight here? The user is p-blocked from one page and says they cannot use Citation bot. Star Mississippi 02:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) It could be that OAuth is – just like with TWL – unable or unwilling to differentiate between a partial block and a full block. XYZ 250706, can you use the Citation expander gadget? Documentation indicates that method of invoking Citation bot does not require OAuth authentication. AManWithNoPlan is likely to have better information. I've never actually dipped my toes into the Citation bot codebase.

Everyone please double check all citation scripts for accuracy and completeness. Folly Mox (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox I cannot find the tool in the right side. I can find some other tools like page information, what links here. But I cannot find any option like expand citations [I can find shortening URLs, is that the same thing?]. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unrelated per below, but have you enable[d] the Citation expander gadget in the gadgets tab of your preferences panel per the instructions? It's not enabled by default (and different to Special:URLShortener) Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ 250706, why do you need to use the citationbot (whatever that is)? Why can you not just complete citation templates manually like I do?

My impression is that bot editing tools often (but not always) make errors completing citation templates, for example: |last1=info medias |first1=the when it should have said ||last1=Sharma |first1=Deepak.^{correction made here.} You do not need citationbot; you will probably become a better Wikipedia editor if you never know it exists.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot saves a lot of time. If there is any error, I can change it manually. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks will now be ignored by the bot. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan Yes, partial blocks are now ignored by citation bot. But it is not working now. I tried Next Bangladeshi general election. But on the top it shows Processing page 'Next Bangladeshi general election' — edit—history and I can see that no change has been taken place. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way related to the p-block; it’s an issue with citation bot. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That issue with those urls and the page are now fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, reFill does some urls that the bot does not. It also will merge duplicate references into things like <ref name=auto/>, which is aweseome. BUT, it sometimes completely hoses that job up and deletes refs. Also, it is less picky about data quality and sometimes will add titles such as "Girls girls girls!!!" to hyjacked domains. Lastly, it "updates" URLS which is often really good, but sometimes horrible. So, double-check all edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ReFill AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited R. Arun Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brahmapur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]