User talk:Left guide

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hi Left guide,

Following a link from WP:ANI#TA repeatedly adding original poem to article despite warnings, I was confused by this status-note. It has two separate sentences, which, taken together, could be read to be making a public connection between TA and IP. That's not supposed to be revealed, but it also doesn't appear to be what you have done, so it's not an actual info leak. Might want to edit that response with a better wording. The {{RFPP}} template has a separate way to say you're blocking an underlying IP rather than blocking an account. DMacks (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: Hi there, the note I left follows what I picked up from the example of other more established and regular admins at that noticeboard. It's pretty standard there, and as you acknowledge, it's not an actual info leak, and I'm also not seeing anything in the note forbidden by WP:TAIVDISCLOSE. If you think the criteria ought to be tightened, feel free to open a discussion at the relevant policy talk page. Regards, Left guide (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

On its face, "User(s) blocked. Underlying IP address blocked." reasonably means that you blocked the user and you blocked the IP. But given the user wasn't blocked as far as I can tell, it's more correct (regardless of whether there's a potential appearance of leak) to say:

{{RFPP|b|ip}}→ IP address(es) blocked.

rather than

{{RFPP|b|Example}}→ User(s) blocked: Example (talk · contribs).

That's why that template has that documented feature, and I'm not sure why you would want to say something that less correctly describes the action.

Regarding he leak potential, the statement could easily be interpretted that the IP is the one belonging to the user, and based on what would be plainly visible in your block-actions log would make it a disclosure. I have been chastized by arbs for making a substantially less clear statement that could still be intentionally or torturously misread if someone was looking for a reason to do so. TAIVDISCLOSURE advises, "This sometimes means that administrators need to be vague in describing their actions; for instance, if a TAIV requests that the IP underlying several TAs be blocked, the blocking admin should respond with something like "Resolved" rather than "Blocked underlying IP"."

That RFPP "ip" feature was added based on a brief discussion among several admins that raised the issue of disclosure in the RFPP-comments context. DMacks (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks for explaining. I wasn't aware of the separate IP option since it's not available or prompted in the responseHelper script I typically use, but I see how using it can be an improvement in some situations. I'll keep this in mind for future RfPPI responses, and make the extra effort where it seems helpful or necessary. Regards, Left guide (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I pinged the maintainer of responseHelper about this missing option, linking back here. DMacks (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).

Administrator changes

• MCE89
• Staraction

• Danaman5

CheckUser changes

• dbeef

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the 30-day requirement for extended-confirmed status now begins after an account's first edit instead of its registration (T431060).

Technical news

• Inactive editors can now be removed as mentors at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship automatically.
• The Suggested Edits' Revise Tone feature is now enabled. It encourages editors to identify and revise non-neutral language in articles.

Miscellaneous

• The Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is underway. Help to add references to 47,000 articles.
• The Articles for creation August 2026 backlog drive is under way. Help to review 4,500+ drafts.

---

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Thanks, but some of the credit belongs to your buddy Bagumba for teaching me many of them. ;) Left guide (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

He has enough barnstars. LOL. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: I beg to differ LOL. Left guide (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that 2026 Nepal floods was the original name of the article before it got vandalized and since then other editors had moved it to other names that had no consensus. See the empty talk page and Talk:2026 Nepal floods for reference. Borgenland (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Thanks, I was simply move-protecting to quell immediate vandalism. I'm unable to dive deeper into this at the moment, but I just posted at WP:AN which would be a more appropriate venue to discuss procedural/cleanup matters if you have further concerns. Regards. Left guide (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)