Wikipedia talk:Village stocks

I propose adding the following quote by Colin Lane to the article (in the same format as Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful): "If all the village idiots... left their villages... and formed their own village... OF IDIOTS... in that village... YOU would be the village idiot." Aecis^Brievenbus 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an amusing section of "thoughts to consider" like that would probably work. You know, "things to reflect on while in the stocks", but not so it seems to be actually accusing the individuals. This page is to make us laugh, but at the same time make us all stop and think about our actions. Gwinva (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this exact quote would fit the village stocks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Must have been something in the water yesterday as we had what I'm guessing is a record seven admins blocked for April foolishness involving MediaWiki space. See this AN/I thread. Perhaps a single collective entry for this event? Ronnotel (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. You would need to get them all to agree though. I agree that, although it is a rather silly moment in Wikipedian history, it should be recorded somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of things are best looked at in retrospective. Let's let it percolate for a couple three weeks and see if it still seems like a good idea. Ronnotel (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add a nomination of my own. I'll contact Tedder if others agree with this. I want to nominate Tedder for accidentally blocking ClueBot, twice. Looneyman (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seconded that's kinda funny.... :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thirded...Or whatever However, Tedder isn't the only one. Bobak also seems to have done it, look here. I'd suggest putting them both in. Kind of funny that Maxim blocked ClueBot too, even if it was for a good reason. :) Anyhoo, Bobak and Tedder definitely deserve spots on here, Tedder doubly so. Hi878 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • @Tedder and Bobak: ? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm game. --Bobak (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Some day, when this all blows over, the Arbcom mail issue with both the election preparation on an official mailing list and the disclosure of contents from that private list should probably be added. If nothing else, it may serve as a cautionary tale to those who may follow behind us. If only it had an amusing component to it. --Nouniquenames 05:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a userbox for users who are worthy of the wiki-break template, but prefer userboxes. Here it is:

More information Code, Result ...

Code	Result
{{User:CrazyMinecart88/BOOM}}	This user has totally not destroyed Wikipedia.	Usage

Close

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I was seriously gonna make aThis user got condemned to the village stocks userbox, but this is better. Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Nominating JJPMaster for the stocks for moving the AfC sandbox to the User:JJPMaster/Another very useless test page whilst testing the AfC reviewer script to see if it would accept the sandbox, per The Bushranger's idea. See . Anyone here? Pahunkat (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to write it up. I'm meh about it ... Graham87 02:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably not stocks-worthy, so I withdraw the nom - compared to things like moving AN... Pahunkat (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that I've done several stupider things than that. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

harej: I'll give you the actual edit summaries. Here they are. viewers:ok. To the stocks! (consensus achieved) Yay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: let's discuss what the award Dan100 got should be. If we keep reverting, it might turn into an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I pointed you to WP:BRD. Also please sign your comments with ~~~~ I don't understand why you want to put "block the blocker" on a "blocked Jimbo" header. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The "block the blocker" heading title doesn't make any sense to me either. Graham87 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The current header is too long and isn't funny. Nononsense101 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Perhaps not to you but it's funny to others. 2: Even if so it doesn't need replacing by something nonsensical. 3: please indent your replies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to something funnier. get it? "Jimbo wails" sounds like Jimbo Wales! If you got blocked for no reason, you would probably wail! Nononsense101 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I undid this. Please talk about things like this first, huh? Also, FWIW, the original title was quite a bit funnier than "Jimbo wails". NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. Graham87 08:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this consensus already?Nononsense101 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading WP:CON, what do you think? Might I specifically point out the line Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change, while also noting that at least three editors object to your changing the title of this 'award'. Seeing as this is your second time trying to change it and your second time being reverted, I suggest discussing any possible changes here on this page before you try to implement them. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

While looking at Drmies' block log, Vaticidalprophet noticed that Acroterion inadvertendly blocked Drmies instead of an account impersonating them. Stocks worthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrely (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I dunno ... it's relatively common ... there's even a userbox for it. Graham87 17:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I request for all Wikipedia Admins to be put in the stocks. Wikitrumpets (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Then, the Stocks would basically be a list of admins, which would be sad. It would also be too long.

Plus, we already have a list of admins. It's at WP:ADMINLIST. --littleb2009^{Have a chat?} 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If you do it, I'm going to revert your edit and put you in the stocks for attempting to put all the admins in the stocks.

As long as we have stocks, why not also have bonds? They would involve tying the victim up, or tying them to something. --Thnidu (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I wish to be put in the stocks early, so I will already have my time served. MarshallKe (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ought you not get a discount for early sufferance? Like, one hour pre-event offsets a two-hour condemnation. Best wishes! NickyMcLean (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m condemning myself to the stocks because I clicked massRollback on about 100 pages, unwittingly restoring vandalism. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Pardoned ... that mistake isn't major or spectacular enough. Graham87 04:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

for editing multiple subpages of WP:Vital articles to use Trebuchet MS, resulting in Cewbot malfunctioning and demoting 6000 vital articles. Cewbot was then indeffed, unblocked, indeffed again, unblocked again, and finally indeffed for a third time. K6ka then reverted Cewbot's bad edits (with some assistance from Tamzin and I), resulting in K6ka reaching 100 kiloedits. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Seconded/Support/Whatever is used here to show that I agree, as long as that is determined to be the actual cause (I wonder if the reason the initial fix didn't work was becuase either there were still some things that were broken or the bot was simply lagging behind) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Just wow ... so that's why there was a flurry of edits on my watchlist! Yeah this is worth putting on here once the dust is settled. I'm dealing with other things at the moment so I probably won't have the mental space to add a write-up here in the short term. Graham87 02:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In honor of Gmaxwell and Kirill Lokshin, Enterprisey and I recreated the "Conference Called" incident this year at WCNA — see right. Enjoy KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Nice job! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Enterprisey's shit-eating grin is everything──post by AbyxDev ( Talk | Contribs ) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I compiled a table of all the entries listed on this page in my sandbox, including dates derived from this page and other on-wiki information, where I noticed that this this list is skewed towards pre-2012 (which makes sense as Wikipedia was more active then), and there is a large gap between 2017 and 2022, unless I may have miscopied some dates. Are there any other times from several years ago where users accidentally messed up Wikipedia that have not been listed or brought up on this talk page that could go here (depending on whether users who did would like them on this page or not), including during that gap?

Plus, are there also any other major accidents that occurred outside of enwiki (considering one from Commons has an entry here) that could be put here as well? Xeroctic (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I just committed one the other day. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless someone is making a joke too subtle for my somewhat literalist brain, "blatant disregard of sensibility" is using the wrong noun for the disregarded quality. What is surely meant is "blatant disregard of good sense", or the somewhat clumsy "blatant disregard of sensibleness". "Sensibility" refers to the capacity or character of senses and is approximately a synonym of "sensitivity". Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

He reverted Jimbo Wales on a talk page about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. (See Special:Diff/1180643067). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's anywhere near severe enough. Graham87 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

What if the Siege Weapon Safety Fail award used the Trebuchet MS font? PineappleWizard123 (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@PineappleWizard123  Done, lol. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I confirmed EPIC early and it broke the page. Can I have that put on the Village Stocks?

Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Would this warrant a new addition to the stocks? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F94B:7F97:E195:F4CC (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Meh ... it's not as dramatic as some of the entries already there. Graham87 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll earn my place someday. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If it would've been a disallow filter, then it could have earned a spot next to Reaper Eternal's "Block ALL the edits" award. Maybe Tamzin accepts an inofficial "Log ALL the edits" award? Nobody (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

But of course. :) (P.S. I think I might actually have the record for largest intentional block of edits: A few years ago I intentionally blocked all IPv4 editing for a few minutes during a vandal-bot raid.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Filter 684 on August 2, 2023. The good old days. Nobody (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

What's filter 684? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I was perusing WP:ANI when I saw the thread about TattooedLeprechaun's blanking-and-replacing of talk pages, sending out 947 messages using a ChatGPT generated script that was seemingly shoddily made. The massive amount of edits I think puts this over the top. With the discovery of very likely sockpuppetry, it may seem a little less light-hearted compared to other entries on the stocks, but I found the thread interesting. Thoughts? --^The Robot Parade 17:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting but I wonder if the fact that that user has been blocked for these edits and sockpuppetry should prevent inclusion in the list. I say that because none of the users in this list are blocked, except for one, but that user was blocked for a reason unrelated to the village stocks entry. It does look possible that TattooedLeprechaun will be unblocked, but it doesn't look too likely to me. Ignoring the block concern, we should probably get LM's permission before inclusion per the Wikipedia:Village stocks#Nominations section. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that CU blocks - that anything contrary to the Wikipedia CoC, really - should be a reason to exclude someone from a page like this one. Something like WP:DENY seems like it ought to apply here; mistakes are OK, but breaking the rules isn't. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Trouted User:LuniZunie after they welcomed her. My thought process behind that was literally "Ooh cool button what does it do". Is that enough to get stocked?

Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 01:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it needs to be a lot more serious than that. While what they did is a little silly, it's not nearly enough to get stocked. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 02:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some standards for what gets added here. For starters, as this is intended as a humorous and not informational page, how about waiting until such a time that it's remotely possible the person it concerns can have a sense of humor about it. I went ahead and removed the name of a person who made a relatively high-profile mistake that's still causing panic and uncertainty. From the way I've seen this page linked, I think people are pointing to it because it's basically the only on-wiki summary of what happened so far, but that's not what this page is for. WP:BLP applies everywhere, folks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I see I've already been reverted. I've copied the comment above to WP:BLPN FYIs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Responding to Favifake's edit summary, the goal of this page is humor. If anyone on this page does not find their inclusion funny, that person should be removed. It's not actually meant as village stocks where we try to scold or humiliate people. I'm surprised that's not clear from the humor tag at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the section. This was not humour, this was a mean-spirited attempt to kick somebody while they're down. RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I also removed the usual garbage from the poor guy's talk page. We shouldn't be dogpiling on until we actually know the end of this. Cutlass^Ciera 20:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I now regret having posting there. It does feel like a dogpile. I left a nice message directing him to the BLPN discussion if he wants to weigh in. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, we do already know the "end of this" as the WMF confirmed it on discord (see VPT). But this discussion should continue at BLP, not here. FaviFake (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if this was mean-spirited per se, although I do feel bad for him given the timing and amount of people who were affected by this. It was obviously a good-faith mistake that led to what happened today, but it was also a significant event that has already been reported on by several notable news outlets, so if possible I do think that we should include something relating to this event on this page, even if it is vastly different from what we had before and assuming that the user in question does not object. We don't even need to mention his name if we do decide to include it later. That being said, however, I also feel like the wording we used could have been softened to respect the WMF user's feelings. I thought about changing the wording myself, but kept on running into edit conflicts so gave up. I tried to at least make sure he was aware of what was happening on this page so he could have the opportunity to take it down if he wanted, but I assume the courtesy notification I left for him on his talk page was removed (fair enough) before he could see it. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

it was also a significant event that has already been reported on by several notable news outlets, so if possible I do think that we should include something relating to this event on this page - I get this impulse, but this isn't the page where we document serious events; it's a humor page for good natured "remember the time when...". It's framed as "village stocks" as a joke -- not to humiliate anyone, but because we can laugh with the people it names. But yes, we should absolutely be documenting this somewhere. We have a wide range of other possibilities to disseminate or document important events: village pumps, signpost, etc. Someone could even document it on a dedicated projectspace page (I'd be surprised if one of these weren't started already). I don't think anyone wants to censor this information -- this page, with its humor "stocks" framing, is just the wrong page to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I do think that a lot of people laugh at their older mistakes after they've gotten over them. To make sure people are aware, I would be more than OK with re-adding it here later on once people have gotten over it, especially if the WMF user who I will not name out of respect is OK with it. There's quite a few humorous ways to write about this. I also feel like if there's a situation like this in the future, if there's a funny way we can write about it while remaining respectful at the same time then we should try to do that.Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with all of that. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying when I said "situation" above I meant serious situation. Obviously this won't apply to every stupid thing someone does onwiki (like making wildly inappropriate jokes), but within reason I see no harm in trying to get people to lighten up when things like that happen here. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The question is: Why on this page? The proper place to record serious, non-humorous incidents is at wikitech:incidents.

While I'm here, please take a moment to think about safety culture. If you want this kind of problem to not happen again, one thing you can do is treat the person who made the mistake as a valuable expert in how humans can make this mistake. After all, they know better than anyone else what could have prevented the problem, whether that's better documentation, a manager not hassling them to hurry up, a way to turn off privs in their regular account, etc. Shaming and castigating doesn't prevent future problems. Finding out how this happened (an unfounded assumption that "of course" communities wouldn't allow malicious scripts to lie around in public where anyone could run them?) could prevent a recurrence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be put back. This safety employee bungled very badly and endangered all the wikis—most of which represent an untold number of hours of work by volunteers in a very good cause. The harm could easily have extended from there to people's computers or perhaps their personal info. And what did happen required what, 2 hours of fixing? Comparable to the deletion of the main page that kicked off this page. They aren't a volunteer, nor yet a member of the public who gets a BLP written about them. I don't believe we owe them any particular slack for mucking up on a colossal scale, and that includes not giving them a veto. Yes, it's a humorous page; the segments shouldn't be hit pieces. As written, it's quite gentle given the circumstances. It doesn't call for their firing, it just treats their dangerous mistake on a par with goofs like deleting the main page. The shame of having a section here is entirely appropriate, IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The shame of having a section here is entirely appropriate But the point of this page is not shame - it's humour. The most important thing is whether or not the subject of all this is okay with being on this page. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 10:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I couldn't have said it better myself. Graham87 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course it should be restored. I mean, it's nice that we're concerned about the reputation of "the poor guy" whose actions directly caused the effective closure (however temporary) of one of the internet's top-10 most visited sites ... but that's exactly what he did. As for its "stocks-worthiness", it's a far greater magnitude of SNAFU than anything else on the page. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of this page isn't for big problems. It's for funny ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim that it can't be both? With the way this particular script was operating, embodying chaos in a rather meticulously conceived design while being, by the standards of intentionally malicious scripts, relatively harmless, together with the setup leading to its execution, I find this to be a rather amusing demonstration of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that the site was not "effectively closed" for readers, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the visitors by whose quantity you are ranking it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have concerns for his reputation, but I do have concerns for his emotions about this entire thing. It's the difference between laughing with someone and laughing at someone. We should be cautious about something like this. Even the stocks page says it's best to get the person's consent to put an incident on this page. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 11:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

What should be mentioned is entire team since I'm sure the individual discussed it with them and didn't get any pushback on this testing attempt. I don't think censoring it entirely is appropriate, this incident's causes are exactly stupid enough for this page. stjn 11:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Not listing it on a humor page ≠ censorship. Pay attention to the tag at the top of the page:

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Shortcuts WP:STOCKSWP:STOCKS WP:AAAARGHWP:AAAARGH

Are you laughing about this incident? Do you think it should not be taken seriously? If you think this is humorous and shouldn't be taken seriously, then let's talk about putting it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's possible to laugh while wincing. It's one of the ways to deal with bad news. And finding the humour in such stupid actions as deleting the main page and endangering all the wikis by essentially asking "What will happen if I push this button" is one of the good things about joking; it helps those of us who don't have a good sense of humour. No, the most important thing is not whether the person who made the stupid and dangerous mistake is okay with it being on this page. We're not monsters, nobody's suggesting writing it in a humourless, attacking fashion. And this is a backroom page (not even one many editors know about). It's less of a rebuke than the Signpost coverage is presumably going to be. But this page is for finding the humour in the worst mess-ups (and secondarily recording them as cautions). It's not Did You Know for the fools, restricted to the ones they are happy to have memorialised. Shame on the person. Record it in this lightweight fashion. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We've tried hard to keep The Signpost's writeup from coming across as a rebuke, even though the word "footgun" did come up in the Newsroom. But I can't say what the readers' comments will look like. We'll probably find out today when it gets published. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think a bunch of security researchers deciding to step on every random rake in the garden until they got a concussion from it is a pretty humorous incident that should be mentioned here. And the only reason it's not is censorious whether you like this description or not. stjn 11:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the section "Panamitsu for the Lock Yourself Out and Throw Away the Key award", which was removed in this edit by @Elli, should be restored, because Panamitsu was originally put in the stocks upon their own request. Thoughts? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, no good reason to have removed that, at least not without prior discussion. @Panamitsu: courtesy ping since technically you'd need to be re-added. Just want to make sure you're aware of it and are still OK with it. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 22:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think accidentally locking yourself out of your account is worthy of being here, even on your own request. It's something people do all the time. The fact that they weren't even locked out of their account makes it even less noteworthy. This doesn't fit into acts of extreme, mind-boggling stupidity even very broadly; it's not something that impacted anyone else on the site or that they'd even need help from someone else with resolving. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. As Elli said, they didn't even successfully lock themselves out of their own account and nobody else was involved. FaviFake (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or removed but if we're talking "The fact that they weren't even locked out of their account makes it even less noteworthy" and "it's not something that impacted anyone else on the site or that they'd even need help from someone else with resolving" then we might want to consider removing Fuhghettaboutit from the village stocks, although I find their mistake much funnier than mine. Panamitsu ✨ 22:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Elli. There are scripts dedicated to locking yourself out of your account to enforce voluntary WikiBreaks - this is basically just an accidental version of that, and had zero significant impact. ^EF₅ 23:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)