No article found for “Mahyoro?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 26

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Self-outed socks

What is the best practice to deal with a user who basically implies or admits having had a previous blocked account, but there are no details or evidence other than their inadvertent slip, or purposeful assertion? Is this a 'watchful waiting' situation? Advice? Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The default when asking these types of inquiries is to link to the material so we don't provide you too much of a generalised reply. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I appreciate that, and I was trying to keep it general on purpose, to favor a general approach over nabbing one particular (unproven) self-outer as it were. However since you made a specific request for a link, the comment can be found here. (Using a diff instead of a page title for the same reason as before.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
I hear you, but it all depends on the strength of what the individual edit says. For WP:BEANS level reasons, I'm not going to explain where I would draw the line with blocking versus not. I have blocked this editor due to the strength of their own statement. Block evasion is strongly against policy, and if they want to drag that much attention to themselves right off the bat, they are going to continue to be problematic I can only assume like their first block. It's not behaviour we accept being contrary to WP:5P4. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Appreciate it, thanks. So to round things out: was bringing this case to the Talk page here the right thing to do, or should I have opened a normal SPI? Or some third option? Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
I think here or the quick CU section of SPI, both are fine. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Multi-wiki SPIs for Honduras200010

Noticing the advice about cross-wiki abuse near the top of sockpuppet investigation pages, I thought to look at the global contributions of the latest registered manifestation of long-term abuser Honduras200010 (sockpuppet investigation page), Michicoguapo, now blocked here. Well! The same account has making essentially the same edits to largely the same range of pages on Wikipedias that include Simple English, French, Portuguese, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Dutch. I wonder how many more would be found if we looked at the global contributions of the master and all their other socks. Is there an established course of action in response to a finding like this? Largoplazo (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

malformed?

I opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JacktheBrown, and it appears that because there was a previous case, the new case is marked closed? But the case page it's telling me to go to is the above linked page. Not sure what I did wrong, can anyone help? Valereee (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment on case archive talk page

Hey, I'm not familiar at all with SPI or this case but someone may want to take a look at the comment made by ALAS8388 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log · block log) on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan/Archive. Only edits this account have made are this comment and a false positive report at WP:EFFP for similar edits, so I'm concerned about potential block evasion. Thanks, echidnalives - talk - edits 10:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry involving 3 accounts

These three accounts (1)@Zubarkokar (2)@~2026-50323-1 (3)@~2026-50598-1 are confirmed involved in sockpuppetry especially the first two one is confirmed which is even accepted by the first one @Zubarkokar too in the Checkuser section. Three of this articles are involved in vandalism and changing simple India-Pakistan war related articles in https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 , https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War , https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chawinda. They are reportedly involved in vandalism in all the occasions with the last one involved in fewer occasions. A sockpuppetry investigation is reported in all these three accounts. There leader @Zubarkokar sometimes provide reasons in the summary box and most of the time do no edits summary where as the other two unlogged accounts continuously edit with no edits summary. Hope the administrators will respond The Aviation Tracker (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Zubarkokar is already blocked and neither TA has any edits. CoconutOctopus talk 13:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Ah, this appears to be an issue you're having at simple Wikipedia, which is a different project. CoconutOctopus talk 14:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @CoconutOctopus he is creating a lot of issues in between don't let him unblock and create him another sockpuppet account he is doing a lot of issues and calling anyone who is challenging his edits as sockpuppet The Aviation Tracker (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Advice for how to handle suspected LOUTSOCKING

Speaking somewhat generally right now because I don't want to make any direct accusations right now (though this is not the first time I have had a situation like this), but I need some advice on how to handle this.

If I suspect a named account to also be using a series of TAs, either as LOUTSOCKING or tag-team editing, to disruptively revert maintenance tags and removing my talk page messages, how should I handle this? Can I bring this to the attention of functionaries or CheckUsers (not sure which, my understanding is that functionaries are a wider group than CheckUsers)? Can I do this privately, or am I required to do this publicly? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Speaking less generally -- in this latest instance, all of the TAs are on the same IP network which has an active pageblock for "disruptive editing, plus either logged-out sockpuppetry or tag-team editing". The pages that it's blocked from don't seem seem directly related to where I've encountered them, so I'm not convinced enough to want to make any sort of public accusations here. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet

The user User talk:~2026-72204-4 has edited the same draft pages as the creator of the page User:Imakeflags and on 2026-72204-4’s user talk page they state the simple phrase “Hi I’m back” which is reminiscent of the Sockpuppeter User:Imbackjjj who was the one who owned the account Imakeflags. There seems to be a link, perhaps the same person. The TA created their account and immediately went to editing the Draft:List of Programs by BabyFirst which seems very strange. It seems the only people who have edited that draft page have been sockpuppets of Imbackjjj, (except for a handful of outside editors and a school IP address, which could be Imbackjjj using a different device but I cannot verify that and so won’t speak more of it). In fact on further inspection only 6 editors of the page haven’t been sockpuppets and they weren’t adding to the page (taking away useless information, putting tags, etc.)

I also suspect Special:Contributions/108.64.233.217 is a Sock, all of the socks have a special interest in children’s TV shows, especially English ones, but I cannot confirm this suspicion, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater the very best route forward is for you to file an SPI. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok I have filled out a new report into the user. Thank you for your help. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet problem at Talk:Armenia

In the past year alone, over a dozen discussion have been launched at Talk:Armenia regarding what the lead should say about where Armenia is located. As the endless repetition has gone beyond disruptive, I've proposed a moratorium at Talk:Armenia#Moratorium proposed. There, I've listed all the discussions since March 2025 with their originators, and also reference one from 2024 by the user Catperson1, who went on to become indefinitely blocked. I'm wondering to what extent any of these are a single person disruptively stirring up the same topic over and over, under different guises, and possibly the same person as Catperson1. (The last two in the list, from the section headings alone, are clearly by one person. The two from the same IPv4 address are the same address, the two from 2001:8003:: seem likely, and the two from 2a00:f3c:: seem likely.) Can somebody look into this, or should I launch an ordinary investigation? Largoplazo (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

No replies? If this is in the wrong place, please tell me where the right place is. Largoplazo (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sock of shadowfax33

Temporary accounts can not file SPI reports unfortunately. Shadowfax33 edited about Nick Fuentez and Catholicism from a political perspective. Hours after being banned, Bladerunner24 was created, with a focus on the intersection of American politics and Catholicism. Both users are semi frequent page creators, which is especially interesting for the much "less experienced" Shadowfax33 sock. And of course, Shadowfax is a fantasy horse from Lord of the Rings, where Bladerunner is a fantasy movie as well. Look at this first edit - [3], seems like a standard new editor right? Then right into lots of llm based editing, i.e. 4 linking to other wikis as sources. Then, back to writing articles about how Catholics are oppressed - [5]. They speak in a similar fashion, but seem to be using more LLM now.

@Czarking0: ~2026-10026-82 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI for others there is more info about this on my Talk page Czarking0 (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"Behavioural evidence needs evaluation"

I'm curious, who does these behavioral evidence evaluations? I'm assuming non-CU admins browse through the SPI case table and pick and choose ones they're interested in reviewing (which is understandable--this is a volunteer project after all and no one is "assigned" to do anything)... Is that how that generally works? I'm looking at the table right now, and cases such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nomian and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786 have been opened for nearly 3 months--do cases with the {{behav}} tag get closed without action after a set period of time if no admin evaluates the behavioral evidence? Some1 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Both admins (whether CUs or not) and SPI clerks do behavioural analyses. Editors who are neither of those can help out by posting in the "comments by other editors" section. SPI folks choose what to work on according to their own fancies. We do not close cases just because they "lapse". -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Some1 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick checks in case table

I just made an update to Mz7 (bot) such that it will now list open requests in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests in the main SPI case table similar to how it lists pages that transclude the {{Checkuser needed}} template. I was motivated to make this change when Tamzin observed a while ago in this edit that quick requests used to get added to the table—probably back when it was Amalthea (bot) doing it. Let me know if this adds too much clutter or is not actually desirable, and I can revert it. Mz7 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds great - but how do we close those requests? Just remove them? -- asilvering (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering: You can close them by flipping the {{SPIquick}} template to {{SPIquick|done}} or {{SPIquick|close}}. It's in the edit notice for the page. Removing the sections outright also works if the request is frivolous. Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Worth opening an SPI?

There's an AfD open for the article on Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo, which is tied to the SPI case for Nightowlanime. A brand new account has popped up arguing for notability for Lamentillo. It's certainly a single purpose account, but I don't know if that would be enough to argue for sock/meat. The prior cases were from 2023, so I suppose this will have to be checked purely by habits. I will say that this does seem to follow some of the same naming style as the other accounts, where it's a word/name followed by a four digit set of numbers.

Should this go to SPI? I feel like the account is certainly related. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been reported by now: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nightowlanime. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

SPI Case

Hey! I filed this SPI case awhile ago and got to the point where behavioral evidence needs evaluation following checkuser data. Since the user is actively editing, I would like to get this resolved as soon as possible. Link20XX (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a backlog and all I can say is that it will take as long as it takes. The technical data has suggested "not sock", so for now please proceed as though they aren't one. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Records and statistics

Do you keep track or any stats and records to do with sockpuppetry? I would be curious to see things like the most prolific sockpuppet.

It's for a thing. ~2026-24620-21 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

We do not. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry:reporting

Is this the place to report sockpuppetry? If not where do I report it? Wikbehere (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wikbehere, go to WP:SPI, type the name of the "master" into the box, and follow the instructions on the next page. -- asilvering (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
The box of the archives Wikbehere (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Would if the person is a long term abuser? Wikbehere (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
The title of this section just became super ironic.-- Ponyobons mots 19:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @Ponyo. I figured I'd circle back to this when I had a minute, but seems you beat me to it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Protocol

I just duck-blocked a new user; was umming and ahhing about whether to do that, or bring them here. They immediately appealed. What should I do now (not just in this case, but more generally in similar situations)?

  • Do nothing, just wait for the appeal to be reviewed by another admin, to see if they're seeing what I'm seeing.
  • As above, but add the {{checkuser needed}} flag to the user's talk, so that it hopefully gets reviewed by someone with the CU goggles?
  • Lay out my rationale now by filing the SPI case (rather than doing so on the blocked user's talk, presumably?) but leave the block in place.
  • File the SPI case, and meanwhile unblock pending its outcome.
  • Something else?

Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

If you tagged them, just the first one, imo. Provided the unblocks admin isn't asleep at the wheel, they'll call for CU. If you're nervous that they won't there's nothing wrong with you asking for it yourself, though. -- asilvering (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Unusual awareness of the project's work from new accounts

Should I make request if this is a newly created account with an unexpectedly good knowledge of wiki markup and specific rules, albeit with questions about the correctness of their citation, rather than a direct suspicion of a connection to another definite account? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There are people who edit Wikipedia regularly over a period of years before registering, so that would be hasty. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
And there's no way to distinguish such cases from actual circumvention of blocking or restrictions on controversial topics? Solaire the knight (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
None other than experience, and judgement, no. -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
What Asilvering said. Some of our finest and most respected editors gained experience and knowledge before registering their accounts. We would collectively be weaker as an editing community if we were to reflexively block accounts that are "too knowledgeable". Heck, I knew where all the noticeboards were and what the core policies were before I registered my account - granted, 20 years ago, but still. Risker (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I see. I just found it odd that a user who created an account after two anonymous edits (that I saw) suddenly showed a very good understanding of a number of technical aspects of the project. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you had encountered a former lurker. We're a rare bunch.
If you have your suspicions, but the editor doesn't seem to be doing anything nefarious in particular, then there's almost never any reason to suspect foul play. Worst case scenario, if they really are socking in bad faith, someone else will probably figure out specifically what they're doing later. You should look instead for more clear-cut disruptive behavior that might be consistent with LTAs, or for evidence that the editor in question is colluding with a specific other editor. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about TAs and the SPI process

Checkusers can't disclose the connection between a TA and a named account (IMO, for good reason). Does that mean that loutsocking is harder to deal with than named account socking? That feels counterintuitive to me. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

No, as CUs can still very easily block these accounts without disclosing who they are. Plus LOUTSOCKING is incredibly obvious 99 times out of 100. CoconutOctopus talk 20:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Ahhh. They perform a check, and act on the checkuser evidence, but they avoid saying in public that that is what they are doing? MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
It helps that we're all trained magicians. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about putting off-wiki proofs in SPI cases

I'm looking to file a new case that concerns a globally-banned user and I want to ask whether off-wiki proofs like social media posts are allowed to be inserted in public SPI reports? Thanks.~2026-26830-87 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

They are not. CMD (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
That's sad to hear. In fact before today User:Oshwah (who was the original blocking admin for the globally banned user) and User:JBW had already been briefed about the situation and they promised to help, although they've been acting too slowly presumably because of IRL distractions.~2026-26830-87 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
If you truly need to submit off-wiki evidence, you may do so by sending an email to the checkuser team at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Contacting an individual checkuser off-wiki (e.g. via email or IRC) like Oshwah also works. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

SPI Case Reporting

This is regarding a SPI case filed on 10 March 2025 linked to BluntIsBlunt.

  • 12 March 2025, Paradoxodarap asked daresh talk page to help him. (Previously they both have good converasations regarding articles).
  • On 21 April 2025, User:DareshMohan went to user:Jeraxmoira talk page and asked about Coi & CSD G5 articles which were created by Paradoxodarap. but jerax told daresh "dont indirectly help him in escaping the mess he has created by recreating them back".
  • Later on 10 june 2025, daresh started recreating Harshavardhan Rameshwar's g5'ed article which is created by paradoxodarap.
  • On 10 September 2025, daresh recreated Kotha Poradu which is previously created by user:Jigijigitaraka. Note - paradoxodarap stated here that Jigijigitaraka is his offline friend.
  • 2 December 2025, daresh recreated draft of Rohit–Sasi, Jayanthkumar123 moved it to mainspace, which is also created by paradoxodarap. Previously user:Jayanthkumar123 is also included in BluntIsBlunt case.
  • 10 May 2026, daresh recreated Ritesh Rana which is also created by paradoxodarap.
  • Among all these, daresh is trying to get back the COI G5'ed articles created by paradoxodarap which were 4 already on live, which is not coincidence. They both might have off wiki relation. Additional daresh goes to some user talk pages and asks helps to edit/create the articles.

~2026-28424-05 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, @Vanamonde93, @Izno, @PhilKnight, @Ponyo. ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
If you would like to open an investigation, please start an SPI report. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Asilvering,
As said by you i have filed an investigation here, Please check and lemme know if i filed correct or not.
Thankyou ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, looks fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering, Is there anything steps should i complete to the report? ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Nope. You're now just waiting for a clerk/admin to pick up the case. -- asilvering (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering Oh okay Got it, I thought you're checking the case and Analyzing the things. ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible conflict of guidelines

i) On this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) page under "How to open an investigation" is stated:

"You do not need to notify the accused editors that you have opened an investigation on them, and in most cases should not. An administrator or clerk can handle this if necessary.".

ii) On the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases) is similarly, but more strictly, stated:

"Please do not notify the suspected accounts. This tends to result in lengthy arguments on SPI pages, which will delay the resolution of the case. A clerk, admin, or checkuser can always ask the suspected accounts for their input if needed.".

iii) But, on the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance), that have a direct link to it from the actual Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{username} investigation cases at its section "Comments by other users" as (See Defending yourself against claims.), under "How to open an investigation" contrary to cases above is stated:

"Consider notifying all the users you are accusing using the template {{subst:uw-socksuspect|Case name}}. " ,

that is more likely to be read as an invitation to do so, while other two pages instead have a more or less direct recommendation to do not.

Probably at least one page contain some outdated information (likely the third one, as it also contain a link to main SPI page, that generate an error caused by a change of the target page). ~2026-28690-14 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix that last page. -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate categories?

Is there a difference between Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser and Category:SPI cases waiting for a CheckUser, or are they duplicates of each other? Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@AmandaNP, you created the "duplicate" one, so I expect you have an answer here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Appeal Process / Second Opinion?

Does a procedure exist to request a second opinion on closed investigations?

I have recently had an investigation against a user that has been operating three different accounts in a long-running edit war closed without action.

I myself personally do not agree with the clerks findings in this instance and think the findings are rather strange.

I was wondering if a procedure exists to have a second set of eyes review the investigation just to double check things over? Pax Brittanica (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pax Brittanica: while waiting for someone to roll around who actually knows this stuff, I've had a quick look and don't quite see where the problem is? There are multiple accounts, which may or may not be operated by the same individual, or possibly a group of IRL acquaintances, but where specifically are you seeing abuse of multiple accounts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
All investigations are reviewed by an SPI clerk prior to archiving. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
@Pax Brittanica: CoconutOctopus was correct to close this case in the way that they did. The evidence you present is not particularly compelling, and even if it was, there is not really a sanctionable case here. Let me expand on that latter point: DelightfullyOpposite hasn't edited in a year. There is a time gap between the TA and Archive of Crows. Even if they were all the same, it is – as CO correctly noted – [...] entirely possible they created one account, lost access, edited as a TA, then made a new account. That would not be good insofar as people are expected to disclose connections if they return to the same page with a new account, but it is also not the sort of clearly bad-faith conduct that we would go around blocking new users for. What we might do instead if such a situation was convincingly demonstrated would be to write a friendly message to the accounts in question, inquire about the connection, ask them to disclose if one does exist, and – regardless of the outcome of that conversation – probably let it go unless it happens again. That doesn't require administrative tools, and I strongly recommend you go that route the next time you encounter a situation like this. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: May I inquire as to what was wrong with my previous edit, so I can revise it to something Wikipedia-compliant? Pax Brittanica (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:OUTING. This includes personal profiles on other sites. If it hasn't been revealed by the person in question on-wiki, please don't share it. If you cannot report sockpuppetry without it, please email WP:CHECK instead of describing it here. But I can also save you some time: what you're complaining about is still, in essence, a content dispute, and we wouldn't block for that alone. That is, there is no abuse. The way for you to prevent this from happening is to have a consensus discussion about whether that website should be linked on the page or not. If consensus is against, and editors keep trying to include it anyway, we can block them for doing so, whether or not they're all the same person. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on this. I shall bear this information in mind. Pax Brittanica (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Education financing in <CountryName>

Not quite ready to open an SPI, because I can't decide if a recent flurry of articles or drafts named, 'Education financing in <CountryName>' are due to alternate accounts, or just several users honing in on the same topic for some reason. Maybe it's a popular topic, like the HDI articles about different countries, and it's legit? Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Looked at a few; the way these are written makes me think this is most likely some sort of undeclared class project. Might be worth reaching out to the editors in question and asking. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, thinking about approaches. Was running around looking for examples of it and realized the {{World topic}} navbox template is a convenient way to keep track of these:
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)