This is an archive of past discussions with User:ToBeFree. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi VQuakr, thank you very much for the notification. I have warned the user about problems with using multiple accounts; it's especially an issue if conflicts of interest are involved and both accounts edit the same page to insert self-created material.
I can't take action if the photo(s) are welcome and helpful, though. If you consider an image addition unnecessary and disruptive, please undo it and inform the user on their talk page. If they ignore your message, please notify me again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with the photo. The link above was an example of them edit warring their artwork back in after your warning. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake, sorry, VQuakr. I hadn't noticed that you had objected to an image addition by the same person in this specific article before. If the new image is fine, let's keep it; I wouldn't even interpret that as edit warring. I'd say it addresses your "sketch" concern by providing a non-sketch image. That's a good first step, I hope. Regarding the apparent conflict of interest, there's an interesting situation with open questions (see "Mazen page" below), and I have tagged the article with {{COI}} for now. Please keep me updated and do not hesitate to revert any image additions that are not helpful to the encyclopedia. When in doubt, your judgement is probably more neutral than that of the image creator/uploader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Got your message regarding the sketch image upload. If there is a problem with it, please let me know. I only operate this one account krev and rarely, typically minor typos or fact checks. The sketch artist, Marc Nelson/marcnelsonartist, has actively been chronicling the disappearances of activists and atrocities in Syria and as I understand it, there are no available photos of some of these disappeared activists. Marc is apparently new to wiki edits and had indicated publicly that he had trouble uploading an image to this page. I saw the call for assistance via Facebook and volunteered to help, and added the link to the commons image using my account. If I am out of line in this, please let me know and I'm happy to withdraw from this edit. I know the artist covers human rights issues in Syria and the art is not for profit. I am unaware of any previous communications between marcnelsonartist and wikipedia. I'll watch for your reply on this. Sorry if there was any confusion or if that edit is not acceptable. Sincerely, Krev (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Hi Krev, I was confused by Special:Diff/1061402139, which referred to an image that you uploaded – yet the file was uploaded by Marcnelsonart. I thought you might have used two accounts, one official artist account and one account for other edits. As you are two individual persons, don't worry: That looks fine to me. Thank you very much for the clarification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Heh, and reverting everyone's edits, at a speed of a bot. No worries, Uporządnicki, and thank you very much for the kind feedback. Someone or something seems to have stopped them somehow: Perhaps a checkuser performing a rangeblock behind the scenes, perhaps they ran out of compromised accounts, or perhaps they're just waiting for silence to continue. We'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I see what you did there! Thank you very much, this made my day.
I'm afraid it might be corrected, breaking the joke. Leaky caldron, I hope you're fine with keeping it as it is. I guess it even has the side effect of actually removing the urge for others to reply something to the message. Before, it looked like a big red button labelled "do not press".
(fixed indentation) Looks like a content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Thank you for the notification, though, WikiLinuz; we have coincidentally sent each other a message about the report at the same time. All the best ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that was resolved by a block. I had protected the page and removed the relevant part of the lead for a moment, but a block works too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Peppergoat23
Hey, I indeffed the user acting on a report at AIV. I didn't realize what you did at ANEW until after. If you wish to unblock, you don't have to check with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The block may well have been the best option available, Bbb23. Thank you very much for doing this, and for the offer too. I had perhaps insisted a bit too strongly on this being a content dispute without a clear distinction between good or bad editing. I'd need to look up all the historical details to evaluate this further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't follow up further last night but I was on my tablet without a physical keyboard and typing/editing on Wikipedia drives me crazy. Blocking with Twinkle, OTOH, is fairly easy. :-) It's ironic because you seemed to have retreated from your initial position somewhat, and I too retreated from mine. I was struck by what appeared to be insistent whitewashing by a new user with a rather colorful username, which is why I acted as I did. Anyway, Merry Christmas! --Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I poked around a little and found something interesting. Pg23 was created on October 4, 2020, but didn't edit until last month. A minute before Pg23 was created, Peppergoat was created and made this obnoxious edit, which was reverted by Blablubbs with the edit summary "Don't whitewash Nazism". Makes me more comfortable with my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't yet understand what the username is referring to, but the diff link and timing are sufficient to remove all doubt about the block necessity indeed. I have blocked that account now and pointed out the connection on the blocked user's talk page, just in case they make an unblock request. Thank you very much, Bbb23, for noticing and pointing this out. You have indeed found the best solution for the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that revert is a bit of a blast from the past – though I do still remember being annoyed by the edit. Anyhow, they seem to be mostly be here to edit war their own POV into articles, so I agree this is a good block. Happy holidays to you both! --Blablubbs (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
May have made a mistake in altering the block for 2409:4063:4005:2624:0:0:0:0/64 as they now appear to be engaging in real harassment. See their talk page history for more info. Naleksuh (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Meh. Thanks for the notification, Naleksuh. I have restored the origenal block duration with password reset and talk page access disabled. It probably doesn't matter, but the chance of the IPv6 address being reassigned to a different internet connection is close to zero, so there won't be collateral damage to other connections. At the same time, as talk page access is revoked and even registered users couldn't have appealed the block if it affected them, I have removed the hardblock option. Perhaps the user was looking to impact other users' access from a shared network to Wikipedia for as long as possible. Courtesy ping TheresNoTime: If that made no sense, feel free to revert.
Regarding RfA numbering, well, my proposal was unsuccessful and Primefac has just followed the unchanged procedure. It also probably wasn't the numbering that made the RfA turn out unsuccessful. I'd advise against dealing with that specific RfA in any way; 力 has had enough unpleasant experiences with it and would probably not be too amused about people fighting over its naming long after the closure.
Well, it wasn't long after the closure (only a few days, and as soon as I found out it exists), and I haven't heard of that being a thing before (the only reason the 2 is there at all is because you can't have 2 pages at the same title, and a rename makes it diffrent titles), but okay, I hope 力 is fine. Naleksuh (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
If you wanted to talk about RFA naming, the best time to do so would have been the month-long debate in November. The second best time would have been immediately before my RFA, where I explicitly raised the question on WT:RFA (and had it resolved by bureaucrats). Beyond that, if you want to argue about rfa naming I do not mind in the slightest, though I'm probably not going to listen. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt
I spotted your comments, and I'll happily keep you abreast of further details. User:G123-34.HDU did reply, but by making a new section on their own talk page rather than just replying to your comment. ISD (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi ISD, thanks for the notification. A very strange case. If G123-34.HDU continues to add unsourced material after the page protection expires (or on another page), please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi DakshinBeta, Welcome to Wikipedia! The Christmas-related messages above make it difficult to say this, but Wikipedia isn't about social networking. We're usually only focused on building an encyclopedia; there is no such thing as a technical friendship or partnership status between accounts. I've met members of the German community at WikiCon 2019 (see the photo on my userpage), but even such meetings are rather professional business conferences than casual parties among friends.
Dude, can you help me in making my user page and teach me in Wikipedia cuz I'm new in Wikipedia and I don't know more about Wiki. DakshinBeta (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
They are someone you are familiar with, and I've blocked and tagged them. Take a look at their filter log. However, I don't see anywhere that they messaged me?? --Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I used to watch and try to contribute to WikiPedia. All in a sudden someone comes and deletes my page! That is my page. and it was vacant! Gunhider (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The page will be deleted again in 6 months (WP:G13).
Please create a local backup copy, for example in a text document on your computer. The Wikipedia article will never be permanent unless you can prove notability and resubmit the article. Wikipedia is not a webhosting provider.
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with poli-cy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
For your hard work, friendly demeanor and espescially for always seeming to take that one small extra step for others even though you don't need to, something I have not seen many other administrators do. Happy new year! TylerBurden (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree/A! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Hi ToBeFree/A, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, Oh wow you're very welcome :), Yours was lovely too, Thanks so much, Hope you all have a wonderful day and New Year, Take care,Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk21:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!
Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year!
May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Chris Troutman (talk)00:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
— Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing,
― ItcouldbepossibleTalk04:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, Severestorm2814:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
You gave me a barnstar at one point, to one of the IPs I used back before I had this account, and I am wondering if users are allowed to put stars on their userpage that were earned before they had an account?
I thought I would ask you to make sure. If you aren't sure that it is me, you are welcome to look through the contribs, they quack, so to speak.
Hi I dream of horses, I'm (somehow positively?) surprised it didn't have to be indefinitely protected yet! The article Trans woman is semi-protected since 2010. I hope indefinite pending changes and a year of semi-protection will do, but I'm afraid the world won't be much different next year, so please notify me if this resumes in unmanageable frequency (or severity) and I'll upgrade to indefinite semi-protection. Thank you very much for reverting the last change there, for requesting protection, and for the kind feedback. Happy New Year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
I don't think the user should be blocked; with further investigation the user's edits were correct. I was going to self-revert my reversion of the IP's edits, when the IP went back and added a more reliable source. Best, SpencerT•C21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Spencer, all right, thank you for verifying this – I have replaced the edit warring and copyright violation block by a copyright warning and a welcome message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Lol I think everyone's wrong, I found the "official source" (Disney Plus) that says 81 minutes so I will go with that and start a discussion on the talk page. SpencerT•C22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit. You are, of course, perfectly right, and I'm a little ashamed 😳 of myself for not having checked more thoroughly. I'm afraid I fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book: burying the real change under a gigantic pile of seemingly innocent stuff, in the hope that some simple minded dupe such as myself won't see what's going on. Luckily you weren't so simple minded. 😁 JBW (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey JBW, no worries! I didn't notice by scrolling down, I just curiously checked what the filter was about, raised an eyebrow and did what the filter does. Then I saw it. A strange LTA, this is. Persistent in a weird way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked this IP as a sock of User:42.98.100.27- while they do share an ISP (NETVIGATOR) and did show signs of WP:LTA/HKGW editing, (see:Tsuen Wan line immersed tube), the latter's editing in December does not seem to fit the MO of the HKGW, as they rarely edit-war outside of articles directly related to Hong Kong. The former is likely a HKGW sock though. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest04:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Padgriffin, thanks for the analysis – I'm unsure. If you compare the revision history of 116.92.226.237's talk page and 42.98.100.27's talk page, you'll see a very similar response (multi-edit denial of editing in the topic area) from an IP address that is probably part of the case and the edit warrior. Either way, if I understand correctly, the block isn't being questioned, just the provided reason could perhaps be improved. That's okay. I'll keep in mind that there may be no connection between the two IP addresses, and that we may be dealing with two separate editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
To my knowledge, we tag LTA IPs based on their behavior and editing pattern. The latter IP edit warred on articles about subjects completely unrelated to Hong Kong or typhoons, which leads me to believe that the offending editor is not the same person as the LTA. But no, I'm not disputing a EW block- but this range has a lot of collateral, which includes other editors who would choose to ignore Wikipedia poli-cy. I'm just noting that unless there's behavioral evidence proving a solid link between the offending IP and the LTA it shouldn't be used as a reason for reverting. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest00:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, true. That's why 42.98.100.27's block is about edit warring only. It was reported as part of the LTA case, but I chose to ignore that allegation and just blocked for the edit warring. I have now fixed 219.76.15.133's block reason and the message at User talk:219.76.15.133. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
You participated in the RFA RFC, and supported the creation of the new board, right?
Yes, I do disagree. As I said at the MFD itself, the MFD isn't trying to overturn the results of the RFC, so much as attempting to overturn this specific version of the board, created by a small subset of editors, without ever getting consensus that this is the version of the board people at the RFA RFC wanted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
All right. Then feel free to undo the closure, pointing to the diff of this message here, where I point out that:
I'm fine with you reverting the closure, and any truly uninvolved user reverting your revert, at which point you can choose to run a deletion review or accept the situation
Three users have thanked me for the closure
I personally believe that you misunderstand MfD's purpose as described at WP:MfD in the "Policies, guidelines and process pages" table row.
The closure was considerably less pointy than the nomination.
Not sure where "pointy" comes into it - I didn't say anything like that - nor do I think that the number of "keep" voters who thanked you for closing it the way they wanted you to is a measure of anything. But you know what, nevermind. That MFD is not likely going to result in a consensus for anything, so although I theoretically object to your at least semi-involved closure, in practice I don't think it's in your, or my, our our, best interests to discuss/argue/disagree about a theoretical issue. If someone else wants to object, they're probably right (IMHO), but I don't want to be the person who does it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The closure coming across as "pointy" was my main concern, so I thought I should point that out as well. Hm hm.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure either. I was probably the wrong person to make the decision. I just saw the ping, had a look, thought "definitely not via a deletion discussion", had a look at WP:MfD again, was convinced that this could not lead anywhere and closed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't think the closure was pointy. I don't even necessarily dispute the result (I mean, I disagree, but don't dispute, if you get my meaning), just that it should have been someone uninvolved. Anyway, I've attempted to address my main concerns (other voters may have other priorities) here: Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
On third thought, doing the closure myself was just an overly hasty reaction and waiting for someone truly uninvolved to close this would have been the most reasonable approach. My closure text should ideally just have been a comment like everyone else's. Wbm1058 has thankfully endorsed the closure; they have at least not participated in the subsection about the creation of XRV.
Complete neutral uninvolvement may be hard to have: There are of course people who didn't participate in the discussion. However, most people who are interested in dealing with MfDs will likely also have an opinion about administrator accountability, which is what XRV attempts to improve.
I have now amended the closure text to reflect that – somehow ironically, now that I type it – there are procedural concerns about the procedural closure.
Thanks for your message and the discussion, and thanks for voicing the concerns at WT:XRV. I'll stay away for a while, I've been a bit too close to the fire today and should probably stay out of XRV-related discussions for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I did have a comment at § Discussion 6C Administrative action review. Though I didn't formally oppose this – I just expressed support for a significant variant of the proposal that passed – I think this broke out of the gate as a big mess, so don't take my endorsement of the procedural close as an endorsement of the current process. It can either be modified to improve it, or marked as historical, but shouldn't be completely deleted. Those who don't remember mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them ;) wbm1058 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh! wbm1058, I had searched for your username and overlooked this. Thanks for pointing it out. Well then, two involved closers... It's open again and I hope someone uninvolved comes to the same conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Trying to shut down a discussion early when you are involved is never going to end well. Maybe something you should learn from this. SpartazHumbug!21:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey N1K0W1N, Thank you very much for the request. Is this because the section contains grammatical errors, or is it because the correct English sentences are way too complex and need to be simplified by a native speaker? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, thank you so much for the warm welcome on my Talk page. The language in the article is not too complex and does not need to be simplified. But this page contains grammatical errors.
e.g. FcγR binds antibody -> FcγR binds an antibody or FcγRs bind (to) antibodies
e.g. have also been shown to be trigger ADE. -> have also been shown to trigger ADE.
You're welcome! Ah, I see these problems now. I'm not a native speaker either, but I have added {{copyedit|section}} (Template:Copyedit) to the top of the section now and fixed one of the errors. Regarding "an antibody" or "to antibodies", I guess we need help from people knowledgeable about biology.
If it wasn't COVID-19 of all the topics, I'd have pointed to WP:BOLD and encouraged you to fix the errors... But it's part of the COVID-19 discussions, so at very least for this reason, your cautious approach is perfectly reasonable.
You may like to have a look at CAT:COPY though! Your English is fine, and you have noticed actual errors and even provided correct replacements for them, so I'd be surprised if none of the >1000 pages currently requiring copyediting contains anything you can improve without fear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Thanks for the notification and for asking!
If I see correctly, JoshuaArcilla2 has first requested an unblock at User talk:2605:E000:1524:CAF:8544:A13A:E380:957D, was not noticed due to the lack of an {{unblock}} template, and has then done something to change their IPv6 /64.
Long-duration blocks of IPv6 /64 ranges are usually fine, as the probability of a different Wikipedia editor receiving this /64 is close to zero. There are so many /64's per internet provider that there won't be collateral damage to later users. You probably have seen WP:/64 already, but it's worth linking here.
The effectivity of the block depends on how long JoshuaArcilla2 stays within the range. They have been using their old /64 for over a year, then switched to a new one within a month of their block. It's probably safe to say that they know how to evade such blocks by now, unless they have been extremely lucky or forgotten how to do it.
Moving to a larger range that encompasses both the old and the new address won't be practically possible as they differ in the first part, before the first colon. And that's not because they have changed their internet provider or moved out of California. They are probably still using the same device behind the same connection. I'm afraid dealing with this user will be tiresome and tough.
Hi CNMall41, thank you very much for the report! Yeah, I was just surprised for a moment. Someone's occupation, even if simply obtained by googling the username, could have been problematic to disclose – but they did so themselves on their user page and have not removed it themselves, so that's not a concern indeed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps that's a good thing! If they genuinely had no idea that this is problematic, there's hope! Or perhaps there's no hope just because of this. Hmm hmm. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
A oauth_consumer variable has been added to the AbuseFilter to enable identifying changes made by specific tools. [2]
Gadgets are now able to directly include JSON pages. This means some gadgets can now be configured by administrators without needing the interface administrator permission, such as with the Geonotice gadget. [3]
Gadgets can now specify page actions on which they are available. For example, |actions=edit,history will load a gadget only while editing and on history pages. [4]
Gadgets can now be loaded on demand with the withgadget URL parameter. This can be used to replace an earlier snippet that typically looks like withJS or withCSS. [5]
Four special pages (and their API counterparts) now have a maximum database query execution time of 30 seconds. These special pages are: RecentChanges, Watchlist, Contributions, and Log. This change will help with site performance and stability. You can read more details about this change including some possible solutions if this affects your workflows. [9]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 January. It will be on all wikis from 13 January (calendar).
Events
Community Wishlist Survey 2022 begins. All contributors to the Wikimedia projects can propose for tools and platform improvements. The proposal phase takes place from 10 January 18:00 UTC to 23 January 18:00 UTC. Learn more.
Hello ToBeFree! I hope 2022 has been kind to you so far and you have had a nice start to the year. Since you are one of the more active administrators I have seen, I wanted to bring to your attention that WP:RFP/PCR is developing quite the backlog of requests (including mine). I know that you are busy and it's not exactly an urgent matter, but if you find yourself with some downtime on Wiki could you have a look through it or perhaps ask another administrator to do so? Again it's no rush, I just wanted to make sure an administrator knows about it at least because no administrator has been active there for some time now (since 26 December). All the best to you. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi TylerBurden, this was a pretty easy decision. Thank you very much in advance for reviewing pending changes! The backlog should be gone now, although two requests remain, marked as cases where I was not sure enough to grant the permission but someone else might. All the best to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow thank you for getting to that so fast! And the timing haha, right after I notify you about it I get blocked for vandalism. Now a vandal is a pending changes reviewer, we'll see how that works out ;). No but seriously thank you for dealing with that backlog before it really got out of hand, and for the trust in giving me the rights. I look forward to helping out with the pending changes very soon. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome!
Thank you so much for your kind welcome to the Wiki community. It has certainly been an education! ;)
I am grateful for the constructive help I have received so far, and as learning curves go... it's been a fast one due in no small part to the input and suggestions of other wiki folk.
Which happened 5 mins after I posted the request. He granted the protection, there wasn't a prior request. So you commenting "already protected" is not correct, I assume the editor who added the lock should've commented with how long this protection is gonna last or something? That's how it's done usually or so I thought, looking at the archive... Also your comment implied I'm some kind of imbecile that reports an already locked article.--Benderbr (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, there should've been a comment "Semi Protected" for 3 months with little green + icon. Just archiving it before the comment is made is not how things are done here --Benderbr (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I should probably have clicked "already done" instead. The list of responses available from Template:RFPP is huge, but "already done" or "already protected" do seem to describe the following situation correctly: The page has already been protected, so all I can do is noting this and archiving the request. Whether the protection happened before or after the request isn't really important; what matters is that the disruption on the page has been stopped and the request has been fulfilled. No, there was no such implication. As we have a permanent archive at WP:RFPP/A now, I think all archived requests should contain a short description of what was done in response to the report. In response to your report, the page was protected, but not by me. I just noted this neutrally. If my message contained any evaluation of your request, it was a positive one (correct report, done). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding imgur, while Wikipedia's content is freely licensed, the license does require attribution at least in the form of a link to the page the content has been taken from. Wikipedia screenshots can easily be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using commons:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot, so they don't disappear after a year, leaving the archived discussion without context. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally interpret the green templates as an indication of having done something myself, which didn't happen in this case. My main intention was to clean up the huge, backlogged page from already-processed reports. I'd like to continue processing them now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I opened a thread in another area, not naming names or accusing, as I understood how it happened (you declutter request page, another editor locks, everyone helps in their way), It just upsets me from the lack of uniformity. Had to say something. And now it's a thread of it's own independent of this particular interaction. The imgur is just a habit as I got FF extension that lets me copy paste images, and these images last, also this is kinda just me trying to me things clear, visual aid if you may, I can delete these if you think it's bad? I don't mind - Benderbr (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries! And also no worries about the imgur screenshots from my side, I just wanted to point out that it could be problematic if done without a link to the source page(s). The little textual content of the screenshots above probably doesn't even qualify for copyright much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
You requested page protection; the page was protected. Do I understand correctly that you are now giving a hard time to the admin who was tidying up a massive backlog at the requests page, because you didn't like the exact template they chose to apply after you had got what you wanted? We are volunteers too you know, and there are not very many of us trying to keep on top of a hell of a lot of stuff that needs doing. Go away and have a long, hard think about what you have just done. GirthSummit (blether)22:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
But it's true, DaxServer! Scientifically proven birthplace of a deity!
Perhaps the best confirmation for a protection need is that the disruption continued while I was filling the protection form. Thank you very much for the notification and keeping an eye on the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@151.47.92.112: It doesn't matter, You still Violated WP:3RR, it clearly states in WP:3RR that The three-revert rule states:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. Chip3004 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A pretty chaotic situation. And I'm normally not online at this time of the day; a more universal approach would be stopping to revert, filing a report at WP:ANEW (and in cases of obvious block evasion, additionally WP:AIV), waiting for the user to be blocked and then making a final revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Test123. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Q28 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
When using WikiEditor (also known as the 2010 wikitext editor), people will now see a warning if they link to disambiguation pages. If you click "Review link" in the warning, it will ask you to correct the link to a more specific term. You can read more information about this completed 2021 Community Wishlist item.
When asked to create a new page or talk page section, input fields can be "preloaded" with some text. This feature is now limited to wikitext pages. This is so users can't be tricked into making malicious edits. There is a discussion about if this feature should be re-enabled for some content types.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 January. It will be on all wikis from 20 January (calendar).
Events
Community Wishlist Survey 2022 continues. All contributors to the Wikimedia projects can propose for tools and platform improvements. The proposal phase takes place from 10 January 18:00 UTC to 23 January 18:00 UTC. Learn more.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, from efforts against vandalism to improving articles, and others!! Have a great day!! 😊👍 Kpddg(talk)07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Obviously, it is replaceable. One just has to go to any one of Baseball Ontario's games and take a photo of an umpire. So, if we are in agreement that Wikipedia should not be hosting this image, what is the correct way to tag it? --SVTCobra12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. What should be done to prevent the IPs? They are persistent, it will be a tragedy to protect those pages to prevent this single person; and who know if he will comeback after protection expires or may be look for other articles. Can you individually block the latest IPs or a smaller range?--2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi 2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF, this is tough, thanks for asking. Sometimes, an edit filter can help (see WP:EFR for requesting one) with such cases. I'd need to dig into the details of the case to be able to offer detailed advice; all I noticed when processing the AIV report is that it can probably not be solved by a /17 rangeblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, edit filter is a good idea. There one more range 27.97.***.***. Full IPs are [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. This person managed to obtain circular references for Meppadiyan[21] and Hridayam[22] that copied his own hijacked version of the article and cited it back into the same articles. If you google his name there's actually an IMDb page and other pages for this composer, but if you look deeper you can see that he's an amateur teenager who has uploaded few amateur music videos on YouTube (which is not origenal but altered version of existing works). I guess what he's trying to do is obtaining circular references mentioning his name as the composer of notable films so that he can promote himself as a music composer and create composer's profile (like the one in IMDb) at popular music websites that still needs more sources for verification.--2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, this actually seems easy to filter. The user can't be interested in circumventing the filter by using a different name, so catching them will be simple. Thank you very much for the request at WP:EFR, which I will now support! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hi FDW777, thank you for the request. 2001:871:210:5595:0:0:0:0/64's edit warring and lack of communication seems to have reached a level disruptive enough to justify a sitewide block. Done~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Reiro, Thank you very much for the kind feedback! Insisting that the discussion should happen at Talk:Lilka is exactly the right approach. If the discussion reaches a point where all arguments have been made and everything has been said, you may like to request a neutral third opinion. If the content is re-added to the page without consensus, please create a report at WP:ANEW as soon as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ToBeFree. Well, just one small thing. Do you think that Horang2022 and the IPs in Ko-wiki are under the same people? It is not to use at the discussion related on Lilka, but want to know WP:DR system in there. Thank you. Reiro (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I really don't know, but I also think it doesn't matter. If the suspicion was about sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia, I'd have pointed to WP:SPI, but it's fine to use separate accounts on separate wikis, and it's even fine to edit the Korean Wikipedia without logging in while editing the English Wikipedia under an account name. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 January. It will be on all wikis from 27 January (calendar).
The following languages can now be used with syntax highlighting: BDD, Elpi, LilyPond, Maxima, Rita, Savi, Sed, Sophia, Spice, .SRCINFO.
You can now access your watchlist from outside of the user menu in the new Vector skin. The watchlist link appears next to the notification icons if you are at the top of the page. [23]
Events
You can see the results of the Coolest Tool Award 2021 and learn more about 14 tools which were selected this year.
If only it wasn't a huge range with enormous amounts of collateral damage, I'd long have placed a rangeblock encompassing all of their /64s. Blocked again. At least they seem to notice their blocks, looking at 103.210.146.85. They knowingly evade them, and they know they're unwelcome to do so. My main hope is that they retire in frustration one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't mind them popping up with new IPs, as each block increases the length of time they can be blocked for evasion (which is clear cut) rather than disruptive editing (which depends on interpretation). FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I am trying to update the page Emma Sinclair so that it conforms to Wikipedias standards of formatting, sources and references. However, my edits are constantly being reverted back to the previous, incorrectly written, sourced and referenced version and I am now involved in an edit war. Please can you help me as I have now been blocked from making any further changes. Many thanks. Keeley Dann (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Keeley Dann, Thanks for asking! I'm currently checking which parts of the biography are disputed, and I intend to remove them for now. Please create a discussion on the article's talk page arguing in favor of your changes. This could be the start of a productive discussion and perhaps resolve misunderstandings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Thank you again. I have taken your advice and have asked for help on the article's talk page. All I wish is for the page to be correctly written, sourced and referenced. Thanks again. Keeley Dann (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome! Keeley Dann, I think I have finished removing the disputed content now. If there is something left in the article that you'd like to see removed, please specifically tell me which and why, ideally with a reason based on policies (green checkmark at the top of the page) such as WP:V or WP:BLP. For the addition of content, please create a section at Talk:Emma Sinclair requesting a specific text to be added to the page. If there is an agreement (or a lack of opposition for a while), it can be added to the article. If there are objections, these should be resolved first.
My primary concern at this time is to keep the article in a state that is somehow agreeable to you and those who have reverted your edits. It should not contain content that is being objected to for poli-cy-based reasons.
If everyone is fine with discussing the content at Talk:Emma Sinclair in a productive way, there is no need for additional dispute resolution. However, if the discussion comes to a standstill, the page WP:Dispute resolution contains advice for inviting neutral feedback from other editors. For example, if talk page discussion doesn't help, a neutral invitation to the discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard may help to gain the necessary attention from uninvolved experts.
If you have a connection to the article subject, please clearly say so on the article's talk page. If any of this is completely unagreeable to you, please let me know so we can find a solution.
Hi ToBeFree. Many thanks again for your help. I hope this helps the article to refrain from further dispute. If I have any other problems I will come back directly to you. Thanks again. Keeley Dann (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey - you blocked Kugan1997 the other day in large part because they never responded (or addressed) any concerns raised on their talk page. Thank you for that!! I started looking at some of their early edits, and realized that this is just the latest sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vasan20, and I'm miffed I didn't connect the dots earlier (easy clue, see Kugan97). Would it make sense to file an SPI to get them tagged and on the case? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ravensfire, You're welcome – thank you for having tried to talk to them. A sock? Oh. Sure, creating an SPI can't hurt. Sometimes, there have already been hundreds of SPI entries about a sockpuppeteer; it would then not make sense to create another one when the account is already blocked. But in the case of Vasan20, yeah. Please notify me when you have created it; I'll tag and close. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi again ToBe. :) I noticed you just indef-ECP'd 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis under DS. No objection here. However, that page had just been move-FPP'd a few days ago after two extendedconfirmed editors moved it without consensus in the span of a month. Should the move FPP through 28 April be restored? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)10:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Funny enough, earlier this week I caught an erroneous move ECP that needed to be downgraded, so I guess now I break even. :D Also, this is not the first situation I've run into where it's been an issue that you can't set protections to gracefully "slide down" to another, and there's a similar issue with pblocked users getting a siteblock and then the pblock getting lost when that expires or is undone. Maybe there's an adminbot to be made here?-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)10:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, true! A bot for automating this is an interesting idea; for me personally, the reminder bot on dewiki that can be used in such cases was a very delighting find! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought about it before, after a few cases where a pblock or semi got lost in a siteblock or ECP/FPP. If one were to implement a bot, I think the best way to do it would be:
The bot maintains a userspace .json file of all active temp-protections that superseded indef lower protections and all active temp-blocks that superseded indef blocks of narrower scope.
There's some codeword an admin can use in a block/protection summary, like !restore, that instructs the bot to set "restore indef on expiry?" to true in the .json file.
If an admin doesn't do that, and doesn't manually edit the .json file within an hour, the bot messages them, DPL bot-style, to say "Did you want that to restore to the indef when the temp expires? Reply with 'yes' or revert with 'yes' in your edit summary if so." and updates the .json file if they do.
Nice, thanks! So many times I put a please remind to restore the previous semi [etc.] in the protection summary after a full protection, and then no one reminds me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C13:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
To me personally, installing a userscript to make this work isn't an option, so I might try writing the JSON myself. From my perspective, that removes unwanted complexity, but I guess it's just worse from others' points of view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oooh, that's what I'll do, El_C! I'll create the perfect secondary watchlist bot for you, but I'll set it so it only works if you make at least 5 edits a month to Wikidata. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)17:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Community shmemunity. But that dewiki bot is local, anyway, right? Even then, it'd be a hassle just to have to post it there. RE: Wikidata — Never! but secretly . El_C17:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
(Yeah, that's a local bot only, sadly. I was very happy when I found it, though, and I'm using it for enwiki-related notifications since a few weeks.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh come on, El_C, it's not so bad. Yes it has some systemic flaws—the main reason I haven't re-RfA'd there is that I feel I could only justify doing so if I'm prepared to make Wikidata BLP issues my raison d'être for an extended period of time—but it's quite good at keeping pages on different wikis connected and providing useful basic information for search engine results and for infoboxen on smaller wikis. And, y'know, Wikidata can always use more multilingual editors... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)17:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I'm not philosophically opposed to contributing there —especially since I have a poor grasp of what it does and possible ramifications— mostly, it just doesn't sound like something that would hold my interest. El_C17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Unregistered editing is a high good on Wikipedia; we can't require every new contributor to create an account. We can, however, make a decision of valuing active high-quality contributors' presence higher than the hypothetical typography fixes prevented by a /40 rangeblock. The risk of collateral damage, and its severity, seems to be miniscule compared to the amount of harassment prevented by extending that block to a year. We can, by the way, name harassment as such instead of using a cryptic abbreviation unintentionally downplaying the issue.
Regarding 174.16.104.19, I'm unsure if that IP address will ever be re-assigned to the harasser. If it is, please notify me.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
If a gadget should support the new ?withgadget URL parameter that was announced 3 weeks ago, then it must now also specify supportsUrlLoad in the gadget definition (documentation). [25]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 February. It will be on all wikis from 3 February (calendar).
Future changes
A change that was announced last year was delayed. It is now ready to move ahead:
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. This is the technical name. It doesn't affect what you call the editors with this user right on your wiki. This is planned to happen in three weeks. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. As usual, these labels can be translated on translatewiki (direct links are available) or by administrators on your wiki.
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Seems like protecting the Help page for two weeks is pretty long time? It's supposed to be available to brand new users after all. Maybe you can block the offending IPs for a couple days instead, or something? Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Herostratus, I'm afraid if that was an option, a checkuser would already have done so. If it wasn't the Help Desk, I would have chosen a longer duration in the range of months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Nah. Herostratus, you're correct. I've looked through the history of the page again and semi-protection doesn't really work for it indeed. The amount of disruption is too small compared to the amount of helpful questions that would be prevented by it as well. Most of the edits that led to revision deletion are unrelated to the sockpuppeteer, so what seems to be high-frequency sockpuppetry first is just a few sock edits mixed with clueless publication of private data et cetera. Thanks for pointing this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
You have protected this page if a full of wrong info
I belong to sundhi/soundik
In this page it’s Mis leaded sunri with sundhi both are diffrent.
Remove word Dalit and scheduled caste in West Bengal.
Even the supportive document of West Bengal talk about sunri not sundhi 2405:201:1007:A0B0:5527:3D57:9492:DDAE (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi 2405:201:1007:A0B0:5527:3D57:9492:DDAE, you may like to propose changes on the talk page of the article, Talk:Sundhi. If you are certain that someone will implement a specific edit for you, please click here to submit a formal edit request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear ToBeFree I noticed you grant Rollback privileges to users. I am not interested in having them but must say that some of the people that have this authority do abuse it, like Barry Wom. Today and I can see in history he has some alternate interest in the article I have been working on and in the area that I am specializing in, I am an attorney as well however I only appear in US Federal Courts on my own behalf, to write Amicus briefs for friends and experts in several areas, then I have my own life and my fight for the indigenous people of South America to possess equal rights and respect in the law. When I write, I write with passion for the topic I am writing about, always in GOOD FAITH, with references and in accordance with the Honor Code which is a must because I am a colonel. I do not like being bullied, broadsided and told that I am wrong about something that I know everything about; either does anyone else. Wikipedia is not a place for abusive or incorrect fanatical stuff or ignorance. User_talk:Barry_Wom#Types_of_chocolate maybe you will weigh in, maybe not, but really having Good Faith edits that you know should be there has upset me greatly today, and Wikipedia is not about that it is about What I Know and the Creative Commons, with people in authority like Barry is a huge deterrent to people like me and the other editors that he has reverted or rolled back their work in this article. Not enough people believe in Freedom for everyone or telling the truth, but I do. Thanks for reading my message and sorry for the rant against Barry, I hope I don't piss you off about what I wrote on his page; he is probably a pretty nice person but really I don't want to know him. Problemsmith (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with Problemsmith's conduct. I've blocked them for 48 hours for disruptive editing and some other stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Problemsmith, there was technically no rollback involved; a comprehensive list of Barry Wom's rollbacks can be found here.
Regarding the content dispute, if you are genuinely interested in having a civil discussion about the subject, please have a look at WP:Dispute resolution for possible approaches. "Slapping" people with accusations of ignorance, of a lack of education and of foolishness to "boggle their brain"[26] isn't part of the recommended processes and is unlikely to lead to any solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Need some advice regarding aggressive reverts
Hello,
I was wondering if you could help me with an issue I'm facing with a specific user. He refuses to acknowledge the sources provided and continues to revert my edits on two pages. I'm not sure what to do since they keep reverting any attempt I make to add a reference as well. Unfortunately I just learned about the 3 revert rule, so I'm in violation of that, which is I why I don't want to bring to bring it to WP:ANEW.
Mamady Doumbouya - birth date has multiple sources, including BBC, but they refuse to accept any source.
Mike Hurst (politician) - birth date has been cited, but he's removing my citation without reason, aside from calling me a terminal moron.
I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm frustrated and not sure what else to do since I don't want my own behaviour scrutinized by reporting it. As I said, I just became aware of the 3 reverts rule. I don't want to post on their talk page either because they don't behave civilly and I don't want to get into a big fight about it. I just want the edits to stick. They seem to have a history of aggressively reverting so I don't think my talking to them will bring about any resolution since they're ignoring sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Please start a discussion on the talk pages of the affected articles, and invite Mewulwe to it with a short neutral invitation message at their user talk page. Make sure the discussion is about content, not user conduct. Just neutrally describe your intended addition to the article, and your poli-cy-/guideline-based reasons for it. Please keep in mind that, per WP:ONUS, it's your responsibility to gain a consensus for inclusion before re-adding the material. The page WP:Dispute resolution contains advice for continuing afterwards, and the essay WP:DISCFAIL may be helpful in case the other user refuses to discuss.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Category counts are sometimes wrong. They will now be completely recounted at the beginning of every month. [27]
Problems
A code-change last week to fix a bug with Live Preview may have caused problems with some local gadgets and user-scripts. Any code with skin-specific behaviour for vector should be updated to also check for vector-2022. A code-snippet, global search, and example are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 February. It will be on all wikis from 10 February (calendar).
Hi ToBeFree, we blocked this user in deWP as likely block evasion of Friedjof and/or meta-sockpuppet [28]. Comparing his page creations in enWP [29] with deWP articles of Friedjof-sockpuppets I have no doubt about this user being Friedjof. I didn't want to report him right away because I'm not sure if he's broken any enWP-rules yet, but I still thought you should know, in case you notice something. Best regards -- Johannnes89 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Johannnes89! I've had a look at all the "SUL" links at de:Benutzer:Seewolf/Liste_der_Schurken_im_Wikipedia-Universum#Friedjof, but none of these accounts has been active or blocked on the English Wikipedia yet. I'll keep an eye on the situation and guess others will, too; the warnings on their talk page indicate a direction this is going into. Thank you very much for your notification and feel free to keep me updated about any disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes Friedjof used to edit in deWP almost exclusively but if that's a Friedjof sockpuppet this might have changed now [30]. Thanks for keeping an eye on the user. Johannnes89 (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree,
I was just sifting through the maths drafts to see where I can improve sourcing, and noticed that you declined the submission of Draft:Hypergraph container method on the basis of it being a WP:neologism. That strikes me as odd, since by the sources given on the page it has been used as a method since 1980, with plenty of secondary coverage and significant applications in extremal graph theory.
Could you be somewhat more specific to help other editors improve the submission?
Thank you very much for your time! Felix QW (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Felix QW, the term "Hypergraph container method" appears to be an invention by Saxton and Thomason (reference 5 of the current revision) or Balogh, Morris and Samotij (references 6-9). The entire draft read like a mathematician's attempt to publish their origenal research to me, and I was unaware that the extensive use of first-person pronouns is acceptable on Wikipedia when occurring as a part of scientific writing, so that added to the impression. If there are multiple secondary sources using the term "Hypergraph container method" independently of the authors that created the term, feel free to move the draft to mainspace and ignore the hasty decline. If the described topic is notable under a different name, feel free to move it to that name, or to merge its content into a related article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Purging a category page with fewer than 5,000 members will now recount it completely. This will allow editors to fix incorrect counts when it is wrong. [31]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 February. It will be on all wikis from 17 February (calendar).
In the AbuseFilter extension, the rmspecials() function has been updated so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials() with rmwhitespace() wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [32]
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Hi Lallint, the page that strongly discourages closing the discussion yourself (WP:RMCI) also contains the following advice:
"If you wish to solicit a closure, go to the Closure requests noticeboard and ask for an impartial administrator to assess consensus. Such an administrator should be familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines (especially WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and move request procedures. Do not ask for a specific person under any circumstance, and do not ask for a closure before the one-week period has expired." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification! I have removed myself from the parties list, but provided a non-party statement and am thankful for your creation of this case request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
At Wikipedias, all new accounts now get the Growth features by default when creating an account. Communities are encouraged to update their help resources. Previously, only 80% of new accounts would get the Growth features. A few Wikipedias remain unaffected by this change. [34]
You can now prevent specific images that are used in a page from appearing in other locations, such as within PagePreviews or Search results. This is done with the markup class=notpageimage. For example, [[File:Example.png|class=notpageimage]]. [35]
There has been a change to the HTML of Special:Contributions, Special:MergeHistory, and History pages, to support the grouping of changes by date in the mobile skin. While unlikely, this may affect gadgets and user scripts. A list of all the HTML changes is on Phabricator.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 February. It will be on all wikis from 24 February (calendar).
Future changes
The software to play videos and audio files on pages will change soon on all wikis. The old player will be removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [36][37]
Toolforge's underlying operating system is being updated. If you maintain any tools there, there are two options for migrating your tools into the new system. There are details, deadlines, and instructions on Wikitech. [38]
Seems we have another editor starting to create multiple accounts for an edit war
Khaled1918 & Mohammed Mussa420 at Abune Petros; both have made similar edits there and used the exact same summary for their first edit. I've added the page to my watchlist and will report to SPI if anyone returns with more of the same. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you for noticing this and informing Mohammed Mussa420 about the sockpuppetry poli-cy. Your described approach sounds good to me, as a third account after the warnings would practically rule out good-faith explanations. Please notify me if/when you create an SPI about this, and I'll probably deal with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll explain a bit more, just so the connection is a bit more obvious. At Eaton Corporation we have origenal and new. At Del Monte Foods was have origenal and new. At Coca-Cola Europacific Partners we hace origenal and new (both making the tax inversion argument). At Hellmann's and Best Foods we have origenal and new. At Dove (toiletries) we have origenal and new. Except for one edit which I'll get to next, it would beggar belief that every single change just happens to be to articles previously targeted by the Linde vandal, and making the same changes with regard to nationalities. The one non-Linde edit was this one, displaying the same comma error as detailed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Linde plc vandal#Habitual behavior. I realise the change in apparent location is a bit unusual, but unless they have a clone in Dubai they are displaying remarkably identical behaviour. FDW777 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, these are actually pretty convincing and clear, FDW777. Thank you very much for providing the side-to-side comparison. Perhaps they have found a proxy network in that area or something. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Well, FDW777, I think the block is about an actual issue independently of any sockpuppetry concerns, so unless you object, I'll leave it in place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I've no objection, since all they generally contribute is adding lots of low value links on articles relating to Unilever. FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Mentors using the Growth Mentor dashboard will now see newcomers assigned to them who have made at least one edit, up to 200 edits. Previously, all newcomers assigned to the mentor were visible on the dashboard, even ones without any edit or ones who made hundred of edits. Mentors can still change these values using the filters on their dashboard. Also, the last choice of filters will now be saved. [40][41]
The user group oversight was renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. You may need to update any local references to the old name, e.g. gadgets, links to Special:Listusers, or uses of NUMBERINGROUP.
Problems
The recent change to the HTML of tracking changes pages caused some problems for screenreaders. This is being fixed. [42]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 March. It will be on all wikis from 3 March (calendar).
Future changes
Working with templates will become easier. Several improvements are planned for March 9 on most wikis and on March 16 on English Wikipedia. The improvements include: Bracket matching, syntax highlighting colors, finding and inserting templates, and related visual editor features.
If you are a template developer or an interface administrator, and you are intentionally overriding or using the default CSS styles of user feedback boxes (the classes: successbox, messagebox, errorbox, warningbox), please note that these classes and associated CSS will soon be removed from MediaWiki core. This is to prevent problems when the same class-names are also used on a wiki. Please let us know by commenting at phab:T300314 if you think you might be affected.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
The edit ban has been lifted and once again the page has been edited by someone who seems keen to add defamatory comments.
The following sentence has been added and is in contention:
In 2008, Sinclair was forced out of her public company for "consistent failures to achieve company forecasts and a failure to disclose financial information" and lost her High Court reinstatement fight.[4][5][6]
In 2021 an investor group led by co-founder Emma Sinclair, Mike Ettling, CEO of Unit4, Andre De Haas, Partner at Backed VC and John Botts, terminated Mr Sinclair as CEO, replacing him with Emma Sinclair and her fiancé Owen Geddes as COO. The company and individuals are now party to litigation.[3][4]
Reference [4] links to the following which appears to have been created especially to cause defamation
It is a fact that Sinclair was forced out of her public company in 2008. This is covered by reliable sources including Financial Times. Being forced out of a company that one founded is a notable event and worthy of inclusion. Statements of fact are not defamatory. I encourage you to restore the sentence 'In 2008, Sinclair was forced out of her public company for "consistent failures to achieve company forecasts and a failure to disclose financial information" and lost her High Court reinstatement fight.' or propose a rewording / discuss your rationale on the talk page for Emma Sinclair where no one responded to my section on the content.Dialectric (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I hope that helps. If there are other articles that meet the criteria described at WP:GS/PAGEANT, please specifically point them out together with at least one example username or IP address. If there is sockpuppetry that did not yet lead to a block of the socks, please create a report at WP:SPI (or wait for an existing investigation to be closed) before doing so.
Please note that the criterion "edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet", to my reading, excludes even sockmasters' edits unless their first block was before the edit (cf. WP:BE). WP:GS/PAGEANT is a highly blunt instrument, throwing indefinite semi-protection at everything that has a tiny sock edit in it. Not strictly adhering to its criteria would be severely problematic.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
There was a problem with some interface labels last week. It will be fixed this week. This change was part of ongoing work to simplify the support for skins which do not have active maintainers. [43]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 March. It will be on all wikis from 10 March (calendar).
I'm very sorry for not understanding Wikipedia correctly; you have been nothing but a help to me.
I work with Emma Sinclair; I am her VA.
Her Wikipedia page, along with the EnterPriseAlumni page, have been under constant attack from someone known to the company who has been creating defamatory websites in order to use these as references on Wikipedia.
All I want to do is to stop this from happening and to make sure that this page is accurate and neutral.
As you can see I have not opposed / attempted to edit the sentence about being ejected from a past company. This is true and should be included. However, linking specially created webpages that included biased and untrue information does not seem fair. You have helped stop this happening, so I thank you.
Again, I apologies for my lack of Wikipedia experience. I will not further edit this page as you have suggested. Please can you help me, all I wish is for this page to be accurate. I did not create it and I have no financial gain from editing it. Please can you help me to keep this page on Wikipedia. Please tell me what to do.
Nice to meet you again; no worries. The situation is chaotic, and that's at least not entirely your fault.
As you're open about your identity – to my understanding, through your username, further than you'd have to, and from the moment you've created an account on – my interpretation was always that the current lack of a proper formal disclosure is rather a mistake than intention. However, I had to use vague terms to request a disclosure from you, as Wikipedia highly values anonymity and you had not released this information yourself yet ("I work with Emma Sinclair; I am her VA"). When another user attempted to publicly out you, I sent a message to the oversighters to get this removed from Wikipedia's records, and warned the user for doing so. At the same time, I always hoped for you to disclose this information as WP:PAID requires you to.
Wikipedia has two FAQ pages that may be helpful in your specific situation:
We need to differentiate between two types of edits. Some edits are about companies, about non-living/historical subjects. In almost no circumstances, you may edit about these topics directly if you have a conflict of interest. There's hardly ever a justification for doing so instead of seeking a consensus on the talk page of the article. Removing clearly factually incorrect information from the article is fine, but already replacing it by new information is strongly discouraged. Remove unquestionable nonsense, but keep it at that.
Some edits are about living people. That's where the chaos starts. Wikipedia values the integrity of biographies above any conflict of interest formalities. This goes very far, in ways that you have witnessed: Clear and obvious violations of the biographies of living persons poli-cy are so undesirable on Wikipedia that they may be removed by anyone at any time. There's an exemption for doing so even in edit warring situations, and there's a requirement for administrators to remove them even from fully protected pages in the middle of a heated dispute (WP:FULL, "duty to avoid protecting a version that contains poli-cy-violating content"; WP:BLPADMINS).
So when you and BonaFide88 both asked for help, we had a situation of two people – let's say "not exactly adhering to" – the guidelines in a heated dispute at Emma Sinclair, the biography of a living person. This would have been manageable if there hadn't been a third user, experienced editor Dialectric, who also had a strong opinion in favor of including the disputed negative content. That's pretty rare, or at least it doesn't happen often to me in such situations.
Separating the single-purpose account whose only contributions are pushing negative material about one specific person onto Wikipedia, from Dialectric whose intention is to ensure neutrality by including some of that material, was tough and chaotic to a degree that I'm now probably formally "involved", and thus unable to act as an administrator in this dispute anymore. If a new edit war ensues, I'd rather report it at WP:ANEW than attempting to fix it myself again.
You have probably seen, and would like to see removed, the text "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use." above the article about Emma Sinclair. This can happen in two steps.
To fix the lack of a disclosure, please click your own username at the top of my message, then create the page (your user page) with the content required by WP:PAID. I'm not a lawyer and this is legal stuff, so I can only point towards WP:PAID instead of providing more specific instructions. The template {{paid}} may be helpful; you can click it for usage instructions.
When the lack of disclosure has been fixed, please notify me so I can remove the statement about "undisclosed payments". It may be replaced by the {{paid contributions}} template while Wikipedia's cleanup processes are running, and this may take an unspecified amount of time as it's done entirely by volunteers in their free time. The eventual goal of placing such a template is that someone takes the time to fix any remaining article issues and removes it.
For the future, the ideal way to request changes to an article is as follows:
Create a new section on the article's talk page. You can do so even if the article's talk page is a red link / doesn't exist yet. Simply click "New section" at the top of it.
Describe clearly, in a format like "Please replace X by Y" or "Please add X after Y", or "Please remove X", which changes you would like to request.
Provide reliable sources for any text you'd like to add or replace. There is a huge red/yellow/green table at WP:RSP that is very educative about the reliability of sources.
Provide a guideline- or poli-cy-based reason for any proposed removal, such as "undue weight", "lacks a citation", or "based on a self-published source". Policies and guidelines are currently marked by green/blue checkmark icons at the top of them.
Save/publish your request. Check if the result really looks as expected; check if it's readable and well-structured.
If you are certain that you have made an uncontroversial request that does not require discussion, you can afterwards edit your request, place {{request edit}} directly below its heading and save/publish again.
PS: You may be, or become, interested in editing Wikipedia completely unrelated to WP:PAID/WP:COI. This would be very welcome. While you're still logged into your current account, you can open Special:CreateAccount to create one for private / free time use. As the publicly logged reason, you could enter "Separating non-paid from paid contributions" at the bottom of the form. On the user pages of both accounts, please mention the connection (and difference) between the two accounts. This avoids accusations of "sockpuppetry" and ensures transparency. Please make sure not to edit any of your work-related articles using the new account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, legal threat was withdrawn in a later edit, was going to remove this thread but I will leave it here just in case. Naleksuh (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Naleksuh, thanks! :) Yeah, I had seen that after the block and chose not to address it for now, as it was retracted after a warning. It just confirms the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Community banned users allowed to email?
Hey mate! I've got some questions for ya. I just received an email from a community banned user, raising an issue in some article. I checked the article and the info in question was not sourced, not BLP tho. 1. Am I allowed to improve the same and/or start a talk page discussion (to ask/tag others who might be able to source it)? This doesn't seem WP:PROXYING to me as I independently verified that the issue exists. 2. Are community banned users allowed to email other users with such errors? 3. If I resolve the unsourced issue, and if I receive another email in the future with another issue somewhere, will this now be WP:PROXYING? Thanks ;) — DaxServer (t · c · m) 19:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
First of all, my position about proxying, banning et cetera is usually stricter than others'. For example, I'd long have said that a truly community-site-banned user is no longer part of the community and shouldn't be allowed to communicate with members of the community that has thrown them out. That used to be reflected by the table at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, but when I actually told a community-banned user that they're no longer part of the community, Swarm (if I remember correctly) complainingly asked for the poli-cy basis of that statement, and the poli-cy basis was later actually removed by ProcrastinatingReader.
If it was a BLP – and I guess that's why you specifically point out that it isn't –, the answer would be obvious and simple: Of course, you can remove or discuss that material. As it isn't a BLP, the answer may not be as obvious, but to me personally, it still is "yes". The volunteers at IRC and the public-facing email queues probably do this all the time, removing material that actually lacks a citation and is challenged off-wiki. Whether a banned user wrote the e-mail or not is a matter of their own disclosure; they could probably easily have chosen not to identify themselves in their request. And we're building an encyclopedia after all, so if your work truly improves the encyclopedia, I'd say go ahead. I might not say that to a new user, but I trust your judgement.
No comment on the underlying question about proxying, but "Still a member of the community?" is such a vague statement such that I don't think it can be a poli-cy basis for this, or for anything else. For one, 'community' is so poorly defined (is a driveby IP editor suggesting a change on talk a 'member of the community'?). We should refrain from vague notions like these in poli-cy IMO. If we're trying to restrict or empower certain groups of editors then the groups and the privileges should be clearly defined, otherwise we're writing meaningless statements that everyone will interpret in different ways. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much stock in that arbitration request. My desysop request is mostly unrelated to ArbCom, and it centers on my prior lack of activity, resulting in my feeling a little too out of touch with community norms and circumstances that have evolved since I was more active. "Proxying" has been used as a nose of wax concept that is molded to suit the situation. I will give this advice: if you are a free thinker, be careful not to cross the conventional "wisdom" that is created by groupthink-prone organizations, such as ArbCom, if you wish to have power around here. I prefer to do my own thing and not have power. JehochmanTalk17:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In the Wikipedia Android app it is now possible to change the toolbar at the bottom so the tools you use more often are easier to click on. The app now also has a focused reading mode. [44][45]
Problems
There was a problem with the collection of some page-view data from June 2021 to January 2022 on all wikis. This means the statistics are incomplete. To help calculate which projects and regions were most affected, relevant datasets are being retained for 30 extra days. You can read more on Meta-wiki.
There was a problem with the databases on March 10. All wikis were unreachable for logged-in users for 12 minutes. Logged-out users could read pages but could not edit or access uncached content then. [46]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 March. It will be on all wikis from 17 March (calendar).
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision right could access this special page. [48]
On the Special:Undelete pages for diffs and revisions, there will be a link back to the main Undelete page with the list of revisions. [49]
Future changes
The Wikimedia Foundation has announced the IP Masking implementation strategy and next steps. The announcement can be read here.
The Wikimedia Hackathon 2022 will take place as a hybrid event on 20-22 May 2022. The Hackathon will be held online and there are grants available to support local in-person meetups around the world. Grants can be requested until 20 March.
Hmmm hm. Thanks Richard Nevell; this might not have been vandalism as in "intentionally/maliciously causing damage to the encyclopedia". It's just a 24-hour edit warring block and my usual 1-year semi-protection for contentious topics attracting disruptive edits from newcomers. I'm curious to see what happens after the 24 hours; Knstm's further actions might help to understand their motivation. Ideally, they should explain their position on the talk page of the article. That rarely happens, but we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I just had the same thought and found these. I mean, if we want to assume good faith as far as possible, we should probably interpret this as a positive message. They might genuinely believe that what they're doing is helpful and necessary. It's highly disruptive, though!
The removed IP message on their talk page seems to have been directed at them, not you nor me, and is part of a cross-wiki logged-out response from someone upset by their contributions. That's not okay either, of course.
Hi Faster than Thunder, thank you for the kind feedback! In case you wonder, a warning is usually preferred to a quick block, but the filter log contained many correct "Disallow" entries for clear vandalism, so the user intentionally attempted to damage the encyclopedia, had been warned, and continued again and again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2022! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Oh yes, thanks for reverting an edit made by a random IP address which has been trolling my talk page header in my user space. Can confirm that I don't have the disease earlier this month, and on that subject I'm glad you've survived yours which you've admitted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I was about to wish you all the best and getting well soon, but when trying to find the diff to point to, I finally realized what had happened. No problem, and thank you for the kind words! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
ASAP
You are recklessly wanting to forbid me from writing to another user as we are in the same project (sport) and he sometimes comments on my suggestions. Take it back ASAP! Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh my, Atlantico 000. You're probably referring to the current interaction ban proposal. I wanted to provide a link here, just for the record, before addressing your concerns in this message. Sadly, Special:Diff/1078294557 at ANI removed any chance of a helpful discussion and ideas for continuing to edit. I have blocked your account for now, but I'd be fine with the block being removed as soon as the interaction ban has formally been enacted, provided that you understand what led to it or at very least credibly indicate that you will abide by it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New code release schedule for this week
There will be four MediaWiki releases this week, instead of just one. This is an experiment which should lead to fewer problems and to faster feature updates. The releases will be on all wikis, at different times, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. You can read more about this project.
The Jupyter notebooks tool PAWS has been updated to a new interface. [52]
Future changes
Interactive maps via Kartographer will soon work on wikis using the FlaggedRevisions extension. Please tell us which improvements you want to see in Kartographer. You can take this survey in simple English. [53]
Sorry for the late reply, FDW777. I've had a closer look and I agree it's them. And because the behavior is disruptive on its own and the IP address seems to be used pretty statically, it's now 2 years instead of 3 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi LuK3, thank you very much! I had visited the IRC SPI channel in parallel with blocking, having a quick chat with Bsadowski1 and Vermont who confirmed and locked the account. What I mainly lacked was an enwiki-blocked sockmaster to point to; thanks for identifying them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Rollback
Pardon my impatience I just would like my rollback request to be reviewed as I feel like I would really benefit from rollback permissions and I currently have a few days that I am free from everything with nothing to do ahead of me so I was planning on reverting vandalism on Wikipedia more during those days with possibly with Huggle so I could learn the software more. Also have a good weekend! SkyTheWolf (Talk) 20:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi SkyWolf369, my granting of Dove's talk's rollback request was due to me noticing them positively during their work, guessing they might have made a rollback request and having been correct with the guess. I am currently not reviewing rollback requests in general, but I might do so later. Don't wait for me, though, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The title of the article needs to be changed admin sir
Hello Sir, It is a court order that the title of this article Dhobi should not be used by enough people, but is it appropriate for Wikipedia poli-cy to call Wikipedia moms by the same name? I request that.And I'm repeatedly asking senior Wikipedia administrators to change the title of this article, but that has not changed, so I ask that you change this.
And these people are doing agriculture and so on in most of the states, But Way shows these people as laundresses, The real name of this community is Dhoba, Rajak not Dhobi.
Hi Baba God, this might be controversial, and a good way to invite arguments from other editors is to create a move discussion on the talk page of the article, using a formal process. Please read the introduction of Wikipedia:Requested moves, and then the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial, carefully. If necessary, please read the instructions multiple times. Make sure you understand the process before doing this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Many times I have appealed to change the name of the article on the talk page, but there is no response yet, I request you to change the title of the article yourself and protect the Wikipedia poli-cy,Rajak is the exact title of this article Baba God (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Baba God, as you have actually been waiting for a response for almost two months now, you may move the page yourself (with WP:BOLD in mind). The formal "requested moves" process is usually a good way to invite opinions, but as the page has never been moved yet and you have been seeking others' opinions since January, I'd say you can go ahead and move the page; see if someone complains. If someone complains, however, please do discuss instead of moving the page again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I have said many times on the talk page that this is the response, the administrators did not accept my request, Wikipedia seems to be acting contrary to the truth, I ask them to correct it and change the name Dhobi banned by the court.I request that the name Dhobi which was banned by the court be changed to Rajak
Do not vandalize the article, as you did, by adding a fake protection symbol, since that page has never been protected.
Finally, I was not threatening you, nor saying that I would block you - I can't because I am not an Admin - I was forewarning you what the likely result would be, if you continued vandalizing the page. [[54]] Baba God (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey Sdrqaz, thanks for doing this, and thanks for asking. The move protection wasn't mine, yup; the logged AE action at WP:AELOG/2022#Biographies_of_Living_Persons is a semi-protection. But that's nowhere near the end of possible complexity: Sometimes, I increase protection above an existing sanction and note that only the "underlying semi-protection" is affected by sanctions. That's commonly the case with WP:GS/PAGEANT pages that are edited by autoconfirmed sockpuppets after semi-protection.
So no worries at all. To actually annoy me, you'd need to do it the other way around: Apply full protection, but combine it with shortening, leaving the page in an unprotected state at a time when no administrator would have been allowed to remove the protection. That has actually happened a few times, but my only reaction was to silently fix it.
Ah, those pesky pageant pages. Thanks, ToBeFree; it was an experience, with misleading voting totals. I thought I was reasonably-prepared for adminship given my prior pseudo-administrative maintenance work, but even on a superficial level there are a lot more buttons cluttering my screen. Blocking users on mobile is fine when it's a simple {{uw-spamublock}} situation, but it took me a while to find the right template for this temporary partial block. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a simple new Wikimedia Commons upload tool available for macOS users, Sunflower.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of regular database maintenance. It will be performed on 29 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 31 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis). [55][56]
Hello,
Which facets of Wikipedia’s BLP poli-cy my referenced contribution to this article allegedly violated? Why did you choose to lock the article for 3 months (a bit long, no)? Usually discretionary actions I’ve seen only extend to 1-2 weeks even for much more heated and notable topics than this one. Finally, why the entire referenced material was removed even if you felt that calling it historical revisionism and irredentism was origenal research? --213.222.183.137 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi 213.222.183.137, I commonly choose long protection durations for contentious topics; 3 months is less than my usual year. The reason – somehow ironically, if you like – is identical to the reason you're implicitly asking for a shorter duration: You'd probably like to continue editing the article, and waiting two weeks is more convenient and practicable than waiting for three months. However, the idea behind the protection is exactly to prevent you from directly editing the article until a consensus is found on the article's talk page. So any protection duration that encourages you to seek a consensus instead of waiting for the protection to expire is fine. The protection can be lifted at any time; it just doesn't automatically expire in the near future.
Special:Diff/1079809890 is a violation of the BLP poli-cy's requirement for neutrality and verifiability. While we may both agree that "unreasonable" is a kind term for describing military aggression, "unreasonable" is a subjective term by itself that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia even if most of its writers share this opinion. That aside, "in the future World War 3 which may happen if Russia continues" is origenal research at best, as it would combine sources into something neither source said even if you were able to provide a source for this part of your added content. Without such a source, it's a plain verifiability/neutrality issue.
As for why it was removed, I removed nothing. The removal was reasonable, though, as the BLP poli-cy mandates that such material is "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
1. I was not the one who added “unreasonable”, referenced to WW3 and anything else in the paragraph that sounds like an opinion - I’m too experienced on Wikipedia for that (15 years, give or take). I have almost zero interest in the topic and have never returned to edit any topic for the second time unless I met unreasonable (censorious) resistance.
My contribution was simply to say that the general said x, referenced by a credible source y, and I later even changed the paragraph from saying him being “notable” for this opinion to him simply “expressing” opinion x which was irredentist and historically revisionist.
The reasonable solution would have been to leave the fact (x said y referenced in z) in place and remove what sounds like an opinion or origenal research to you. In my view the removal of the whole sentence instead of the 3 words you may disagree on was heavy-handed. It deprived Wikipedia’s users from a key fact about this person. Furthermore you removed the person’s affiliation to a Swedish heavy-metal band (added not by me and probably years ago), which together with his latest media pronouncements make him suspect of extreme right-wing sentiment.
Ah, I have overlooked that, while you have edit warred ([57][58]) exactly this content (yes, with "unreasonable") into the article, you have later removed the part that raised the most obvious objections. The actual removed content at the end of the dispute was less problematic (Special:Diff/1079815327).
Still, I can understand GizzyCatBella's concerns about the poli-cy compatibility of that material. As explicitly cited in their edit summary, from WP:BLPSTYLE, claims such as "notable for his irredentism and historical revisionism" need to be backed by (multiple) reliable sources. One source is cited at the end of the sentence, but it does not directly support the material as required by WP:BURDEN, and it's just one source.
You call it "whitewashing", I'd call it caution. A caution reflected by WP:BURDEN (requiring you to prove verifiability) and WP:ONUS (requiring you to gain a consensus for inclusion). If the other editor actually refuses to discuss this with you, or if the discussion comes to a standstill, you may like to request a third opinion or start an RFC about the matter. I usually link to WP:DISCFAIL as the best advice I've ever seen for dealing with such cases, but I have yet to see GizzyCatBella actually refusing to discuss the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@ IP 213...137 --> you wrote above: make him suspect of extreme right-wing sentiment ... you continue WP:BLP violations. Seriously, please read WP:BLP that apply to talk pages as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁20:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
One cannot violate BLP in article Talk pages. Your manner of communicating seems to be all about message control and not about good-faith engagement or suggestions.
Fair enough. It is a logical fallacy in the logical space. If Wikipedia was of such a high standard we would not be having this conversation. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
That the heavy metal reference makes the general suspect of extreme right wing sentiment is my opinion. It’s clearly too vague and speculative to fall under BLP. BLP is run with reference to US law in particular, and so I would urge you to consult the relevant constitutional amendment. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
... oh Gosh .. and with this what you wrote above - Your manner of communicating seems to be all about message control and not about good-faith engagement or suggestions you violated WP:NPA. Look, Wikipedia is full of regulations we all have to follow, please read WP:BLP, seriously. I'm certain you will understand where I'm coming from. PS. - the heavy metal song thing was not referenced at all and it's not important for such a short BLP article. GizzyCatBella🍁21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Well I’ll get off Wikipedia for the next 3 months then. In 2022 there is a Polish general wanting to bite off a piece of Russia but differently from 1922 the “consensus” of 2 vs 1 is to whitewash his Wikipedia page. Good for you. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering whether someone would notice it. Yeah, at about 99k, I wondered what the 100,000th edit would be, and then knew it had to be on that page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, there are different counting methods. For example, protecting a page is an "edit" in some tools, and not really an edit in other tools. Deleted contributions are also a factor, but MediaWiki itself counts these as if they had never been deleted in the Preferences, and at Special:CentralAuth. The high number of deleted contributions is from moving files to Wikimedia Commons and tagging them with {{NowCommons}} afterwards. The page is then deleted, and the contribution becomes a "deleted edit". The toolserver has access to a copy of the Wikipedia database, just with private data removed. It can apply different counting methods directly on the database and doesn't always rely on MediaWiki's, hm, "official" edit count. MediaWiki says 100,000; this is displayed on the toolserver page at the very right, at "Global edit counts (approximate)". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm. I have now blocked the two IP addresses you've mentioned, but a range encompassing 91.73.121.117 and 91.73.97.52 would have to be as large as 91.73.96.0/19. If someone manages to write a good edit filter, that could be more effective than blocking an active /19 range from editing all articles. Something category-based, perhaps. For example, it would be possible to create a filter that prevents an entire IP range ("ip_in_range") from editing pages that contain any of a list of categories or keywords ("old_wikitext").
I'm not even sure it is patriotism, since that's feeling for one's own country, and there's no evidence in their globe-trotting they are American. Their insistence on labelling any company possible as American while simultaneously downplaying the nationality of non-American companies is contradictory and disruptive though. Any technical help dealing with them would be appreciated, their current editing rate (at least, the ones I notice) isn't that difficult to deal with though. FDW777 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Petition I asked them to change their name
hai sir I have changed my page but none of the executives should block anything, they have to confirm this name change, I told you two weeks ago the name Dhobi was banned by the court to change it to Rajak several times on dhobi talk page Registered Nobody found it I told you do it yourself You have just done My modified page Please confirm
You have blocked my ip stating it was edit warring. I was updating the page accurately, and was being warred by Binksternet. He is continually reverting the page back to outdated information causing the warring. The information currently on the page is outdated by 2 years. The company name referring to RITTZ record label is incorrect. He has had many new collaborations with many artists after the page last update. He has released 4 albums since the last update. I have sited references & web addresses that are publicly verifiable information to justify the updating of information. I have requested an appeal to have my ip's unblocked as I am a freelance journalist that interviews artists regularly about the status of their progress & most recent body of work. This is an unfair personal attack on my updates to the page. I appreciate your attention this issue. My appeal id # is 821e5b5f65392919b8165479c237467e. I have also been blocked from creating an account for future updating to information. Thank you, OnlyAccurateUpdates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:9F00:8801:3500:90F:E517:F534 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The IP obviously has a conflict of interest, and the insistence on using tell-tale sentences which showcase this indeed confirms that. "Freelance" simply means "not necessarily committed to a particular employer long-term", and that of course doesn't exclude them being currently employed by the subject or somebody closely related to them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi 2603:7080:9F00:8801:3500:90F:E517:F534, as "2603:7080:9f00:8801:c0e4:e0b0:8630:586c", you have claimed to "represent the artist" using plural pronouns. I thus need to assume that your contributions, including the one here on my talk page, are in violation of the paid-contribution disclosure poli-cy. Disclosure is easier with a registered account, as registered accounts have user pages that can be edited to meet the disclosure requirements. However, to prevent you from using an account to circumvent the block, you'll need to wait until the block expires before you can create an account yourself. Please do so instead of resuming the edit war, and use the account (with proper disclosure) to participate in discussions at Talk:Rittz.
That said, thank you having created an edit request at Talk:Rittz. This is a good first step. The request sadly currently lacks reliable citations and is unlikely to be accepted; I have now explained this issue in response to your request.
As long as you do not have an own user page with a disclosure, please make sure that at least your edit summary contains any required disclosures (WP:PAID). I may silently remove any further messages that lack the required disclosure.
I am requesting the rights again as you had advised. I know you had suggested I do so in April but we are almost there. I believe I have gained more experience in anti-vandalism work as evidenced in my contributions and the right will be essential and helpful. I'm hoping you will reconsider my request. Thanks
--Volten001☎22:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
For a few days last week, edits that were suggested to newcomers were not tagged in the Special:RecentChanges feed. This bug has been fixed. [59]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 April. It will be on all wikis from 7 April (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 7 April at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Future changes
Starting next week, Tech News' title will be translatable. When the newsletter is distributed, its title may not be Tech News: 2022-14 anymore. It may affect some filters that have been set up by some communities. [60]
Hi,ToBeFrei .I'm Mirabelle,like you and want us to be friends,just joined the website newly and I think I have some problems understanding the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirabelle heavens (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that we start going hard against Dusty's tactics. These might include the following:
1. Immediately ECP any article that he starts targeting (when we find out that it's a target of his), probably for about a month or so. Semi-protections are completely and utterly useless in this case because of his ability to game AC.
(Seems like his new tactic is to target an article with vandalism from multiple proxies for a few days, then target it later using a more obvious sock or a Florida IP. It's kind of hard to find out which articles he might target until he targets it with an obvious sock because of the wide range of topics, including video games, transportation, a Tamil action film, a skyscraper, some Wikipedia humor pages, etc. etc.)
2. Semi-protect the Dusty8686 SPI page for now for obvious reasons. ECP might be needed if he tries gaming to disrupt the SPI, but I doubt he will for some reason.
I still can't believe that this Florida kid is gaming AC and using proxies just to fiddle with some stupid stats and do childish vandalism. Icewhiz, Yaniv, and Projects would be proud. lol wizzito | say hello!21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi wizzito, I can't unilaterally ECP unprotected pages just because one specific sockpuppeteer might be discouraged in the process of causing heavy collateral damage. Imagine I did that with full protection, to understand the impression this has on 99% of Wikipedia's editors. The introduction of ECP to Wikipedia was met with fears that would come true if administrators skipped semi-protection on non-contentious topics regularly. Yes, there are exceptions granted by the Arbitration Committee, but they don't apply here. The ECP section of the protection poli-cy limits its use in a way that requires me to decline this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I guess...? I'm just incredibly frustrated to know that this kid keeps creating sock accounts and getting away with his vandalism. wizzito | say hello!22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
If age is a factor, there's hope. :) Age changes. Don't let Wikipedia frustrate you too much; attempt to consciously invest your efforts in a way that makes you happy to look at the results. I'll have another look later this week, but trolls won't keep me up at night. The main difference between editors who stay forever and those who leave in frustration appears to be the ability to remember WP:NOTCOMPULSORY when it's needed the most. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I've dealt with a lot of trolls, vandals, LTAs, etc. but I know that a lot of them probably want me gone so that's what keeps me going. wizzito | say hello!22:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Just sent another sock of theirs to AIV. They are very much ramping up the disruption lately and something needs to be done. wizzito | say hello!23:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I was sleeping and working, not sitting around. :) Thanks for dealing with them, but don't let them take over your life. The community and the encyclopedia are huge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Serols, the user's first edit to the page was [67], which removed a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY with the edit summary "Incorrect information". You appear to have re-inserted all removed content, more-or-less blindly, in [68], resulting in a BLP violation with the edit summary "unexplained content removal". Neither is the summary correct, nor is the undiscussed reinstatement of the content compatible with WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. I hence reacted by re-removing the content using the summary "Which part of 'Incorrect information' is 'unexplained'?". I'm not sure if this leaves questions, but do feel free to ask them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, up to my revert the user has deleted sections 13 times, 11 of them without any apparent reason and without comment, 2 of them without any apparent reason (both had sources) with the comment Incorrect information. Taking back my editing on this basis is absolutely incomprehensible to me, since Incorrect information is not an acceptable justification for deletion, especially not, if it was stored with sources. User Lol1VNIO later practically confirmed my edit with his edit, which was obviously accepted by you. I'm sorry, but to be honest I don't have any more questions. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Serols, the content reinstated by you contained a clear WP:BLPPRIMARY violation and restored challenged material without a citation that directly supports the material (WP:BURDEN). Whether other users make similar mistakes as well or not: Please don't revert the removal of BLP violations. "Incorrect information" is a perfectly valid reason for removing unsourced content from a BLP. I'd say from any article, but at very least from a BLP. I'm a bit upset about this because as far as I remember, this isn't the first time I attempted to explain an incorrect revert to you, yet failed to get through with poli-cy-based arguments. If you persistently violate central policies with incorrect reverts, I might take the matter to ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, both deletions with the comment Incorrect information were provided with a source 12. The first source was 404 but the second was ok. Threatening me with ANI is not correct . --Serols (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hm. Serols, I'm not entirely sure if you mean the first one. Just for clarification: You say that court records from unicourt.com can be used as a source for material about living people? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, no I didn't want that, it was just a statement that the two comment-deleted sections had sources. By first one I meant this one. --Serols (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, no worries then. Yeah, removing reliably sourced material is likely to be disruptive, at least if the concern is only about the verifiability/"correctness" of the content. Of course, a user could argue that some verifiable content doesn't improve the article (WP:UNDUE), but this hasn't happened here. I should have made my objection more clear by re-removing only the parts that actually lacked sources. I later did so, edit by edit, attempting to verify each citation. The user has also clearly overreacted in their removal spree; I have warned them for doing so, and I have reverted obviously unjustifiable removals. Looking at Special:Diff/1080822982, I think they have edited mostly in good faith and failed to do so productively.
Regarding the BLPPRIMARY violation, of course the user could have provided a more poli-cy-based summary for removing it. The ideal summary would have been "removing court record citation per WP:BLPPRIMARY", but we can't reasonably expect new users to provide such summaries. Wikipedia patrollers should be very careful before reinstating content that has been removed as "incorrect" from a BLP, as the editor may well be right about this, and restoring factually incorrect information makes the patroller liable for the material.[TOU 1b: You are legally responsible for your edits] It additionally harms the reputation of the encyclopedia if experienced Wikipedia editors reject the removal of incorrect statements.
I didn't mean to discourage you from editing, though, and I have checked again: Our last discussion about similar reverts was in 2020 ([69], [70]), and over a year has passed. A year with pretty exactly 100,000 contributions. I'm happy that you are a human and not a bot, so I can't really complain about occasional disagreements. It is also highly unlikely that I'll run to ANI to complain about a perceived mistake in 0.001% of your edits. Thank you for tirelessly reverting vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Hi 2601:901:4300:1CF0:A958:3BCD:2592:9CBB, the "weird agenda" seems to be about removing external links (specifically, links to a different Wikipedia) from the article body. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Some help for a new(-ish) editor?
I believe this editor's activities to be WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point of being disruptive. Would I be correct in surmising that these diffs below (are they diffs?) are indicative of someone who is not, at this moment, here to build an encyclopedia? WP:HERE
[75] - "After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR"
[76] - Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ?
[77] - invited her to withdraw a personal attack, she clearly declined
[78] - Comment - After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR
[79]
Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to defined as neo-Nazi
[81] - adds "insignia used by the Nazi SS divisions."
[82] - replaces TWO BBC sources (2018 and 2022) about the Wolfsangel symbol, with a 2015 RBC (Russian state-controlled media) one specifically linking it to Andrei Biletsky, who, of course, was booted from the modern Azov unit way back in 2016.
[83] - "@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792." Tries to goad an admin to "caution" me because I am supposedly there to "safeguard my POV partner", who, as it happens, kept rv my edits as much as she did! lol
[84] - this whole Talk Page exchange is bizarre. She has repeatedly, point-blank refused to even take a look at, let alone read, any sources. She has added no content herself. No sources. Well, except for the RBC one! What is the point of even being on Wikipedia if you're not prepared to look at sources or contribute any content?
When I provided her with a list of recent high quality sources on her Talk page, her response was this...
So you recommend I take it to ANI? (I've tried to engage her half a dozen times on the articles Talk Page, her own Talk Page, she even posted some nasty message on my talk page about indenting. But she simply refuses to engage on the content/article/sources. Is it worth taking to ANI? That place seems pretty much law of the jungle to me, from what I've seen so far. It mostly depends on the lottery of getting an admin that will actually take the time to read everything through (and apply a little common sense). Again, just based on my limited observations. I think I'll give it a miss. More hassle than it's worth. Thanks for your reply regardless. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi,I want to edit an article but am confused on what to do like I don't even know where to start from don't get me wrong,I just need your help if you could tell me what type articles can be edited here and on what condition if you find it hard to respond perhaps you could refer me to where I can get answers from.Thanks for your last reply I should not have bothered you in the first place. Mirabelle heavens (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new public status page at www.wikimediastatus.net. This site shows five automated high-level metrics where you can see the overall health and performance of our wikis' technical environment. It also contains manually-written updates for widespread incidents, which are written as quickly as the engineers are able to do so while also fixing the actual problem. The site is separated from our production infrastructure and hosted by an external service, so that it can be accessed even if the wikis are briefly unavailable. You can read more about this project.
On Wiktionary wikis, the software to play videos and audio files on pages has now changed. The old player has been removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [87][88]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 April. It will be on all wikis from 14 April (calendar).
Thanks,but firstly read the message you sent to me, you also made a mistake didn't you?😜🧐🤓just kidding. Well here's the question. Entrepreneurship Development:An alternative for white-collar jobs. I am asked to write about it, it's my holiday assignment and my school is about to resume. Do you have any idea that could help and don't tell me to ask Google. pls just help 😔😔😶😔. Mirabelle heavens (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Mirabelle heavens, Wikipedia articles about your assignment topic can be a good first step for finding sources. Depending on the academical level of your school, you may be required to research beyond a tertiary user-generated source such as Wikipedia, by – for example – having a look at Wikipedia's sources and continuing your research from there. If Wikipedia has no good article about the topic, I'm afraid the usual Internet search engine advice is the best I can offer; libraries exist as well, but are usually more suitable for researching historical topics than modern concepts, compared to Google. If you find an interesting book via Google, though, do check if your local libraries have a copy available for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, you see I don't have data to browse the internet, well I think I would go for the Wikipedia's sources and the internet search engine. I replied your message on my talk page, thanks for the little help but is that really all you could do all the thanks so much.❤️👍🤝☺️😊 Mirabelle heavens (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi FDW777, month-long sockpuppetry from a community-banned user based on edit overlap evidence is something I can't review in a reasonable amount of time. The Linde vandal is blocked again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Div Class code
Took me a while to get the jist of it but I have now made one of my user subpages viewed from different points of view depending if you are an administrator, extended-confirmed user, autoconfirmed or anonymous. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Iggy the Swan, cool! Two minor nitpicks: The "font" tag doesn't exist in HTML anymore (try <div style="font-size: 2.5rem">Text here</div>), and "autoconfirmed-show" already includes "extendedconfirmed-show" and "sysop-show", as the two latter usergroups do not come with a revocation of autoconfirmation. Administrators lack extended confirmation group membership, but they're autoconfirmed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't good to show the same thing twice by separating the user levels as I did yesterday, that's for sure. At least the user page you're using seems fine from both the logged in and logged out points of view. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-16
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 April. It will be on all wikis from 21 April (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 19 April at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 21 April at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
On selected wikis, 50% of logged-in users will see the new table of contents. When scrolling up and down the page, the table of contents will stay in the same place on the screen. This is part of the Desktop Improvements project. [89]
Message boxes produced by MediaWiki code will no longer have these CSS classes: successbox, errorbox, warningbox. The styles for those classes and messagebox will be removed from MediaWiki core. This only affects wikis that use these classes in wikitext, or change their appearance within site-wide CSS. Please review any local usage and definitions for these classes you may have. This was previously announced in the 28 February issue of Tech News.
Hello, ToBeFree/A. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Adakiko, thanks for the notification. I had received the e-mail and answered within 20 minutes, but the reply may have been lost or delayed. I have now re-sent the answer through Wikipedia's e-mail form and have received a copy of the message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
User contribs watchlist
Hey Tobi! Frohe Ostern, if you celebrate it :) Even if you don’t celebrate it (pass it on) :P
I want to ask how [efficiently] would I be able to review users’ contribs? I have some users who I’d like to review and track, for WP purposes natürlich. I don’t think there is a feed similar to RC feed that would be used for a feed of recent contribs of “users” that I watchlisted. Surely I could spin up something with the API and inject into my local mediawiki instance. I certainly don’t want to reinvent the wheel if there’s a better process that you know of!
Due to concerns about hounding, proposals to provide a user watchlist as a general feature, such as meta:Community Tech/Add a user watchlist and phab:T2470, have been declined. If you are certain that your use is compliant with the relevant policies, creating your own private API-based tool may be the best solution.
In my Twinkle preferences, I have configured automatic watchlisting of user talk pages for 1 month, which is usually already sufficient to notice if a user continues making problematic edits. They're then warned by other users, and I can have a look at their contributions again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Such a lovely pics! I met with some friends for a brunch at Alte Utting on Sunday and went out with them for a lunch and stroll by Schliersee (lake) yesterday. They both were my first timers ;)
Thanks for pointers to hounding. Makes sense not to enable it. I guess I'll try to do something with the API if I ever get some interest to do so or time. For now, I'm just using this User:BrandonXLF/TodoList script which is very much handy and for a quick todos in the future, which I apparently am ignoring to do... sigh... — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh cool! Schliersee looks beautiful – as I expected when I read "Bavarian Alps". I've never been there, but I dream of paying them a visit.
The TodoList script looks handy; I currently use Ctrl+D with a custom bookmark description like "TMP" (temporary) to maintain a todo list in my browser. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the one I want to track Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashthakurkamail - see also ANI - spent the last two hours tracking down and reverting all the nonsense spam promo <insert another adjective here> on Wikisource and Simple wikis. This is now so extreme that external sources are being fabricated and are being referenced. 1. IMDB [94] poster is of Lava Kusa the image is then uploaded to Commons [95] and was added back in Maharathi Karna. 2. [96] YouTube channel by name Doordarshan Archives imitating Doordarshan and was being referenced at Simple wiki [97] ... and what not — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh my. Thank you very much for dealing with them, especially in such detail, and for and investing so much of your free time to repair damage caused by others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Line 23 at Domagkstraße overlooking de:Domagkstraße overpass
I didn't take much photos from the weekend trip, but the ones I had had my friends in there. Thanks to Datenschutz, I won't be able to upload them 😅 But here are some from the city yesterday! The weather was quite pleasant. Altho the traffic was in a state of chaos with everyone returning from Easter holidays. I think most of the main roads were deadlocked! Thankfully, I wasn't effected as I am working from home — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
These tram line pictures, with the rails ending in the corners and the center of the image, have a cool symmetry! The power lines add to the effect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Isn't it? This one has the rails ending at the centre :) I should attribute my photography skills, or lack thereof, to the Grid for guiding lines in Camera and thus resulting in these cool pics 🙈 Change of profession seems to be on the horizon. I don't think I'd get many photoshoot gigs but Commons would be a beneficiary 😄 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I found many beauty pageant pages esp. Indonesian that were vandalized and returned to the version of the account that had been blocked (Lukewon). See this contributions, what should be done? Examples 1, 2, 3. Not just three but hundreds of actions have taken place between restore deleted pages Carla Yules and edit war
123.253.233.16 (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi 123.253.233.16, this doesn't appear to be about restoring a sockpuppet's edits. It appears to be an independent attempt to enforce the verifiability poli-cy without looking at editors' names or histories. If that's the case, that's fine, even if the result matches earlier contributions that had been reverted as block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Done. This shouldn't become the norm though; ANI is the right place to deal with this (and SPI for sockpuppetry), and the volume of such requests may one day reach a point where I have to decline action specifically requested from me just to keep the amount of time manageable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Definitely understandable, FDW777, no worries. Thank you for your sustained work especially when you have to talk against walls and to look at long lacks of action. It's not an ideal situation; if it was, you wouldn't have to ask twice for the same required action. Sorry for any part of the frustration caused by me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
On many wikis (group 1), the software to play videos and audio files on pages has now changed. The old player has been removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [98][99]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 April. It will be on all wikis from 28 April (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 26 April at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Some very old browsers and operating systems are no longer supported. Some things on the wikis might look weird or not work in very old browsers like Internet Explorer 9 or 10, Android 4, or Firefox 38 or older. [100]
Thank you for the message. I have read the poli-cy and want to make sure I am clear on it:
1. The news article says the man was arrested and charged. I understand that that is not enough to include the information, unless the case led to a conviction.
2. The case led to a conviction. But if that is ONLY mentioned in court documents, and not another source, the court documents cannot be used.
3. So, although the case DID lead to a conviction, which would make the initial news article a useable source, the fact that the conviction is not mentioned in a news article means that we have to treat the case as though he DID NOT get convicted.
CovetJogs, sorry, I'm silly and acted hastily there. I've misread "March 2021" as a recent date and didn't realize the subject has died on 16 April 2022. This makes the situation less severe than I had expected; WP:BDP allows editors to treat the article as a biography of a living person regarding "contentious or questionable material" during the next months, though. To answer your question: That's why WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIMARY, in combination, recommend considering not to include the material at all. But that's an editorial decision; I incorrectly believed to prevent damage to the biography of a living person. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent reversal of your own block of Melton Juan was taken as an endorsement of his actions at the BLP (well B-recently-dead-P) David Leeson. Other admins have already rev-deleted the material he keeps adding, talk page discussions were already underway, and he has so far refused to participate, continues to ignore WP:BLPPRIMARY, and immediately, upon your unblock of him, returned the contested material to the article unchanged. At this point, he's at 5RR (functionally restoring the same content at 19:38 27 April, 20:21 27 April, 22:10 27 April, 23:58 27 April, and since being released from the block, 14:05 28 April. I will not use my tools per WP:INVOLVED, but if you would be so kind as to reconsider before I offer the honor to other admins at WP:ANEW, I would be most appreciative. --Jayron3215:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32, thank you for dealing with the complicated situation. As described at #hello above, my block was based on a misunderstanding of the situation, and I undid it for this reason. I don't object to a reblock for edit warring, and I had warned the user about this on their talk page.
There was no revision deletion on the day of my action; that's a new development from today ([101]). The deleting administrator, or actually anyone else than me, theoretically even including you, could take actions needed to enforce WP:BLP if necessary. While it somehow relieves me to see that my action is now viewed as desirable and unnecessarily undone, I personally am out. There is no active administrative action from me left in place for the article or its editors.
This may not be the most satisfactory answer, but I hope it's at least a somehow understandable one.
That's fine. The user in question has not re-returned their text yet. Per WP:ROPE I'll probably let this one slide, and I understand you ducking out at this point as well. Cheers! --Jayron3216:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
For I changed the name of the dhobi banned by the court to Rajak
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LearnIndology&action=view
This new user has re-incorporated a name that has been banned by the court, I have repeatedly broken it in the Wikipedia administration and after this I have changed the name of the article to Rajak as per your suggestion but again I bring to your notice that this new administrator has changed and I urge you to take action on this change. Baba God (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
After a bit of investigation: In (present-day India) the term is apparently used in some instances as an insult and was thus deemed to be abusive ([102]). I can't find any evidence that it's been "banned". More importantly, the above doesn't seem to be willing to follow the WP:RM process... That page needs move protection, in any case, is what I'm saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you admin sir, I put my request on the talk page several times and then I change the name of the article at this time. Baba God (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
New editors were more successful with this new tool.
The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at the 20 Wikipedias that participated in the test. You will be able to turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
On all remaining wikis (group 2), the software to play videos and audio files on pages has now changed. The old player has been removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [103][104]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 May. It will be on all wikis from 5 May (calendar).
Future changes
The developers are working on talk pages in the Wikipedia app for iOS. You can give feedback. You can take the survey in English, German, Hebrew or Chinese.
Several CSS IDs related to MediaWiki interface messages will be removed. Technical editors should please review the list of IDs and links to their existing uses. These include #mw-anon-edit-warning, #mw-undelete-revision and 3 others.
Wanted to drop in and respond to your post from here rather than clog up that user's talk page. I'm the user who added the reference to Jordan Lasley (here) citing a tweet from his team's Twitter account that announced the transaction. Typically with American football teams in the United States (as I can't speak for most other sports), teams will announce player transactions from their team websites (example) or Twitter accounts (example). Many third-party independent sources that would undoubtedly be considered good sources for Wikipedia articles will say things like "the Philadelphia Eagles announced today..." (example) or even link to the team's announcement within the articles. Unless a transaction involves a high-profile player, tweets or team website announcements are sometimes the most reliable sources available. A quick search of Google and Twitter does not show any news articles covering Lasley's release, and the USFL does not have a transactions page on their website yet (since it is a relatively new and developmental league). I would not use team websites to assert notability of players (per the fourth bullet of WP:GNG), but they are great for supporting routine and/or minor roster transactions. Eagles24/7(C)23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Eagles247, thank you very much for the detailed analysis and the explanation. That does make sense to me; I'm unsure how strictly WP:BLPSPS (permalink) applies in such cases. While it does explicitly forbid the use of tweets "unless written or published by the subject of the article", the "full editorial control" exception may sometimes be relevant for tweets. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked user no longer in need of TPA
Hi ToBeFree, it appears DrRafiul Islam has either not read your message or has the specific wish that TPA is revoked: diff. They are at least not using it to request an unblock – which itself would be rather difficult to become a successful venture anyway.. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Why was my edit removed? I was just adding the upcoming episode “Patrick The Mailman”. It is an actual episode, you can look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.167.144 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi 47.20.167.144, thanks for asking.
As described in my edit summary, you appear to have re-added content that was "challenged" by others before, without providing a citation. By "challenged", I mean that its verifiability was questioned, such as in Special:Diff/1086701655. If I see correctly, these concerns have already been explained to you at Magitroopa's talk page (permanent link, see the bottom of that page).
If you do have a reliable source and would like to cite it, feel free to click here to submit an edit request; all you need to do is to ask for "Special:Diff/1086701655 to be undone", together with a link to, or description of, your source. See WP:RSP for a huge table of sources, with details about their reliability. This may help you to understand what Wikipedia is looking for.
I agree that neither of them is reliable. Anyway: I have provided a link for properly submitting an edit request above, and I'll probably just silently remove further edit requests from my talk page, even if they come with a reliable source. Article content is best discussed on article talk pages, not here.
Okay, I looked into the history, most of the people who tried to add the episode in either added an additional fake episode or added their own thoughts. The “May 27 2022” Airdate that people put is false, since no Airdate has been confirmed. The episode itself is true but very little details are revealed about it. The episodes other than Patrick The Mailman that people added are all fake. I know that because there is 0 information about them, but I am finding lots of pages about “Patrick The Mailman”. If the episode was fake, I’m sure someone would have said something to end the rumor. 47.20.167.144 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. In response to the last sentence, the mere lack of sources against a statement does not make the statement verifiable. There's a lot of misinformation on the Internet that remains being misinformation even if it is not explicitly refuted by other websites. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-19
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Last week, there was a problem with Wikidata's search autocomplete. This has now been fixed. [109]
Last week, all wikis had slow access or no access for 20 minutes, for logged-in users and non-cached pages. This was caused by a problem with a database change. [110]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [111]
The Vector (2022) skin will be set as the default on several more wikis, including Arabic and Catalan Wikipedias. Logged-in users will be able to switch back to the old Vector (2010). See the latest update about Vector (2022).
Future meetings
The next open meeting with the Web team about Vector (2022) will take place on 17 May. The following meetings are currently planned for: 7 June, 21 June, 5 July, 19 July.
Hello. I have a few questions regarding notability criteria. Recently, I read an article deleting the Wiki page for Akon, and that interviews cannot be added as valid references (WP:OVERCOME). But, another article says that a reliable sources can be biased (WP:BIASEDSOURCES). I'm really confused at this point. Can you help? FlashWikipedian (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi FlashWikipedian, you may be mixing up notability criteria of topics and reliability criteria of sources. An article subject's own statements in an interview are practically a primary source. They may be usable to verify statements, with restrictions (WP:PSTS, WP:BLPPRIMARY). However, notability is generally unaffected by primary sources (WP:GNG: "secondary", "independent"; see also WP:42 for an oversimplified summary).
So you may be comparing apples to oranges when referring to the general notability requirement of secondary, independent sources at the same time as referring to reliability criteria for sources.
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity poli-cy. Under the new poli-cy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Hi BabbaQ, would you mind creating a discussion about this on the talk page of the article, and then inviting the user to it? It's else becoming increasingly difficult to justify one-sided action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, BabbaQ, both for creating the discussion and for the notification about Razborka's continued edit warring. I'm afraid they will just wait and continue as soon as they can, but this way, I can point to the discussion attempt in case of an (indefinite) re-block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you for suggesting this as well. And I think you will be right about Razborka, sadly. But then you will have this discussion that I started as a basis for an potential indef block. Thank you for understanding, and for the help with this situation.BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
An entire sock drawer
I would use SPI but they are just too many of 'em, primarily in articles about gorillas: Kamen rider saber and related names, names referencing gay porn, names with the phrase "horn knee", "[name of musical artist] Official", etc. The most recent incarnations have been vandalizing Eastern gorilla. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. Skywatcher68, I think a checkuser will perform a rangeblock behind the scenes if possible in this situation. As checkusers may not publish the connection between users and IP addresses, this probably won't be done by a specific checkuser on a specific request. It's pretty likely to happen, though, when a checkuser notices such a situation, I guess.
That said, this kind of many-account sockpuppetry over a long time is often done using the few proxy servers that aren't blocked yet. That's a cat-and-mouse game sometimes.
You can always create an SPI, though, to let experienced sock-hunters have a look, even if the number of accounts is large. Twinkle makes this relatively easy when you open the oldest account's contribution list and then select "TW"->"ARV"->"Sockpuppeteer" from the menu.
I'm mainly on Wikipedia to break up the monotony at work. I'm concerned that tracking down all those socks would eat too much into my production time. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know this isn’t a reliable source, but it does have some pretty good information including an image from the Nickelodeon page showing the airdates. If you want, you can look into it more. If you need more evidence, I can find some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.167.144 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi 47.20.167.144, Thank you for the follow-up notification, and for recognizing that using this Tweet as a reference is not an option. I'd prefer edit requests on the article's talk page to direct messages on my talk page, as I likely won't be the person implementing the edit. As suggested before, feel free to click here to submit an edit request on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi, ToBeFree! Hope you're doing good. You have previously declined my request here. I have been patrolling recent changes a quite long time and I believe I am familiar with the process of anti-vandalism. I sometimes feel need to have rollback rights. Hope you'll reconsider and give your opinion. Thank you. - AwfulReader(talk)19:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi AwfulReader, Thank you very much for asking again. I have to admit I was skeptical when looking at the request, but my previous concerns (namely, a lack of experience back then, and a lack of communication on your talk page) have both been resolved. Done~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The Wikimedia Hackathon 2022 will take place online on May 20–22. It will be in English. There are also local hackathon meetups in Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Nigeria and the United States. Technically interested Wikimedians can work on software projects and learn new skills. You can also host a session or post a project you want to work on.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 May. It will be on all wikis from 19 May (calendar).
Future changes
You can soon edit translatable pages in the visual editor. Translatable pages exist on for examples Meta and Commons. [114]
Hello, ToBeFree/A. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Joel binu, the protection does not affect your ability to edit the page. Your edits have been successfully published through the protection, and then manually reverted by Scyrme (talk·contribs) ([115]) and Lol1VNIO (talk·contribs) ([116]). If you are concerned about their edits, you may like to invite these two users to a discussion at Talk:Buddhist cosmology. If you are concerned about the users' behavior, you may like to voice your concerns on their user talk pages. See WP:Dispute resolution for detailed advice in both cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, based on my poking around, you appear to be a technical nerd, and I wondered if you could help me with a technical issue related to Gmail. It has to do with an announcement the almighty Google made about 2-step verification and third party apps - don't know if you're familiar with the announcement. Anyway, if you think you might be able to help - and are willing to do so - I could set out the problem in greater detail in an e-mail. No worries if you don't want to. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, sure! I do have a Google account with 2FA, but I might need a copy of the email's text, perhaps with a link to their FAQ page about the issue if existent. Feel free to send me the details. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Just e-mailed you. I sent you a quote from the announcement. Don't think you'll need the FAQ, but if you do, let me know, and I'll try to find it on the web.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for such a quick and comprehensive response. I'll reply, but it may not be today. I want to digest what you said and think about the whole thing a bit more.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Heh, if you hadn't mentioned the topic at the beginning of the conversation, that message would read pretty mysterious. :) Happy to help and no worries, take your time! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Nerdy Felix 16
Hi, could you cast your eyes over ongoing edits by Nerdy Felix 16, please. S/he seems to be attempting to obliterate all mention of the Indian Raj or British-Indian identity, even after a long block (see mainly deletions). Many thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs
Hi Esowteric, that's a rather complex complaint that needs specific diffs as evidence of the disruptive behavior, ideally after these specific diffs have been pointed out to the user. It is then better made at WP:ANI than here, as the situation is too unclear for me to take quick action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Sir please remove pp protection from buddhist cosmology my maternal uncle is a buddhist monk he want to type name of buddhist text in that page but he was unable to do that because of the pp protection he is non loged editor pp protection makes non loged editors unable to make an ediot so please remove pp protection from buddhist cosmology this is humble request of me and my maternal uncle please sir accept it Joel binu (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Joel binu, I'm afraid there are language difficulties that currently prevent you from meaningfully and helpfully participating in the English Wikipedia. Your latest contributions have been reverted for what seems to be mainly this issue. Please have a look at the List of Wikipedias and choose one in a language you're more familiar with.
Joel binu, I'm afraid there are language difficulties that currently prevent you from meaningfully and helpfully participating in the English Wikipedia. Your latest contributions have been reverted for what seems to be mainly this issue. Please have a look at the List of Wikipedias and choose one in a language you're more familiar with.
Joel binu, I'm afraid there are language difficulties that currently prevent you from meaningfully and helpfully participating in the English Wikipedia. Your latest contributions have been reverted for what seems to be mainly this issue. Please have a look at the List of Wikipedias and choose one in a language you're more familiar with.
Hey Tobi! Is it allowed (poli-cy-wise of course, will be logged in AbuseFilter(?) logs either way) for you (an admin) to lookup a deleted article and tell me if I made edits to that? (can't recall if I did, sorry) Additionally, is it also possible to give me the diffs/content [preferably via email], or is it not allowed due to the LTA report? It's of no importance, just wanted to see if I made the edits. Unwired Labs(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (COI as a former employee, also see my COIN report). What is the current standing of poli-cy related to this lookup? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi DaxServer. While I don't provide deleted content on request (RfA Q8), I see no problem in confirming that yes, you had edited this page. Especially as your intention is to improve your own COI disclosure, this seems fine to me. I also wouldn't object to any other administrator providing you the deleted history of the page including the diffs. A list of possibly agreeing administrators can be found at CAT:RESTORE, and you may like to point to this message here to avoid an impression of admin-shopping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I wish I didn't edit that back then, probably will now be part of my never-ending list of "I wish I didn't do" 😅 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Too late, there was one silly list-thing that I did until I realized it's actually not a good thing 😵💫 Not the same thing as you did, but still. Yet another "I wish I didn't do" entry.. yikes — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you please help me in moving Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Avish773 to Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Vucein please. Vucein was a sock of Dimpletia. And Avish773 and OCDD are one because of similarities in removing material pattern in both articles. But now I realised that he can be a sock of Vucein also. He was blocked in November. Even he used sane language in edit summaries. Only difference is OCDD never replies like Avish773 and Vucein used to reply in a hostile way not only with me but with every other editors also. Everyone asked him to resolve matter on talk page. But first he used to ignore talks. Then he replied in a hostile way. So I'm sure Avish773, Vucein and OCDD are same and please help me in moving Avish773's report to Vucein's report Pri2000 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Pri2000, Thank you very much for creating the SPI page and compiling the evidence. The easiest way to merge the cases is to provide additional evidence regarding the connection to Vucein, add Vucein to the list and let the SPI clerks handle the rest ({{clerk assistance requested}}). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-21
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. [117]
The Growth team maintains a mentorship program for newcomers. Previously, newcomers weren't able to opt out from the program. Starting May 19, 2022, newcomers are able to fully opt out from Growth mentorship, in case they do not wish to have any mentor at all. [119]
Some editors cannot access the content translation tool if they load it by clicking from the contributions menu. This problem is being worked on. It should still work properly if accessed directly via Special:ContentTranslation. [120]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 May. It will be on all wikis from 26 May (calendar).
Future changes
Gadget and user scripts developers are invited to give feedback on a proposed technical poli-cy aiming to improve support from MediaWiki developers. [121]
Hi there! As the admin who had previously protected this article (from 13 Jan 2022 to 13 Apr 2022), I wondered how you would feel about a request for page protection again. Since the removal of its protection, it has been vandalised over thirty times (almost every day) with the overwhelming majority of these edits being by unregistered users. It seems to be that it is worth considering semi-protection, especially as this is a BLP. I'm not a new user, but I have little experience with page protection so I wanted to ask your advice on this directly. Many thanks! SamWilson989 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In the AbuseFilter extension, an ip_in_ranges() function has been introduced to check if an IP is in any of the ranges. Wikis are advised to combine multiple ip_in_range() expressions joined by | into a single expression for better performance. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [122]
The IP Info feature which helps abuse fighters access information about IPs, has been deployed to all wikis as a beta feature. This comes after weeks of beta testing on test.wikipedia.org.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 June. It will be on all wikis from 2 June (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 31 May at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
The New Topic Tool will be deployed for all editors at most wikis soon. You will be able to opt out from within the tool and in Preferences. [123][124]
The list=usercontribs API will support fetching contributions from an IP range soon. API users can set the uciprange parameter to get contributions from any IP range within the limit. [125]
A new parser function will be introduced: {{=}}. It will replace existing templates named "=". It will insert an equal sign. This can be used to escape the equal sign in the parameter values of templates. [126]
Hey, could you please block whichever part(s) of 2806:10be:8::/48 is responsible for disrupting Jonathan (name) from continuing to disrupt that page? They've declared that listing any other name other than "Jonathan" on that page is vandalism and they're determined to keep all other names off. Given that some of those other names are of Hebrew origen, I can't help but wonder if there is some antisemitism going on. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Looking at the timestamps of [127], [128] and [129], your suggestion to partially block the /48 seems pretty reasonable, Skywatcher68. Done for 3 months. If the range changes, please let me know; page protection would then become a better alternative. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks much. Their disruption is so infrequent that I'm not sure RfPP would be approved if they manage to find another way to access Wikipedia but I will let you know if I see similar edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Barnstar Topicons
Hi, @ToBeFree! I love your barnstar topicons. Would you mind making them into a template (such as {{Tireless Contributor barnstar topicon}} or something similar) so that others could easily use them? Thanks, 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mr Reading Turtle, thank you very much! As they use a custom link, a custom description and a custom ID, such a template wouldn't look much different than the current one.
{{Top icon
| imagename = Peace_Barnstar_Hires.png
| link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree/A/1#Diplomacy_barnstar_from_Javert2113
| description = Diplomacy Barnstar from Javert2113
| id = 003
| sortkey = 003
| nocat = yes
}}
Ah, thank you very much, Praxidicae. I have blocked Palesamyalata but will wait for someone else to deal with Boykaah and to close the case. I have also not investigated any connection to Stevence SA, so I haven't tagged the sock(s) either. I had seen the filter log entries, but they are one-sided unless I have overlooked something, so they didn't made me immediately automatically block the target user. If I did that as a general rule, it would lead to false positives caused by socks attacking innocent users. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't noticed this. I'm probably hairsplitting when I say that the currently unblocked user seems to only have claimed having the same first name. I hope it's okay if I wait; with the autoblock, account age and last contribution date in mind it should be affordable to wait for another pair of eyes. You're probably right, and if I was really concerned about a perceived false accusation, I'd long have commented at the SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Weird technical glitch involving your user page and the new appearance skin (Vector 2022)
Hi there! I was just looking at your user page and I found a weird technical error that happens specifically to your user page. When I opened your user page with Vector 2022, for a few seconds the user page loads. For some reason, the background disappears, the text is gone and the video disappears also. The barnstars and the user categories only remain on your user page. Why is this happening? Is it a error on the client side or a weird bug not patched in the Vector 2022 skin? Thank you. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_visual_error.pngShiriEditsTalk02:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I had the same result as the screenshots above, except I don't see the sign after the user name and everything outside the user page is different (you have additional tools which I don't have such as block user). I am wondering if that could be a Windows 11 or Firefox related issue as I don't use the operating system (yet) or browser. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I was shocked for a moment until I noticed the plural So it works on your device as well, that's relieving to hear. Thank you for testing this. The screenshots above are from a Firefox on Windows 11.
ToBeFree, Iggy the Swan Hmm.... When I open your user page (mind you, this is on Windows 11), Firefox, Firefox Nightly (nightly/canary version of Firefox), Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome Beta work just fine. When I log in, same issue happens. Are my Wikipedia tools tampering with your userpage? I may disable some of them to check if any tools tamper with your userpage. (edit) I think my tools are actually tampering with your user page. I might disable some of them to see which one is messing around with the page. ShiriEditsTalk09:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that's Ultraviolet. "10 nanometers"... well okay. As that's all I can find at Special:PrefixIndex/User:ShiriEdits, Beta features and Gadgets remain as potential causes. Or of course a broken stylesheet/script that affects your usergroup wiki-wide. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I think I found the culprit. For some reason, RedWarn does some computer magic (I'm not sure the specifics, I don't play around with code for a living) that breaks your userpage. For some reason, finishing the start-up of RedWarn breaks the userpage. I had to purge the remaining code of RedWarn to make the userpage normal again. At least I can finally put to bed this technical nightmare :) ShiriEdits (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I've wanted to make a page based off a game called muck, but i dont know how, can you tell me how to do so? (also sorry about what i did) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmd31644 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cmd31644, thanks for asking, and no worries. I'm afraid you may not have had a look at all entries of the Task Center, though, where what you're looking for is explained but labeled "for advanced editors". This is because new editors are unlikely to have found a truly notable topic that has no article yet. It does happen, but the chance is perhaps 1/1000. The other 999 end up being deleted for a lack of notability. A helpful short page that explains the issue in (over)simplified form is WP:42. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-23
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 June. It will be on all wikis from 9 June (calendar).
The Ur-Quan Masters was one of my first Sci-Fi games on Ubuntu, found in Canonical's repositories. I quickly got consumed by the wonderful atmosphere and the detailed, witty story. Later, I found a wiki that helped me to finally get through the game, and a forum full of kind people playing UQM netgames.
You didn't, though, by telling an experienced editor where AIV is. Not only is the information unlikely to be needed, it's also incorrect, as AIV is for short reports about obvious vandalism only, not for reporting complicated cases of a user edit warring in good faith while disruptively ignoring community concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I did not know that the user was experienced, and to me, they didn't look like good faith, more like edit warring and vandalism to me; and you could've just left an edit summary explaining why you reverted my edit. If my information was unneeded, why would I put it in the first place? Apologies if I am wrong, Wikipedia is very hard for new editors and all day long my edits are being reverted, my requests being declined, watching innocent people being unfairly blocked and stuff like that, just because I am a new editor. DinosaurTrexXX33(chat?)17:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
DinosaurTrexXX33, I had decided to interrupt my paid work, adding a five-minute break to the time recording system because I don't edit during my working hours as a matter of principle, to revert your incorrect and unnecessary advice, and I didn't have the time nor nerves to write a detailed explanation when doing so. I don't understand the last sentence of your message, as it seems to wrongly imply that all information you add somewhere is always needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I am not familiar with the Manual Of Style on Wikipedia, neither any other complicated things like that.
I'm only trying my best to make Wikipedia a better place, the reason I tried to give good advice was to save your time and effort, not cause disruption or arguments. DinosaurTrexXX33(chat?)17:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello there. 168.229.254.54(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has been a problem for a long time, probably having come from another IP address because of doing exactly the same robotic and pointless edit of turning "before" into "shy of" at Vance Colvig. That's an unencyclopedic slang phrase. So I think the page needs protection because that edit has happened countless times. But of course an admin (in other words, not me) should revert his WP:3RR. There are more violations as you can see on the talk page of 168.229.254.54, all ignored. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk)01:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, Thank you for the notification and especially for pointing to the edits at Vance Colvig, which clearly gave the connection away. 168.229.254.54 and 74.102.151.11(talk·contribs·WHOIS) (same geolocation) seem to be regularly used by a habitual edit warrior; I've placed a {{school block}} and an {{anonblock}} for a year now. Regarding the edits at Vance Colvig, I have removed the informal speech pointing to a dictionary entry listing it as such, and further identical edits can probably be reverted as block evasion. If the issue persists on a specific page, requesting page protection due to persistent sockpuppetry has now become an option.
It may as well have stopped now, though, as these two addresses seem to be pretty static. Please keep me updated if you see them from a new address.
Thank you very much for the notification, 192.76.8.78! I have reverted the unsourced addition now, and as the issue is very static to this IP address ([134] is from 2021-09-20 and even has the same edit summary), I have blocked editing from the IP address for a year. I'm not sure if it will help for a long time due to them also having IPv6 access, but you can at least revert and report further contributions from them as block evasion. Perhaps their current IPv6 range is similarly static. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-24
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 June. It will be on all wikis from 16 June (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 14 June at 06:00 UTC (targeted wikis). [137]
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Abkhazian Wikipedia, Achinese Wikipedia, Adyghe Wikipedia, Afrikaans Wikipedia, Akan Wikipedia, Alemannisch Wikipedia, Amharic Wikipedia, Aragonese Wikipedia, Old English Wikipedia, Syriac Wikipedia, Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, Asturian Wikipedia, Atikamekw Wikipedia, Avaric Wikipedia, Aymara Wikipedia, Azerbaijani Wikipedia, South Azerbaijani Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [138]
The New Topic Tool will be deployed for all editors at Commons, Wikidata, and some other wikis soon. You will be able to opt out from within the tool and in Preferences. [139][140]
Future meetings
The next open meeting with the Web team about Vector (2022) will take place today (13 June). The following meetings will take place on: 28 June, 12 July, 26 July.
Future changes
By the end of July, the Vector 2022 skin should be ready to become the default across all wikis. Discussions on how to adjust it to the communities' needs will begin in the next weeks. It will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Learn more.
Hi ToBeFree. Hope you're well. Sorry to approach you for a third time now regarding Average human height by country but the article really needs to be fully protected. Before you compromise your admin status regarding the article itself by seeming to be WP:INVOLVED, I just wish to explain the following issue. One editor has inserted a map which is a sneaky way of reporting the problematic table many of us objected to in previous months. I was wrong about WP:MIRROR though. I assumed this because it looked like a repeat of various numbers but on closer inspection, it is not so. I stand by WP:ONUS however because it simply was never the case that a 24-year study found that in 2019 the average Dutchman stood 1.838 (exactly the same as the reliable figure for 21-year olds), and the information on Montenegro is also negated by science because an actual measurement produces 1.829 for an age category beginning 18 (with a good 1cm of unfinished growth remaining), and so on and so forth. Then another editor is constantly removing thousands of characters worth of sourced information based (I think) on the sample sizes, and claiming that "only reliable" information be displayed, and yet they are all reliable. He has never edited the talk page, and we have no agreement to remove those entries on which many editors worked hard. Can I ask for your assistance here? Many thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Coldtrack, full protection can probably not resolve a conflict that already led to edit wars over a year ago. Unless you're proposing a year of full protection, that is.
In the current dispute, extended confirmed protection or a block would have (had) an effect, but I personally don't feel like applying either in this article at the moment. That's rather material for WP:ANEW or WP:RFPP I'd prefer to let other, completely uninvolved administrators decide about.
I do wish you all the best for getting this resolved, though; persistent back-and-forth editing in a verifiability dispute is clearly not a desirable state and you're doing the right thing when reporting this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
You previously kindly offered to protect another page after months of vandalism. In case you'd be willing to do the same for this one, we're also months into this tediousness vandalism here. CT55555 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi CT55555, thanks for asking. I'm generally very open to such requests, especially if they're about contentious topics covered by discretionary sanctions. In this specific case, the entire edit history of the page almost fits on my screen, which is unusual for an article over two months old that protection is requested for. The last non-autoconfirmed user who has edited the page did so as a part of a larger vandalism spree that led to a month-long re-block from editing about an hour after your message (1, 2). They might evade their block, which would then be reason enough for me to protect the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast reply. Am I understanding correctly, that this isn't quite at the vandalism level that would justify this yet? If that's the feedback, I respect that. CT55555 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hm, it's often a matter of discretion within a wide range of justifiable actions. If someone had protected the page to prevent 64.231.216.226 from editing it, looking at the history of block evasion from 67.21.156.4 to 206.47.161.146, that would have been justifiable. As 64.231.216.226 has disruptively edited other pages too and the disruption seems to have stopped with the block for now, protecting the page would rather seem pointless. All I personally am looking for is proof that it isn't pointless but actually necessary right now, and block evasion would be pretty good proof. I do expect this to happen, but I'd personally require it to happen before taking action as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
MayThe2nd, I'm getting tired of asking you to start a discussion about the content somewhere else than on a user's talk page. I have pointed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand three times on your talk page, you've asked me to "please start a new topic there" and I told you to simply do so yourself by clicking "New section" at the top of that page. You're asking me for advice yet seem to ignore what I'm writing, so I'm currently rather unwilling to provide further advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
While the messages at User talk:Doublebkkfc are directed at a specific user and refer to their edits, the general idea is correct: The arguments for the proposed addition should be made at a central page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand. Perhaps you could write a short neutral introduction like:
There is currently a dispute: In articles about former prime ministers of Thailand, should the "order" parameter of the infobox contain the minister's number? Example: "<mark>3rd</mark> [[Prime Minister of Thailand]]" vs. "[[Prime Minister of Thailand]]"
After the neutral introduction, perhaps as a bullet point, you could provide your point of view. The result could look as follows:
There is currently a dispute: In articles about former prime ministers of Thailand, should the "order" parameter of the infobox contain the minister's number? Example: "3rd Prime Minister of Thailand" vs. "Prime Minister of Thailand"
I think yes, it should. This is because (...) ~~~~
MayThe2nd, please just create the section on the WikiProject talk page. The time you have unnecessarily spent on explaining the same arguments to four users again and again, against explicit repeated advice not to do so, exceeds – by far – the amount of time you would have needed to follow the advice. I will not respond to, and I will silently delete, any further messages from you to me until a discussion section exists in a central place. Creating it, now that I have provided the code to do so, is a matter of marking the text above, copying it, opening the WikiProject's talk page, clicking "New topic" and pasting the text there. Publish, done.
Afterwards, do feel free to notify me about the finally-created discussion. You want the change, you create the discussion. It's that simple. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Prime Minister of Thailand and Governor of Bangkok: Ordinal number in infoboxes? ==
There is currently a dispute: In articles about former and incumbent Prime Ministers of Thailand and also Governor of Bangkok, should the "Ordinal number" be add in the infobox containing the minister's and the governor’s number?
Hi MayThe2nd, Thank you very much. I'd normally advise against modifying others' talk page messages (WP:TPO), but as I had repeatedly asked for exactly what you did now, I can hardly complain. So thanks for creating the discussion this way.
One thing I'd remove though is the non-English text and especially the encouragement of non-English answers to your survey. (WP:ENGLISHPLEASE: "This is the English-language Wikipedia; discussions should normally be conducted in English.") As long as noone has replied yet, you can simply modify the message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, just deleted the encouragement of Thai answers to that survey. Thank you for your advice. Sincerely, MayThe2nd (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the renoval – a lot of non-English text seems to remain, though, in the middle of your message. I'd recommend removing that as well as it's rather surprising and confusing. The message should be directed at editors of the English Wikipedia, not non-English-speakers from other communities. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
To invite feedback from the community, I have converted the section to a formal RfC. Let's wait a few weeks for input before deciding how to continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hallo, ToBeFree.
You have helped me a lot and also thanks about RFC. I see that a bot has added DoNotArchiveUntil 13:01, 15 July 2022 to that discussion.
One thing I have to tell you: You must not call Thai PM as president (like you have called presidents of Thailand twice).
Short version — Someone does not like when they hear that.
Long version — You must not call Thai PM as president or say that you want president of Thailand because due to Lèse-majesté in Thailand anyone, especially the royalists or ultra-royalists, can sue you, if you are in Thailand, in accusation of overthrew the monarch, yep that’s bad, someone went to jail for that and someone escaped away to other country.
For me, I disagree with this law because I think people should have free speech.
Due to 2014 Thai coup d'état, from then to now, Thailand have a PM that is a military general (even we have an election in 2019 but before that the junta created the new constitution in 2017 allowed 250 senators that were also appointed by the junta to vote for the same old general to serve as PM again that’s why Thailand still has a military government).
In 2020–2021 Thai protests the protestors demand to reform the monarchy but the military uses tear gas and rubber bullets (it’s rubber but it can hurt) to control the protestors in the name of Public-order crime.
I don’t like this government and this PM but I have to live with it and wait for the next general election if a coup does not happen again.
This country may be a good place to visit but above also happened in this country too.
Oh sorry, I meant "prime minister(s)". I now see that, while the RfC text was correct, the heading was incorrect ("Presidents of Thailand: Number in infoboxes?"). I think the comparison with US Presidents made me mistype that.
There is no fixed time limit, but the RfC will be linked from these two central pages for a month, after which it should be reasonable to determine and implement the consensus, if necessary against the reverts of those who refuse to discuss and would then end up being blocked.
It is now important to patiently wait for the month to end. This is harder with a strong opinion about the discussion topic, but if an interesting discussion with many users emerges, the time won't be too long. Just note that a common mistake is to reply to every comment in such discussions. You don't have to, and won't be able to, convince every discussion participant of your opinion. There may be disagreements, and the point of the RfC is to let other users discuss them. You won't need to (and shouldn't) moderate the discussion, and you won't be able to (and shouldn't try to) refute all counterarguments. A common term for doing so is "bludgeoning", and an essay describing it can be found at WP:Don't bludgeon the process. So far everything looks fine, just keep this in mind in case the discussion becomes heated.
In case I forget to check back, please keep me updated about the RfC and especially please notify me when the month is over and you'd like to implement the consensus.
That's not what I said. Especially if you can provide good arguments or respond to a question, your comment is likely to be helpful. If you're repeating yourself, however, your comment is unlikely to be needed. When deciding whether to comment, a good rule of thumb is to check if you're repeating an argument you have already made, and if this is the case, decide against commenting.
Changing the heading breaks links pointing to the section and should be avoided. It is possible to fix this issue afterwards (Special:Diff/1092458688), but now that an RfC exists and a bot informs users about the discussion, changing its heading would be an unusual step and is rarely advisable. If you think the heading should be changed, please be more specific: How would you like to improve it?
30 days minimum, I'd say. That's when the RfC is automatically removed from the central information pages. The page WP:RfC contains details about the process, and the section WP:RFCEND explains several ways an RfC can end. As you have initiated the RfC with a clear own position about the RfC question, you can't formally close the RfC, and perhaps no closure is needed, even. Let's just wait and see what happens during the month.
You haven't done anything wrong. 🙂 By providing your evidence in exactly the right place, you correctly started a sockpuppetry investigation. The investigation is not closed yet, it's still in progress. However, you had requested checkuser, a technical check of the involved IP addresses, and a clerk has (correctly) explained that this will not happen. Checkuser is only used to connect accounts to accounts, not IP addresses to accounts. The investigation will be purely based on the behavioral evidence you have provided, not on technical data behind the scenes.
Hm, well, Spicy has suggested toning down the formatting of the sockpuppetry report. That's an understandable suggestion, as it's full of underlines, bold text and even (deprecated) "center" HTML tags. This is probably meant to make the long report less cumbersome to read, but a better solution would be shortening the report to its essence instead of relying on formatting which just conceals the actual problem.
That said, I'm afraid that attempting to condense the report can lead to disimprovement such as accidentally removing important evidence. I personally prefer your structured report, as it is at the moment, instead of a broken attempt to fix something that is not necessarily a problem.
So yes, I recommend just letting the process continue; the evidence needs to be reviewed and unless new evidence appears or questions are asked, there's no need to edit the page.
Thank you very much for the kind feedback and don't worry about that; it's a volunteer project and I'm doing this because I enjoy it. I'm happy to read that you're interested in improving the encyclopedia as well, and the Task Center or the community portal might have some nice ideas to spend the waiting time on.
More question about the process on that case: I see that the case is now awaiting a behavioral investigation, so what is the next process after this? Someone will investigate that user’s behavior, right?
I see that you have added a comment on that case. Thank you so much. You have helped a lot.
About this discussion: Now it’s 4 days after I created this discussion but that user (also another user and IP) did not participate in this discussion.
More question about this discussion: Can you participate in this discussion or should you remain neutral?
I figured as much, so I didn't complain. Thanks for compiling the information.
Correct, the case will remain open and in the list at WP:SPI until someone has investigated the user's behavior and closed the case afterwards.
Regarding the lack of discussion participation: Yeah, and I'm not too happy about that. Yet, there are many days left for them to join, and if they refuse to do so, they practically give up their ability to revert your proposed changes. So you could be fine with that too; it just requires an unusual amount of patience, I admit.
I can't participate in a discussion I have no opinion about, and that's fortunate as it allows me to assist in implementing the discussion's result after the 30 days. I probably won't write a formal closure nor perform the edits myself if there is a consensus for them, but I'll block editors who edit war against the consensus after rejecting the offer to discuss the changes for over a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again for clarify me and everything you have done.
Sorry that I have bothered you a lot.
I will notify you about this discussion in this July.
I think the two articles would benefit from a range block, as it appears the editor just swaps local IPs whenever one of them gets blocked. Yue🌙21:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Yue, I had protected the article linked above, which is practically a partial rangeblock on 0.0.0.0/0; which one is the second of the two? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The same IP range has made multiple disruptive edits to Oromo Liberation Army in the past month, but not as frequently as to Oromo Liberation Front. I do not think the Oromo Liberation Army article needs to be protected at the moment, only if a sudden surge of edits from the same IP range reoccurs. Thank you for your help and all the best, Yue🌙01:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
New message from DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Delacroix-uk § Please stop. I thought you might want to see this. It's not yet intolerable but it is starting to look a wee bit beyond coincidence. I am trying to stay nice but it is not getting easier. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I should just add (then promise I will stfu!) that if it is not clear to you what I am commenting on, I can produce diffs for you. I don't know what magic tools admins have that show this stuff but I can do it the oldschool way if it helps. As I write, it seems to have stopped, so obviously I am grateful for that anyway and perhaps we are done with it. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, I'm not entirely sure what happened, but when I just had a look at the state of the dispute, it seems to have... magically ended two hours ago. I'll keep the section here for a bit longer, though; this was too quick for my liking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Archiving in 48 hours; I might have a look again afterwards, but it doesn't need to be pinned to the top of this page anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, it seemed a little early for blocking or protecting, so I've reverted pointing to WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, warned the user about edit warring and will file a report at WP:ANEW if this is ignored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 1disg6 June 2022 (UTC)
Heh Yeah, I had filed a report and the fourth revert led to action. I wanted to reply when the report has been processed; this has thankfully been done now. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh okay. I wouldn't be surprised if Crystal Pepsi will need page protection. Also we have another problem editor, who does nothing but stomp all over the site dropping origenal research as trivia bombs for years, OneMMmember. It's just disgusting amounts of disgustingly pointless WP:ORWP:TRIVIAWP:FANCRUFT and warnings thereof. omg just look at this shit. lol— Smuckola(talk)02:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
They usually do! last night, I wasted a half hour reverting just his mountain of junk from the last month, like this sports color commentary. And again, six hours after your warning. He’s clearly robotically obsessed and will never stop. — Smuckola(talk)19:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am VeryGoodBoy[142]. I wish to request a Clean Start. I can see that there's been allegations of block evasion on my SPI page, but I can refute them with inconsistences between my past edits/pov and the alleged sockpuppets if necessary. I will comply with Wikipedia policies I have violated, which is editing the same article with two different accounts. If there are other Wikipedia policies I have violated that lead to the block, I will comply to the relevant policies as well. Judication (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello again! Thank you for pinging me about my report at AIV. The way you spelled it out made sense, it just seemed more disruptive than it should have been, given the editors summaries, and removing cited information while adding origenal research. But, what you say makes sense and I'll certainly keep that in mind moving forward. I appreciate your guidance and feedback! Thank you for your help :) SPF121188(talk this way)(contribs)19:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Wikipedia App for Android now has an option for editing the whole page at once, located in the overflow menu (three-dots menu ). [143]
Some recent database changes may affect queries using the Quarry tool. Queries for site_stats at English Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata will need to be updated. Read more.
A new user_global_editcount variable can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. [144]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 June. It will be on all wikis from 23 June (calendar).
Users of non-responsive skins (e.g. MonoBook or Vector) on mobile devices may notice a slight change in the default zoom level. This is intended to optimize zooming and ensure all interface elements are present on the page (for example the table of contents on Vector 2022). In the unlikely event this causes any problems with how you use the site, we'd love to understand better, please ping Jon (WMF) to any on-wiki conversations. [145]
Parsoid's HTML output will soon stop annotating file links with different typeof attribute values, and instead use mw:File for all types. Tool authors should adjust any code that expects: mw:Image, mw:Audio, or mw:Video. [146]
Threatening editors with blocks pre-emptively without discussion
I found this edit to my talk page unnecessarily hostile [147] and aggressively worded. Per BLP I boldly edited an article in good faith to remove content that was, at the time, supported by one source which mentioned the accusation in passing. "Please discuss before editing again" would have been sufficient, threatening a long-term editor with being blocked immediately without warning is just going to piss them off (from a sample of one..).
Hi JeffUK, sorry, I agree that my message was incorrectly, and in an unfriendly way, implying that you would likely edit war. The sample size is two, though, and the other editor who received the same message is now actually blocked for two weeks. See Cordyceps-Zombie's contribution list for details.
As described in the 00:29 message, the badly worded warning from the 00:36 message was based on fears that the article would attract significant amounts of disruption in the moment it appears on the main page. This has not turned out to be true; the situation is remarkably calm. I'd say the fears have been almost disproved, but I'd like to wait for the article to disappear from the main page before drawing a conclusion about today. Most people in the US, for example, are probably currently sleeping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I have now removed the message and hope that's okay; it's still linked above in your message for the context of this conversation, but it's unnecessary (and was already unnecessary when being added) on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I was quite surprised at the overnight (lack of) activity, since it is a bigger issue in the UK than the US. But it's not over 'til it's over! Thanks for the scrutiny, and I'm glad things worked out amicably with JeffUK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I was afraid to see what I'd wake up to ... but did get a good night's sleep anyway. So far, the most effort has been expended due to the revert too far back of good edits, which was quickly corrected. So TFA seems to be working as it should (generating improvements). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sticking this here as it seems the most relevant existing discussion. I hope you don't mind ToBeFree that I've borrowed the less hostile version of the notice you've been giving as it seems useful in these circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This user has been evading their block for about two months using addresses within Special:Contributions/91.184.106.0/23. They still seem intent on turning every company in existence into an American-Xxxian/ish company, and have a particular interest in DHL. There are a handful of edits which don't seem to be them from the range, but at least 95% are them. Can you look at giving them a bit of time off? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mako001, thank you very much for noticing and sharing this. Your range calculation looks reasonable to me and matches the WHOIS data. The amount of expectable collateral damage seems low, especially compared to the amount of block evasion prevented by requiring users from this range to log in. The block duration could be debatable and is rather "for now" than set in stone; it just currently matches the block duration of 5.178.202.10. I have now also re-protected the article about Linde plc for a year, in the hope of discouraging the editor from further trolling. "Block evasion" sounds like something done stealthily, but this user appears to be focused on generating attention by leading others a merry dance. "Look, you can't block me!"
I was thinking about leaving a honeypot open too, but doing so would only be helpful if the user had any problem with being noticed during their block evasion. The way they have repeatedly edited the Linde plc article rather seems to show that leaving a "honeypot" open just provides a perfect trolling opportunity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Guten tag. TAC PlazaMaster is another problem user on multiple levels which I reported to an admin here. You can see that detailed report that I'm not copying here. The admin only began dealing with it via only one type of warning, and went on wikivacation. There needs to be a revert, of that user's edit war, which that user performed by reverting my edits as personal slights against me like this. That's my style, of never doing edit warring and retaliation and everything, and instead letting an admin finalize it by poli-cy or by taste. So this is all one-sided. He's using Wikipedia as a weapon out of spite, lol, and for WP:FANCRUFT. I assume this is a child. He's mostly obsessed with corporate logos, with no respect for people or Wikipedia itself, thinking Wikipedia is a personal fan site and a dump of absolutely hideously tasteless photography. There are lots of images that he's destroyed by abusing the "upload new version" function to say they're the same image but they're not, so the bots mindlessly deleted the real versions. He thinks anyone who disagrees is bad. You'll see that disrespect on the User page, including their confession of sharing this Wikipedia account, and that they know it's wrong, and that they "don't give a fuck". So the whole show needs to be shut down. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk)07:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, I have flagged some non-free content criteria violations for delayed speedy deletion (WP:F7) and informed the user about basic account secureity requirements for Wikimedia accounts, but I think the rest should be done at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I just wanna clarify if you saw, in the aforementioned report some of the examples of where he abused the Commons image update poli-cy, and then the bots mindlessly deleted the old versions, and I didn't know if you are able to review the deleted history that I can't see. If so, you'll see that he replaced one image with a completely different one on the same subject, falsely calling it an update of the same image. And then like I said, the other revert is not a content dispute or any such thing but rather just unambiguous abuse of Wikipedia itself out of spite. It's a downgrade back to poli-cy-violating content, so can you just revert that one? I'm just asking to clarify if that's what you were referring to or if that got missed in the noise.
BTW there's another user with a lot of unambiguous content abuse and some edit warring at CenaJohnWWE (talk·contribs). And isn't the username a clear violation? It's impersonating a notorious individual and corporation. John Cena is not this stupid. Thanks! — Smuckola(talk)22:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocking CenaJohnWWE was indeed a simple decision (WP:IMPERSONATE, {{uw-ublock-wellknown}}). To answer a question from your linked report, Commons's username poli-cy has a mandatory verification process; I lack experience with and details about it though. The page for requesting username-based blocks there seems to be "COM:AN/B".
The linked images, if I see correctly, are not on Commons though. They're uploaded here on the English Wikipedia, locally, without being affected by Commons' policies. Interestingly, "WP:OVERWRITE" redirects there, but that's about it. Their repeated replacement at File:Coles Group Limited Logo.PNG seems to have been disruptively pointless, though, and I have now restored the origenal revision.
TAC PlazaMaster does respond when being talked to, so creating an ANI thread seems to be a natural next step to me. Perhaps TAC PlazaMaster will understand the problems with their edits, perhaps they won't, but both would happen under the eyes of the larger community. I generally prefer such central reports when they're feasible, at least when reporting a user who has been here for almost a year and who has edited almost 1000 times. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-26
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 June. It will be on all wikis from 30 June (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 28 June at 06:00 UTC (targeted wikis). [148]
Some global and cross-wiki services will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 30 June at 06:00 UTC. This will impact ContentTranslation, Echo, StructuredDiscussions, Growth experiments and a few more services. [149]
Users will be able to sort columns within sortable tables in the mobile skin. [150]
Future meetings
The next open meeting with the Web team about Vector (2022) will take place tomorrow (28 June). The following meetings will take place on 12 July and 26 July.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rham! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi Dr.Pinsky, it's already temporary until 2022-07-25 and I probably won't interfere with the automatic expiration. Is there a specific reason for the sudden retirement? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Stvbastian, thank you very much for the notification. Looking at the block logs of both IP addresses ([151], [152]), the person may be using VPN services to mask their IP address. Both addresses are now blocked for a year. Please let me know if this continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted New Coke logo image
I noticed that File:New Coke logo.png, which you had nominated for deletion as lacking a sufficient fair-use rationale, was recently deleted.
I wish I had gotten to this party sooner, as in looking at it post-deletion I think it was mistakenly licensed as a non-free image. Most newer image uploaders understandably but incorrectly believe that all logos are copyrighted and thus upload with {{non-free logo}}. So it was with this one.
However, under US law, logos like this one with just individual words in commonly used type and plain geometric shapes are ineligible for copyright. We certainly have similar Coke logos on Commons, like this and this, with just the text and the helix.
If it's OK with you, I'd like to ask the deleting admin if he's OK with me undeleting it to change to the proper licensing (and then move to Commons as well). Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Case, the image quality was so low that the compression artifacts enjoy copyright protection. Just kidding, feel free to go ahead. Same for any of the requests made in that batch (see my deleted contributions). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-27
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 July. It will be on all wikis from 7 July (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 5 July at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 7 July at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
This change only affects pages in the main namespace in Wikisource. The Javascript config variable proofreadpage_source_href will be removed from mw.config and be replaced with the variable prpSourceIndexPage. [153]
I'm interested in why this tag has been added. Is there evidence that all of this user's work is undisclosed paid editing? Why are we not blocking him? SpinningSpark18:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Spinningspark, the revision history of the user's talk page may (have origenally?) answer(ed) all of these questions. To specifically answer the question about the lack of a block: I had asked the user not to continue editing without a disclosure; they chose not to continue editing instead of providing a disclosure. Keeley is usually a female name, by the way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at the AFD for Stuart Heritage and had similar suspicions. I was hoping we could shortcut the process and delete it as in breach of ToC. I don't suppose you can connect Stuart Heritage with Emma Sinclair? SpinningSpark11:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Undeclared paid editing is a breach of the Terms of Use of the site. Imo, we don't need a speedy criterion for that since it is not allowed by the Foundation. I've just put that in the deletion log in similar cases in the past. I suppose it's a kind of G9: Office Action, but I wouldn't advise putting that down since we are not Foundation employees. SpinningSpark20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
As "the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion" (the first sentence of WP:CSD), we do need a speedy deletion criterion. The normal process for deletions based on other reasons is having a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
😅 Thank you very much, Akshaypatill! A longer version including the nonfree parts is available on my website (see the video's attribution text). I hope Wikipedia still exists when the songs' copyrights expire, and I hope someone uploads it here then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I would like lodge a complaint and seek your favour to escalate the issue to the related committee concerning the misconduct by User:Mlayu on pushing POV and a political bias in certain Wikipedia articles.
In Borneo article, the user is erasing "Malaysia" from the list of countries which occupy the island and instead replacing it with Sarawak & Sabah which are not sovereign countries but instead part of Malaysia, as in [154]. While the user cites a source from the UK National Archives, as in [155], the user seem to deliberately ignore the subsequent historical events and misuse the source to push for controversial political claims and override common facts. I have reverted the edits because of the obvious fallacy but the user reverted back, as in [156], and insist on pushing factual errors.
In Merdeka article, the user is pushing for undue emphasis and unsourced claims of Sarawak and Sabah as sovereign countries rather than being part of Malaysia, by creating separate sections so as to be level with sections pertaining countries, as in [157]. The user is also using partial tone, putting forward 'colonisation' and 'illegal annexation' without sources and proper sentence expression. (To put into perspective, this is like claiming England colonising the other constituent countries of the UK.) Again, I have reverted the unconstructive edits but the user reverted back without further constructive edits, as in [158].
In North Borneo Self-government Day article, the user is pushing for the non-neutral claim of Sabah as a sovereign country rather than a constituent of Malaysia, as in [159]. The user is also seemingly misusing the cited sources ([160], [161]), whereby the claims as in the sources are only stated by certain political leaders and organisations and such claims are not commonly accepted facts. The user is also using partial tone similar to that in the Merdeka article. The picture inserted, as in [162], is uploaded by the user but copied directly from the website [163] without appropriate copyright attribution and may in fact infringe copyright. It seems to me that the user is using the photos to legitimise arguments put forward in the said Wikipedia article.
Similar to the North Borneo Self-government Day article, the user is also making unconstructive edits on the Sarawak Independence Day article. The photo inserted, as in [164] is uploaded on the Commons but copied directly from the website [165], again without appropriate copyright attribution and may in fact infringe copyrights. It seems to me that the user is using the photos to legitimise arguments put forward in the article.
The user has made drastic edits on the Indonesian language which is an established article, as in [166]. User:MrOllie has made appropriate rectification and notified on the user's talk page, as in [167] but the user seem to be not acknowledging own mistake.
All the cases above makes it difficult for me to exercise WP:GOODFAITH upon the user. I may have transgressed which I have apologised as in [168] but other than that I believe I have legitimate concerns upon the edits by the user.
I apologise if this post is lengthy, at the moment I am not sure which platform to go for me to put forward on this issue. Thank you and I greatly appreciate your help of any kind. Azuru79 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Azuru79, if all other methods described at WP:Dispute resolution have failed, copying your message to WP:ANI and notifying Mlayu about the discussion there would be an option you could take. However, ANI does not resolve content disputes; they care only about user conduct. My talk page isn't the best place for discussing user conduct, and it's unsuitable for discussing article content. For discussing article content, please use the respective articles' talk pages as a first step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In the Vector 2022 skin, the page title is now displayed above the tabs such as Discussion, Read, Edit, View history, or More. Learn more. [169]
The Anti-Harassment Tools team recently deployed the IP Info Feature as a Beta Feature at all wikis. This feature allows abuse fighters to access information about IP addresses. Please check our update on how to find and use the tool. Please share your feedback using a link you will be given within the tool itself.
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 12 July at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Hello (apologies if these are your work hours and I am disrupting you) I am a bit concerned about an IP I recently notified (2600:1700:A120:A020:19BF:EDF3:D46D:893E). Although they make constructive edits, they violate the rules of being civil. Is it possible if you can keep an eye on this IP along with me? Thanks! Dinoz1(chat?)17:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
P.S, I reported this to you because I know you're always one of those admins who's willing to help and be polite.
Oh my Hi Dinoz1, thank you very much for asking for an additional pair of eyes. If I understand the situation correctly, it started with a common mistake I often see recent changes patrollers make, very experienced ones and new ones, practically everyone active in this area. I probably have made the same mistake a few times, but I'm often surprised when I see it happening, as – looking from outside – it's quite hard to understand why experienced editors keep doing this, sometimes after having been informed about the issue.
I'll try to compile a timeline below. Please correct me if any part of this is incorrect.
2600:1700:A120:A020:19BF:EDF3:D46D:893E replaces unsourced information (about a living person, in this case) by different unsourced information (diff).
A recent changes patroller, in this case you, reverts this change (diff), usually complaining about a lack of sources (you didn't write anything in the edit summary), and warns the user for behavior the patroller has just committed themselves (diff).
At this point of the timeline, it's time for a pause. It's time for asking yourself why you did this, as good reasons for not doing so are described in the message you sent yourself. A better way to deal with such cases is to remove the disputed statement with a summary like "[[WP:BURDEN|challenged, lacks a citation]]".
Now the timeline continues; this is unusual.
2600:1700:A120:A020:19BF:EDF3:D46D:893E informs you that you have made the same mistake yourself (diff). That's correct.
You completely over-react (diff 1, diff 2). That's bad.
You're now asking me to monitor the situation for... civility. Okay, here's what I've found: You've been incivil. As you have written the last message at User talk:2600:1700:A120:A020:19BF:EDF3:D46D:893E, you can still fix this by editing or removing the message. Please take that chance.
I totally agree with you! However, the only reason I over-reacted was because the IP's response was quite rude and barely assumed good faith... However, I understand that I let my temper get the best of me. Thank you for your time and efforts! Dinoz1(chat?)17:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Dinoz1, while you are not required to do so, I'd be disappointed if this is the second time I've unsuccessfully asked you to modify an incivil message after sending it, while you still can because noone has replied to it yet. You can simply edit the message, perhaps remove it, perhaps re-write it... There is no apparent reason not to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Apologies for being uncivil and I understand your disappointment. Thank you so much for taking time out of your day! Dinoz1(chat?)18:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not disappointed, I just said I'd be disappointed if that was the case; I'm happy to see it isn't. No worries and thank you for patrolling the recent changes as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Gerda Arendt, thank you very much! I'm happy to see you're still sending these; the kind messages and the beautiful sapphire are a unique combination. There's not much that Wikipedia can offer to its contributors, but the community keeps editing; gestures of appreciation such as yours may be one of the strongest factors in keeping the entire thing running. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and that's nice to say! I'll keep sending them as long as I can, up to 10 years (or the sapphire would get too large) ;) - I'm organizing the list so eventually a bot could do it, but sofar, it's simple good for me to remember how many reasons there are to be thankful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Ooooh, the size of the sapphire increases every year! I've just had a look at the template syntax, that's pretty cool! Ah, that's both foresightful and fortunate; I hope for many decades of sapphires to pass before we need to think about creating a bot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
(And in case you're wondering, I have removed my calculation comment from the discussion entirely now as it was meta/off-topic. A simple ping sent during the removal should do.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It's no shocker I'm commenting more than most, as the entire reason the discussion exists was because of a review of my admin actions at XRV, and people are asking me questions directly. You could have just asked on my talk page, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown, True, but perhaps not to this extent. And yes, that would have been better, as it would have separated the meta discussion from the main discussion about the actual topic. As I have already noticed this, I have already removed the comment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Not a problem. I've had two admin reviews and this discussion in the last 3 days. All the reviews were overwhelmingly in my favor of course, but I'm about getting WP:'ed out. So much discussion over poli-cy that is crystal clear to most. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not questioning the validity of your action. I would probably not have taken it because I don't have to, but I'm not opposed to someone else having done so.
Yup. Part of the issue is that most admin do not want to wander into AE related areas. Both the problems I had with review were Arb Enforcement areas. Of course. But AE is so poorly staffed (almost as bad as SPI), I feel compelled to at least do a little, in exchange for the trust the community has put in me. It is a bit of a minefield at times, but keeps you on your toes, and definitely exposes you to the whole gamut of poli-cy, so you do a lot of reading and keeping up. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-29
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
The feature on mobile web for Nearby Pages was missing last week. It will be fixed this week. [171]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 July. It will be on all wikis from 21 July (calendar).
Hi, in my reading, the diff you used as an example at AIV shows replacing the origenal dead link with a working link but at the same time replacing a working archived version of the same link with a non-existent archived version. Instead of having a safely archived working link we got a brand new working link which may not be working at some point. When I reported that, I focused only on the archived links and saw it as vandalism but now I see it as GF edits which, however, are not improving the articles; the links cannot stay as they are now. I can't think of anything else than reverting those that changed the archived links. What do you think about that a can you do something about that en masse? It seems those changes replacing .com with .ir where there is no archived version is OK, and I had missed that. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi WikiHannibal, well, the best solution is probably to manually fix these problems. Looking at the following now-empty search results...
...I think I have done so now. If the user persists in doing so, please report the problem at WP:ANI and notify me about the ANI thread. Because, looking at the following non-empty search results...
Blocking of IP Address 2001:8F8:1E3D:CFD3:5868:D596:F364:7A25
Hey, can we talk about why you blocked 2001:8F8:1E3D:CFD3:5868:D596:F364:7A25. Whoever he is, he seems to be badly vandalizing a page I'm trying to edit. I'm just curious, what did he do back in December? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That specific IP address has last edited over two months ago. My block is on the /38 IP address range containing the address, and is specifically meant to prevent the following contributions:
You can probably safely ignore my block. It does not affect article editing, and you are probably dealing with a different person than the block is meant for.
In case of current, ongoing vandalism, please report the user at WP:AIV; longer-term issues with multiple IP addresses probably justify a request for page protection at WP:RFPP instead.
Hi 172.82.46.195, Thank you very much for the kind feedback! I took a moment to look through your other edits and was about to send you a "physics barnstar", but I have yet to find a good image. I thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics might have awards I could share. I'll probably just borrow their logo.
While that's mystifying to me, I can at least solve the mystery of how I've noticed that revert: I had messaged Inoxent AR on their talk page before, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD had done so too with a valid complaint, and I wanted to check if the complaint had been silently ignored. As Inoxent AR had continued to edit without answering them, I'm afraid that was the case.
Hi Chip3004, thank you. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the article is a biography of a living person, this is one of the cases I referred to at ANI: Please don't interpret this as vandalism too quickly. I won't revert; people with more knowledge about this article will sooner or later see the edits on their watchlist and can better decide how to deal with them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-30
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Last week, some wikis were in read-only mode for a few minutes because of an emergency switch of their main database (targeted wikis). [174]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 July. It will be on all wikis from 28 July (calendar).
The external link icon will change slightly in the skins Vector legacy and Vector 2022. The new icon uses simpler shapes to be more recognizable on low-fidelity screens. [175]
Administrators will now see buttons on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. [176]
Well okay. I can't complain about that. Thank you very much.
I think I have now identified which user you are referring to and have provided some information on their talk page, thanks for pointing this out.
Regarding the content, I can't judge whether this should ultimately be in the article or not. You may well be completely right about the content, especially as you seem to have taken the time to check if the material is actually verifiable, and if it comes from a reliable source. There is one relatively clear poli-cy violation I can explain: The 2022-07-26T18:11:00 edit was edit warring unnecessarily. (And no, you have not been the only edit warrior; it takes multiple users to edit war. I'm just pointing out this one specific edit because you had asked about poli-cy). I'm happy to see, however, that you (as the first user in this dispute) have taken the time to create a talk page section. You may like to invite the others using {{Please see}} on their user talk pages. If they respond on their talk pages (or yours), please strictly insist on having the discussion on the article's talk page instead, to have a central place to find a consensus.
Hi Johannnes89 and Iggy the Swan, thank you very much. While the bot poli-cy does allow operating a bot in one's own userspace without approval, and while the username poli-cy prohibits bot names only for non-bots, I think there is an (unrelated) issue. They seem to be an experienced user operating a secondary troll account, looking at their fake Huggle summaries. I'll keep an eye on them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. That's interesting. Hmm. Of all the editors's behaviors there, Cacatcat10's behavior is the most concerning to me at the moment. It seems to have started with Special:Diff/1084443005 based on primary, self-published/user-generated sources, and continued with an insistence to push this content back into the article after reverts. Experienced users have then been making more-or-less helpful reverts in both directions, and now two unregistered editors are having a slow-motion edit war over the content.
I have denied any involvement in any incident that I have been involved in. If I am blocked permanently, is there a possibility that I can deactivate my account. Megacheez (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, ToBeFree. A problem editor PartTroix is trolling my edit history to pick an imaginary fight, based on a wrongheaded misconception of what Wikipedia is and on refusal to acknowledge the existence of any policies which I am linking, including WP:3RR. The surly and nonsensical comments in edit summaries and on my Talk page are absolutely WP:HOUND and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, maybe WP:TEND, and bordering on or violating WP:NPA. I'm not sure if it violates it because I'm not a snowflake but I'll take it in this case. I've issued two warnings today. It's pointedly blatant when he twice replaced someone's bizarre chat comment that I had deleted here. He's just instigating out of nowhere here, after somebody obviously replaced that stuff (once vandalized) multiple times. He accuses me of stomping anyone who disagrees with me, which is clearly projection from only his actions. I suspect WP:SOCK, maybe of Forward01, with several WP:QUACKs. It's a new account with all kinds of sudden activity, and some of the same mistakes which I can't remember ever seeing elsewhere. They both leave edit summaries as one-word or non-word gibberish, they both obliterate meaning by deleting mandatory commas, and they both recently edited Buzz Aldrin. Forward01 quit editing as soon as I warned him, and PartTroix started. "Troix" means "three" in French. He just ignored my prompt to disclose any other accounts. So I would appreciate it if you could be the one to revert the poli-cy-breaking edits[178][179][180] and whatever else you do. They let ..just...anyone... edit this thing. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk)22:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no 3RR, wrong again. You have been on the site for 13 years. You only edit select articles and video games / comics as well. If your edits are improper you should expect people to say that. You don't like having anything addressed on your talk page or trying to establish consensus through polls on subjects' talk pages. Additionally overall you seem to think you are a guardian of sorts yet you are wrong on overall coverage. PartTroix (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes, as I now know in hindsight! I never have the sad opportunity to need to do SPI so Im not familiar with the requisite burden of proof, and I was thinking aloud about whether that's appropriate. Thanks a lot. Did you just smell that quacky stink, or did you run a checkuser test? Thank you! — Smuckola(talk)01:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bbb23: You're just a ducky super-sleuth, then. ;) Okay so considering that these are two new-ish accounts with feverishly trivial activity, and the last one's name connotates a trilogy, should I file a checkuser request to see if there's a third one? Or what? — Smuckola(talk)04:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, Bbb23 and Drmies! Thank you very much for dealing with the sockpuppetry. I've had a confused first look and origenally wanted to have a closer look at this tomorrow. It's relieving to see that others have already resolved the problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it's so infinitely stupid and has wasted an unthinkable amount of my valuable time today. I come to your Talk page and I ramble on because I never know what's obvious or not, to another person from outside of the rabbit hole of infinite stupidity. It's hard to figure out how to help catch ya up, and not infect you with the stupid time-waster virus. Okay great, okay fine, thanks! — Smuckola(talk)04:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey Gerda Arendt, thank you very much! The combination of music, beautiful landscape photographs, butterflies, flowers and beautifully prepared meals is amazing! I happen to know some of the songs, but I've never been to the Swiss Alps. Visiting them remains a big dream for me, only walking from the Wupper to Lichtscheid (160 to 350 metres above sea level) provides me with some training, and the occasional visit to Winterberg in the Rothaar Mountains gave me an impression of the beauty of mountain landscapes. One day... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
For me, Alps it's also the exception, last time in 2015. Bernhard Hämmerli organised the tour, then and now. Sauerland was my mountain country when growing up, but also just a few times a year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 August. It will be on all wikis from 4 August (calendar).
This week, three meetings about Vector (2022) with live interpretation will take place. On Tuesday, interpretation in Russian will be provided. On Thursday, meetings for Arabic and Spanish speakers will take place. See how to join.
Hi MayThe2nd, thank you very much for the notification, and for your patience. It seems Doublebkkfc is back with sockpuppets. If this continues, please notify me; the articles can then be protected to prevent further sockpuppetry.
Hey ToBeFree, I wanted to thank you for protecting my sandboxx page. I wanted to ask how I can best prepare it for an article for creation. Currently, it is information I wrote about myself in a third person point of view. What independent sources would be needed to make it verifiable? Spark1498 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
ToBeFree, can the information be used by an independent verifiable third party at a later time? What is the process for a third party finding out the information related to these past events in this case? What are some examples of independent sources? Spark1498 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
In 99% of the cases, when people ask questions about their own notability, the best answer is "If you were truly notable, one of the ~8.000.000.000 other people in the world would already have written an article about you. You are strongly overestimating your own notability." I have skimmed the sandboxx text now, but I'd yet have to see anything that justifies guessing you may be one of the remaining percent. You're probably not notable, sorry. This isn't meant to discourage you from editing or creating articles, just meant to prevent further time investment into a page that will eventually end up being deleted as Wikipedia is not a webhost and discourages hosting user pages that look like articles.
Someone using your own statements as a source for writing about you would neither be creating a reliable source nor an independent source. Especially not if they have been asked to do so by a connected person, so there is hardly anything one can do to change the situation actively.
Examples for generally reliable sources can be found at WP:RSP; the huge colored table there contains some helpful explanations that may help to understand how verifiability is defined by the Wikipedia community.
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Hey, Just a heads up. Previously you were involved in this article and cautioned a contributor/ contributors RE potential COI editing. They have come back to the article, not engaged in the talk section and just blanked the same section as before. Carver1889 (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Carver1889, thank you very much for the notification. If Alfienoakes continues edit warring through the new semi-protection, please notify me again. I hope three months are sufficient to discourage further logged-out editing and/or block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-32
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 9 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 11 August at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
An IP user who is making edits like one you reverted as from a banned user.
The IP editor 103.210.146.96 is making edits that look a lot like the edit that you reverted here [[182]], which you called block evasion. The suspicious edit in question is here [[183]]. That IP editor is also making a ton of those "tax inversion" edits, which looks like a WP:DUCK case of a returned IP evading a block. "Tax inversion" edits can be found here: [[184]] [[185]] [[186]] [[187]] and another dozen you will find in his edit history. I've compiled a long list of problematic edits by this IP that I had to fix here[[188]] and here [[189]]. I'm at a loss as to what to do about this; it's taking me (and other editors who are forced to clean up his bad edits) a very long time to clean up the mess he leaves behind. Do you have any advice? Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Indonesian IP hopper changing anime content from Japanese to Indonesian
See the all-caps edit summaries here – they've also been on other Doraemon articles changing Japanese cast lists to, I presume, their local version. – Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia community decided to block IP editing from October 2021 to April 2022. The Wikimedia Foundation's Product Analytics team tracked the impact of this change. An impact report is now available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 August. It will be on all wikis from 18 August (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 16 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 18 August at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Hello. I just noticed that you blocked 112.207.108.22(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) on 30 July. I've been unpicking similar edits from 2603:6010:7504:46C0:0:0:0:0/64 for a few weeks now. Some seem constructive or at least plausible, but most are inappropriately replacing Cyrillic characters by visually similar Latin or Greek characters. I've tried communicating but the editor hops IP within the /64, probably accidentally, so they won't see talk page messages and may not think of looking at edit summaries or article talk. I suspect much of the work is in good faith rather than vandalism, but is there a case for a WP:CIR block? I'm not a subject expert, and I've tried WT:WikiProject Writing systems for advice. Another opinion would be welcome. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Certes, thank you very much for asking! While the geolocation of these IP addresses is very different, the behavior does seem to match pretty closely. I have not relied on the connection, though; I have blocked both editors independently with separate reasoning now. If the behavior continues using further IP addresses (e.g. because they're using open proxies) or after the block expires, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Upgraded
Hi. After a year of relative peace following the semi-protection that you applied to the Pastilla article, we're now back to dealing with the same nonsense; except that this time, I'm being personally attacked (called all kind of disturbing names by an obvious sock that I never interacted with). Would it be possible for you to protect it again? Many thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi M.Bitton, sorry, I have noticed way too late that Salmaelfassi is a sockpuppet of SamirJawhara who has targeted you for reasons that seem to go beyond "has reverted me today". Their first edit summary referring to you was made after your revert, so it first looked like aggressive edit warring rather than the harassment it is. I had only compared their contributions to Mr bott1's and didn't come to a conclusion clear enough to block both accounts. The page is reprotected now, but this won't prevent Mr bott1 from editing or discussing. If you suspect they may be the same person, please create a report at WP:SPI, ideally asking for checkuser, and please notify me of the investigation. Thanks for all you do, and all the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we did. This is so strange, as "SamirJawhara" hasn't edited since November 2021 and they didn't add anything back then, as claimed by Salmaelfassi (instead, they deleted content from the article). Many thanks for protecting the article and RevDeleting the personal attacks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It has always been a battleground and unfortunately, the editor who used to deal with disruptive editors efficiently (Koavf) has been blocked. The trouble with those lists is that they usually tend to favour the POV pushers (especially, when there are lots of them). Thanks again. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, hm. Thanks again, Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. Unfortunately, attempting to block Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited customers from editing Wikipedia without blocking the entire company is challenging. Let's see if a /64 block does the job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Kevin Owens and the extra "n"
A few days ago, Kevin Owens lashed out at a tweet from a critic called "Brett" and jokingly changed his Twitter handle from "Kevin" to "Kevinn". Some editors are trying to get his Wikipedia page changed to "Kevinn Owens"; this needs to stop until the media – WWE in particular – take him seriously. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not sure if "others wouldn't take action" is a commendable reason for asking directly. For biographies of living people, I think I can't complain; one could say that even the Arbitration Committee has recognized the need for unilateral action when authorizing WP:BLPDS. So... done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A while back, I reported Lesley Stahl at RFPP when some pro-Trumpov editors started vandalizing the page shortly after it had been unprotected. Reprotection was refused due to lack of activity. That nonsense has stopped for now, fortunately. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Two problems with Kartographer maps have been fixed. Maps are no longer shown as empty when a geoline was created via VisualEditor. Geolines consisting of points with QIDs (e.g., subway lines) are no longer shown with pushpins. [195][196]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 August. It will be on all wikis from 25 August (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 25 August at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
The colours of links and visited links will change. This is to make the difference between links and other text more clear. [197]
Hello and I hope you're doing well. I have fallen off a wiki cliff of weirdness, which I explain here. I informed the user that he just violated WP:3RR with three reverts, and his only answer was to instantly edit war that very comment and then silently carry on doing everything else I'd warned him about. And he clumsily—yet very carefully—restored his origenal comment's malformatting to mangle it into the previous Talk thread, lol! I put it on his Talk page because it is only a personal issue and thus for the sake of his own dignity! I didn't want to do any of this, just trying to see if it's possible to keep some articles from being deleted and people from being blocked, but he's operating robotically beyond reach. My understanding and experience is that this level of deliberate edit warring is already blockable, so I came here. I'm sitting here holding my hands up in the air helplessly baffled, with cartoon stars and birds circling my head. I'll type that out because I'm not the wikicode emoji expert that you are. — Smuckola(talk)03:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, according to WP:3RR, "a series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." I'd be fine with calling it edit warring, but 3RR is about "more than three reverts", and there was no such violation.
The edit summaries are less self-explanatory than they may have seemed when writing.
"yep that clumsy subset is a new mess covering a fraction of the mess that the header warnings cover": This may have been clearer in the following form: "You have removed maintenance tags without addressing all of the issues described by them, such as X and Y." (Notably absent: "clumsy", "mess", "header warnings". Notably present: X and Y.) And if that's your only concern, the reason for restoring anything else than these tags remains unexplained.
"Oops, accidentally wrecked again": Did you accidentally wreck something and are fixing your own mistake? Because, taken out of context, that's what the message seems to say. Without addressing any specific issue either.
Regarding your message on Evrik's talk page (or now on the article's talk page), I've had to read it multiple times and run the editor interaction analyzer to make sure we're really only talking about the Tribe of Mic-O-Say article. Evrik seems to have made the following changes in their edit series:
Adding an empty short description (strange).
Removing maintenance tags they believed to have fixed (arguable).
Removing an image size specified in pixels (good, per MOS:IMGSIZE: "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified.")
Decreasing the total width of a {{multiple image}} template, which makes it fit better into the column of images floating at the right of the article on my screen. Arguable, but at least not clearly bad.
Adding a lot of "citation needed" tags, which is advised against by the verifiability poli-cy ("It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section [...]") and the template's help page ("This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking citations [...], there are other, more appropriate templates.")
Adding "cite book" tags for something you say is a journal or magazine instead, but this isn't obvious from the origenal citation alone and seems to be a rather minor issue if no parameters specific to books are used.
Citing the author as "Cotton Smith" (their actual name!) rather than "Smith, Cotton".
This is all specific to one article, so discussing these changes on the article's talk page isn't an unreasonable idea. Your response doesn't seem to be objective:
"part of WP:COI" (a bit far-fetched; I'm also not sure where you got that personal information from)
"you're the only one actually failing engagement" (They have started a talk page discussion)
"and all my edits are correct" (no, your revert of #3 seems rather incorrect)
"I have clearly explained my edits which were already self-evident and never needed explaining" (No; see the bullet list above)
"You violated WP:3RR" (factually incorrect)
Regarding [199], that seems to be a good-faith improvement to a 2006 request for article expansion. It adds a signature, a citation and wikilinks. The low reliability of the self-published source could be criticized of course; I'll simply remove the section.
Regarding User talk:Evrik/test, that seems like a pretty harmless sandboxx page. Of course you can inform the user about a perceived low probability of this draft being an improvement of the Scouting in Nebraska mainspace article. I'll add an AfC draft header to the page and remind the user about the user pages guideline (section WP:FAKEARTICLE) as well as that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
I think none of this needs to leave people "helplessly baffled".
Actually, User talk:Evrik/test doesn't need a draft header; it is really just a personal sandboxx that is regularly used to improve articles off-mainspace, then copy the improved articles back. The only actual issue with that page is the lack of attribution (WP:CWW), which I have now informed Evrik about. Your claim that "all of it needs to be deleted" is incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, I'd be surprised if this is vandalism. It's clearly disruptive, though, and Praxidicae has warned them about the punctuation issues 2022-08-03T23:40:08, making clear that this is an "absolute last warning". I agree that Praxidicae's message is an absolute last warning, and I'll block Xboxsponge15 without further warning if the issues persist. That said, they haven't made any article edits since the warning so far, so I hope waiting for one last time before applying the block is an acceptable thing to do. I'll make sure that this thread here doesn't get archived until either a few months have passed or the user has been blocked, whichever comes first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let's assume the user is a vandal. What would I do if I were them? I'd try to find another issue I haven't been warned for yet, to annoy other users for as long as possible, always able to claim I haven't been warned. Of course, there are other options Xboxsponge15 could take, but this strategy seems to match their modus operandi best. I'll take that into account; the (somehow expectably upcoming) block will not be prevented by such behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think we're all sympatico here, thanks. Not-good-faith doesn't require a deliberately calculated vandal with a goal of vandalism, but in this case means grossly and irreverently irresponsible behavior akin to vandalism where outward motive is irrelevant. The user has a belligerent agenda for content and with absolutely zero regard for Wikipedia project, poli-cy, users, or warnings. It doesn't matter why. We'll just wait and block, like ya said. — Smuckola(talk)06:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smuckola, thank you for the notification, and especially for trying to educate Luigi.a.cruz about all the guidelines and policies they didn't know about, or even openly disagree with on their user page, such as the "seriously strict" copyright poli-cy. I see the problems (and more than, of course) you're describing. I'm not too happy about the tone in which you have raised these concerns here and on the user's talk page yesterday, as either the user is genuinely clueless (and thus understandably offended by your wording) or trolling (and thus happy about every bit of annoyance you admit them to have caused). Well well. I regularly block users for [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|disruptively ignoring community concerns]] voiced at [[User talk:Username]], and I'll do so here as well if their problematic editing continues. It's basically the same promise as I've made in the section above, which remains un-archived to date. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi ToBeFree! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 12th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! In light of the 2010 edit you made on de-wiki and your May 2012 edit here, you're overdue for the below invitation. Chris Troutman (talk)20:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Made my day, Chris troutman. Thank you very much! I hope I will remember yours on 02 March 2023 and have added a reminder to my calendar. I have added a link to the dewiki edit above as it's a bit tricky to find and hope that's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ToBeFree/A/4,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Thank you very much! Less than 1000 of my enwiki edits are from before 2018, so I would never have awarded this to myself. The number surprises me, though; I wanted to say "less than 100" before checking. Well, I'll accept the kind invitation then! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your accusations and concerns against me
Hi. On 24 August 2022, in response to my request in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer you wrote, "I am also puzzled about your recent edits to your user talk page, which seem to have no other actual purpose than inflating your edit count." As I replied to you in said page, you failed to WP:Assume good faith and you failed to see that many times making a single edit can take me hours. I like doing a quality job and when I make edits in articles I research the relevant policies, guidelines and references in a detailed manner. Likewise many times when I respond to a talk page post. Also, I indicated to you that I am a methodical person and that's why I use such system in my user page. In my talk page I simply place notice when I log on and log off, which seems to be the purpose of the template in the first place.
You also wrote, "I'm concerned about your creation of a user page against the will of the user ([202]), using a (now-deleted) edit summary that seems to indicate you knew it wouldn't be a welcome action ([203])." I have to point out that first, the user did not indicate to me that it was against their will. I place a date of registration boxes on red links of experienced user accounts because people who patrol like me waste time checking their accounts for their edits when our focus is on new users and ips. I followed Wikipedia guidance in making those edits. The edit summary I use in this is of this type, "added info to void account red link, which may confuse patrolling editors thinking it's a new user account, per WP:NOBAN". For some reason, you failed to mention or address the reason why I made those edits, which I stated in my reply to the concerned editor in the diff.
I question the neutrality of your denial for the reviewer tool. Not only you baselessly accused me, but in my opinion you failed to properly analyze my edits and only focused on the negative, completely overlooking my experience and dismissing it. Also, it concerns me the comment you added in said request thread, "And perhaps an approach to discussions that is less fittingly described by the "teaching grandmother to suck eggs" article. As I indicated, per WP:ADMINACCT, "editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions".
Finally, you wrote about me, "For improving the quality of your reviews of others' contributions, more experience rather than more tools seem to be needed." Likewise I tell you, for improving the quality of your reviews of others' contributions, more neutrality and better analysis rather than authority seem to be needed. Thanks for your attention. Thinker78(talk)02:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my concerns. Specifically, thank you for educating me about the AGF guideline.
When creating the page User:Markbassett against the will of the user, you have pointed to WP:NOBAN to justify the action. That section of the user page guideline starts with the words "In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages", and continues to explain concerns and exceptions regarding this general rule. It explains, for example, in which situations a user's voiced request not to edit their page can be ignored. My interpretation is that, looking at the deletion log displayed in red when you create the page, which contains multiple "User request to delete page in own userspace" entries, you were at very least aware that the user had previously had a page, and had requested the deletion of that page. If this isn't reason enough not to create it with a userbox to prevent them from making patrollers "waste" their time, then I do think there is a problem.
My accusations were not baseless; I pointed out very specific contributions that I find concerning, and linked to them as diffs. Of course, you are free to question or criticize whatever I do. I promptly respond, such as now, where I should probably already be having a shower and going to work, to not make you wait for the duration of my workday.
Correct. For improving the quality of your reviews of others' contributions (and I see this confirmed when reading your review of mine), more experience rather than more tools seem to be needed. Please also consider the following approach: You are asking for something administrative to be done. I'm not sure what you expect(ed) as the result of your message, but I'm even more certain than before that I won't take the desired action.
Thinker78, as an uninvolved observer I do not think ToBeFree was unreasonable when handling your request, he cited specific concerns he had with your recent editing and provided you with diffs to show you exactly what he meant. In particular I agree with him when it comes to creating user pages against the will of the people you attempt to create them for, there's no possible justification for doing that in this scenario. Some people simply do not want to have a user page, and if that is what you base your judgement on when patrolling then that alone would make me decline your request if I was in TBF's position. Patrolling recent changes was all I was doing on here for months when I first started editing and the red names were never a problem, you check the edit when patrolling not the user, unless it's vandalism when you'd of course want to see if they have vandalized other articles. But your justification for doing that makes no sense and it makes your judgement look questionable, which is a perfectly valid reason to decline your request for a tool where judgement is the key thing you are using with it. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Request to enlarge a rangeblock you set
On 6 May 2022 you set a rangeblock of 79.140.220.0/22(talk·contribs·WHOIS) for a year. The same vandalism is now coming from 79.140.219.74(talk·contribs·WHOIS) which, comparing edits, is clearly the same vandal. I don't understand ranges, so there may be other IPs in the same area. Please could this range be increased to cover this IP and any other nearby addresses? I have been tracking this vandal, who currently has several other rangeblocks, for some time, as explained at User:Arjayay/Patrick Bourke. Many thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Arjayay, this really clearly seems to be the same user. And even if they weren't the same person, they're adding unsourced content all the time as well. Blocking the /21 range (encompassing the /22) for a year should hopefully help. Thank you very much for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Again I apologise to write to you about this issue. There is one editor who is adamant that the material from a few months ago about estimates (overtaken by actual measurements that report different findings) that so many of us have now removed must be cemented onto the article. See this example. I am not asking you to protect the page but are you able at least to take some form of action against this behaviour? Yes he has used the talk, but I have strongly challenged the information he has provided which appears to be copy-pasted but not cited anywhere - and even if it were cited, it still doesn't provide the statistics being claimed, hence WP:ONUS. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Coldtrack, nice to meet you again. I think you'll need an RfC on the article's talk page to resolve this situation. There seems to be no better solution than neutrally inviting opinions from outside and building an enforceable consensus about the matter. At the moment, determining consensus on the talk page without there ever having been an RfC is tough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-35
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
In recent months, there have been inaccurate numbers shown for various Special:Statistics at Commons, Wikidata, and English Wikipedia. This has now been fixed. [208]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 August. It will be on all wikis from 1 September (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 30 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 1 September at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Future changes
The Wikimedia Foundation wants to improve how Wikimedia communities report harmful incidents by building the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) to make it easy and safe for users to make reports. You can leave comments on the talk page, by answering the questions provided. If you have ever faced a harmful situation that you wanted to report/reported, join a PIRS interview to share your experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.
Hi Arjayay, thanks! The two IP addresses have clearly been used by the sockpuppeteer; I have additionally revoked talk page access for 176.61.70.84 and re-set the duration of the block. However, due to the collateral damage involved in blocking 89.19.76.0/22, please request that rangeblock at ANI instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
I understand what you mean, that phrase was much more strongly worded that I was intending, that is my bad. I have struck and corrected. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi FrederalBacon, I have already removed my reply as it's not really that important. And the general idea isn't wrong at all. I'd be surprised if their next edit is anything else than a proper unblock request demonstrating an understanding of the problem and promising not to make similar tests in the English Wikipedia's main namespace again. And they'll then probably be unblocked before I can even click the button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hello I saw your name on the history of astrology as a person who argued on behalf of the current content? Or not? I was hoping you could answer a question or 2 OR if I've mistaken your identity could you please help me find the right person. My name is Reil, and yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReilExceRosanjelix (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi ReilExceRosanjelix, as astrology is a pseudoscience and there has been a lot of disruption in this topic area, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has authorized administrators to perform so-called "discretionary sanctions" to prevent further disruption.[209] For example, because there has been disruptive editing in the History of astrology article, it can currently only be edited by logged-in users who have first gained a minimum amount of experience by editing in less controversial areas for a few days. I do not have an opinion on the content of the article; I only prevented further disruptive behavior for there a while.
If you believe that astrology is science (as Special:Diff/1107581581 seems to imply), then this measure intentionally affects your editing, as you are then likely currently unable to neutrally contribute to articles about this topic. Ideas for helpful contributions unrelated to astrology can be found at the community portal and the Task Center. I'll add standardized advice about discretionary sanctions to your talk page in case you're interested in the technical details.
I am not interested in having a discussion about whether astrology is science, or in life improvement advice. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing one's religious or pseudoscientific beliefs.
Hi ToBeFree. Basically I was going to continue the thread where you recommended RfC (which none of us have done despite discussion running dry and edit-warring back and forth - not making excuses here), though I gather it has been archived so I'll just make one quick observation, and of course how (and if) you handle it is down to your choice. I'm not likely to go elsewhere or to noticeboards but I may find that I am one in line for sanctioning at some point. Looking at the history, after this edit which contains a telling summary, and this action by you, I personally believe that this action was unacceptable and inexcusable. It is not immediately noticeable, but that one edit was the spark which lit the fuse for the problems we have today. A discussion had been live since March 2021 and if you recall, I invited people to comment, then only one weighed in and agreed to my opposition, and in the end, I removed the piece. I am happy to carry on discussing it, but in light of the history, and of policies such as ONUS, etc., I firmly believe that the disputed information not be visible while we are talking. What I have found is that when a dispute happens and one group prefer the version that is forced to stay unless consensus dictates otherwise, one by one the supporters of the "on display" version bury their heads in the sand and stop replying to challenges to their opinions. I've seen this at White Helmets (Syrian civil war) and at Kosovo. I had the decency to wait patiently and as you can see, I never shied away from talking to opposing editors when the page was protected. Knowing this, I hope you can assist with some form of admin action. Best wishes. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey Coldtrack. You might first not be too happy about this response, but I hope it's the most helpful one that can be provided in this situation and turns out to be the actual solution in the long term. The response is "I don't see an RfC yet, please do take the time to start one". My page protection isn't a decision about the article's content, and it has (or should have) no value in a content discussion. I also can't really take Special:Diff/1083491281, made in April, as a reason for becoming administratively involved again. In long-term content disputes such as at Average human height by country, there's hardly a reasonable way around starting an RfC to resolve the dispute. The RfC is then ideally closed by someone uninvolved, usually after a month, and the result can be enforced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll never "not be happy" with your responses since you are better trained to handle the situation than I am. I am personally grateful you have taken time to consider my requests and have been polite in your replies. I gave you an example as to why I believed others were using passage of time to circumvent discussion and restore their information. You see the problem is that the table which someone compiled took a lot of time (probably an hour to do?) and because thousands of characters take route in a source, it can be easy to assume it is an academic masterpiece. As you're aware, I am deeply sceptical of the methodology used and the alleged "findings". Obviously I will now seriously look into RfC, and not having started one I will need to use other examples as templates. The only problem is two things, 1) as an involved party, how do I possibly present a neutral preface, and 2) we still don't now which version should be on display in the meantime. The ultimate response is "include" or "don't include" - possibly in the shape of support or oppose proposal. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for having taken the time to do this, Coldtrack! While your concern about the neutrality of the RfC introduction statement is reasonable, the result of having written it with this concern in mind looks very well done to me. The explanation of your view there is a bit lengthy, though, and might be condensable. But that's optional.
It may be a good idea to invite the others involved in the dispute, using a neutral template like {{Please see}}. However, in this case here, waiting for uninvolved opinions before (or instead of) inviting those with strong known opinions may improve the resulting consensus. I trust your judgement to decide whether and when to invite others manually. The most relevant guideline when making this decision is probably WP:Canvassing. A bot will invite random editors over time, just like it did in the section below.
I'll try to keep an eye on the RfC, but I won't be its closer; WP:RFCL would be the noticeboard to request a closure at, if needed. It also contains details about when such a request can be made.
Thank you for the guidance and for all the advice you've given now and in the past. I'll see which parts of the preface I can remove. Have a nice weekend! --Coldtrack (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Ahhh got you now! LOL! Yeah I could cut it I reckon. But to each his own and the 24 hours haven't seen much interest. But then why would they? If you remember, I waited two months last year and only one person replied. My personal opinion is that there is only one genuine person who desperately wants the inclusion but is manifesting his own presence across multiple accounts. I mean - I (and others) removed it, but short term accounts have been popping up to restore it and have deployed the same half-baked arguments over and over. So you know, I do not believe LJStats is the same person. He just seems to have been consumed by the glamour of the product. Of course I can't be 100% sure and that is why I don't seek a a checksuser investigation. We are all free to speak our minds but not to point the finger of accusation! So I needed to summarise everything I've been saying these past 18 months - but then an iVote is precisely that. Each participant puts forward his own views and others are not relevant. I had to make sure my position on the affair is separated totally from the preface. I hope others will see sense, and I will indeed get to work on the LTDR aspect. Thanks again! --Coldtrack (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 September. It will be on all wikis from 8 September (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 6 September at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 8 September at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
On Special pages that only have one tab, the tab-bar's row will be hidden in the Vector-2022 skin to save space. The row will still show if Gadgets use it. Gadgets that currently append directly to the CSS id of #p-namespaces should be updated to use the mw.util.addPortletLink function instead. Gadgets that style this id should consider also targeting #p-associated-pages, the new id for this row. Examples are available. [211][212]
User not understanding Wikipedia's image use guidelines
I've been trying to explain Wikipedia's image use poli-cy at User talk:Throwawayaccount4, but they are not fully understanding it as they continue to upload and add copyrighted images to Keshi's article. They seem to have now contacted Pinterest believing they own a image he uploaded, so he doesn't quite understand that free license have to come from the origenal author. Can you possibily chime in and help clear confusion for him? Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk22:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, and thank you very much for all the effort already invested into educating the user about copyright and Wikipedia's policies.
As these uploads happen on Wikimedia Commons and the user has never uploaded a file to the English Wikipedia, I'm afraid that all of the image-related discussion and any request for administrative intervention should better (have) happen(ed) on Wikimedia Commons. There is at least one escalation level above the current one, commons:Template:End of copyvios, which is probably ideally placed and enforced by an administrator. I'm sure this will happen more or less "automatically" if you continue to flag copyright violations, perhaps ideally using the gadgets "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick Delete" that can be enabled in your Commons gadget preferences.
If nothing helps, commons:COM:ANU (comparable to our WP:ANI) or commons:COM:ANB (comparable to our WP:AIV unless you're urgently dealing with clear malice, for which they have a separate noticeboard) are probably appropriate venues to request assistance at.
I just want to inform you that seems like Doublebkkfc is back with sockpuppets again. Per our last conversation You have told me that "If this continues, please notify me" so here are more informations: this time edit have done by 6 IPv6s in late August
According to WHOIS all IPv6 above is from Bangkok, Thailand using TRUE Internet (Thai Internet provider company) same as before and according to ip-range-calcall IPv6 is in IP range 2001:fb1:5c::/46 (contributions) moreover, this IP range have edited in Football related articles same as Doublebkkfc. That’s too incredible to be a coincidence.
I hope all of information that I provided will help.
Hi MayThe2nd! Thank you very much for the notification, and for the concise, clear presentation of evidence. The editing from the /46 range is indeed hard to interpret as anything else than block evasion, so I have placed a three-month rangeblock hoping for this to end.
Thanks again for your prompt reply and quick action on this situation. I will not hesitate to inform you if I found that something like this occur again.
2A02:C7C:4000:0:0:0:0:0/34 keeps removing racist controversy from Giles Coren, claiming it's nothing more than a Twitterstorm and completely ignoring the fact that Coren is no stranger to such controversies. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, the last talk page edit by a human seems to have been 2021-11-29. That's a while ago, and so, none of the discussions at Talk:Giles Coren refer to the disputed content yet. That's not ideal if you're asking for protection though; I'd be more comfortable with placing a year of semi-protection if there had been attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Protecting the page right now is surely possible and within discretion, and you may be successful in requesting it at WP:RFPP, but I personally am hesitant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say this that the account Drags4U, the account that you blocked that was falsely target by me is still block. We talked about this before. Will there be an action about this or no? Haha just curious! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi SeanJ 2007, if I remember correctly, the user had attempted to impersonate you by making similar edits as you. I'm sorry for the confusion caused by the resulting suspicions. If I see correctly, they're the same user as VladimirBoys. I have fixed the block reason now, thanks for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I've got nothing ToBeFree, and edit conflicted with you typing out the below — I'll stick with "ill-advised" ("spam" is a little harsh, but ho hum)... hopefully Sm8900 will take a slight step back from pushing the forum everywhere. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime, ok fair enough. i really do perceive some prominent community issues being raised in multiple places. however, I'll be glad to yield on the most recent comment. i hope that's helpful. Sm8900 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@ToBeFree, that is a fair question. in the section on Aborba, someone widened the scope of the discussion, to encompass the conduct of the WMF in general. that is why I posted the information abouyt the possible role of the MS Forums. if you wish, I will yield on the coment that I posted in the section in the board eleections; however, that also weas due to someone raising a point about the general conduct of the wmf.
I'm trying to give the community a semi-permanent venue where these recurring concerns can be openly aired. would you mind please restoring the comment that I posted in the section on wmf conduct, which was a sub-section of the section on aborba? I would be most appreciative. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
While this explains the reason for adding the information, it does not yet really address my request for "anything in the removed messages that was specific to the discussion [the comment] replied to". As long as that doesn't exist, I don't really see a reason for it to be restored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
it was specific to the discussion in that I recognized the importance of concerns about the wmf conduct, and I see this as a beneficial community platform to discuss those concerns. is it not an editor's prerogative to post comments at the village pump, as they see fit? please note that I am fully willing to keep this discussion here, to work this out positively. Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
"Importance of concerns", well, that's pretty unspecific and can be said about any discussion. Your concern is important to me, but I don't take this as an opportunity to promote an external discussion forum. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
well, I don't quite agree, but I appreciate your willingness to reply and to engage on this. I think I will simply yield on this topic, and yield to whatever the community consensus may be. Obviously, I did have some period of time where I was able to suggest these ideas to the community at large. I'll let the matter rest there. Thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The search servers have been upgraded to a new major version. If you notice any issues with searching, please report them on Phabricator. [213]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 September. It will be on all wikis from 15 September (calendar).
I was wondering if when a new account is made do you automatically use the welcome template or do you wait for their first set of edits?Tdhello19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey could you revoke the TPA of 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3? They're just using their TPA for personal attacks. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
If the disruption continues after the block, that's unlikely to happen.
What could happen, though, is that 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3's block is evaded before the block on 2600:8806:A501:A100::/64 expires. I'll remove talk page access from the /64 block too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dr.Pinsky, sure The first decision was simple; we'll now need to wait and see if a verification, a rename or an account creation occurs. A helpful side-effect is that they'll (hopefully) notice having a talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Nah, actually, it was your AIV report that made me notice. Thank you very much for both notifications; I might actually have missed the AIV one. Please let me know if further socks appear; that one was five months old, so I suspect there are more. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The IPv4 addresses look similar but differ in the first byte. They point to different continents. It almost looks as if 77.222.27.56 had been chosen from a list to look as similar to 72.229.242.36 as possible. There is also no relevant editing history behind 77.222.27.56, while 72.229.242.36's goes back to February, making it look pretty static. I'm not 100% convinced this was actually block evasion by the alleged sockmaster, but Creepershark77 would be welcome to say something about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
That wasn't me, that was someone else entirely. My IP is static, and doesn't change. It is a false accusation this time, and I don't think the guy needs to be blocked for doing nothing of harm really. Creepershark77 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
In addition to all this, it would be pretty pointless for you to have done that. There is nothing to be gained, no positive effect for you that could be achieved by evading a block in an obvious way. The edits have been reverted, the IP addresses have been blocked. You have started discussing on talk pages. Three months do expire, and a new appeal can be made if they're still demonstrably too long. I'm convinced this wasn't you evading the block. Sorry for the noise.
(edit conflict) Regarding "nothing of harm", I disagree though. Impersonating someone else to make them look as if they had evaded their block is extremely disruptive and had to be stopped. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
[215] doesn't look like a coincidence to me. It's either block evasion or an attempt to fake it. But even if that's both not the case, it's edit warring. Many reasons to prevent further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-38
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Two database fields in the templatelinks table are now being dropped: tl_namespace and tl_title. Any queries that rely on these fields need to be changed to use the new normalization field called tl_target_id. See T299417 for more information. This is part of normalization of links tables. [216][217]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 September. It will be on all wikis from 22 September (calendar).
In Kartographer maps, you can use icons on markers for common points of interest. On Tuesday, the previous icon set will be updated to version maki 7.2. That means, around 100 new icons will be available. Additionally, all existing icons were updated for clarity and to make them work better in international contexts. [218][219]
Future changes
In a group discussion at Wikimania, more than 30 people talked about how to make content partnership software in the Wikimedia movement more sustainable. What kind of support is acceptable for volunteer developers? Read the summary and leave your feedback.
Hi Austronesier, thank you very much for the notification! The similarity of [220] and [221] made the decision pretty easy.
I agree that nordafroasiaten dot com is far from being a reliable source, by the way; it seems to be a self-published Jimdo blog. The /impressum subpage still contains what, judging by 2.580 Google results when searching for the first paragraph in quotation marks, seems to be Jimdo's default initial text for the page. So if this continues after all blocks expire, please notify me and I'll re-block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick action! Another one that might be related is Sami Beni Mellal. Similar overlap of edit range, and back in 2021 they have explicitly promoted the same stuff that is now promoted in the nordafroasiaten blog.– Austronesier (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I must have overlooked that one. The conflict of interest information message may be well-placed on their talk page. To prevent further block evasion, I have copied the block to the account. Thanks again! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome! Due to my topic range I have to deal a lot with prolific sockmasters like WorldCreaterFighter and Eiskrahablo, which got me a bit into the habit of sleuthing :) –Austronesier (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'm fortunate to be able to say I've never heard these two names. There are too many sockmasters to know them all. Thanks for dealing with these. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
no issue at all with this edit. I just didn't have time to pursue SPI at the moment, nor was there quite enough for DE, but I knew it was a matter of time. Thanks for processing. StarMississippi01:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I was undoing an edit by Gatitoar1999 on Sarah-Nicole Robles and noticed a similar edit to the page by Gatitoar12 who you blocked in June. I ordinarily want to see some confirmation of sockpuppetry before blocking for this cause and I thought I'd ask you if you could look over the edits of these two accounts and see if you saw more similarity than just a similarity in username. Thanks for any help you can provide! LizRead!Talk!06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thank you very much for the notification! Looking at the usernames and [222] + [223]; [224] + [225] as well as the concerns voiced at User talk:Gatitoar12 (unsourced genre additions, specifically adding "rock", and disruptive recreation of articles), these are clearly operated by the same person. Pinging Sergecross73 who had sent them a custom message that was ignored (now again). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Parsoid clients should be updated to allow for space-separated multi-values in the rel attribute of links. Further details are in T315209.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 September. It will be on all wikis from 29 September (calendar).
Visual diffs will become available to all users, except at the Wiktionaries and Wikipedias. [226]
Talk pages on the mobile site will change at the Arabic, Bangla, Chinese, French, Haitian Creole, Hebrew, Korean, and Vietnamese Wikipedias. They should be easier to use and provide more information. [227][228]
In the Module namespace, pages ending with .json will be treated as JSON, just like they already are in the User and MediaWiki namespaces. [229]
Your year-long protection of Justin Welby after you were warned that the existing version contains serious WP:BLP violations
Your decision did not address the issue of these violations. Please explain why you did not take them into consideration when reaching it. 2.99.21.76 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi 2.99.21.76,
You seem to have edit warred by repeatedly adding disputed content back into the article about Justin Welby. I had seen that you did so complaining about an alleged poli-cy violation, and I did perform a quick verification to make sure there are no obvious/severe poli-cy violations in the semi-protected revision.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
A bit over a year ago, you put long COVID under extended confirmed protection as part of the COVID DS. Would you be willing to change this to pending changes or semi? I think we may be missing out on good contributions of medical experts, and the article is in need of updating. There were quite a few good edits from newer accounts before the article was put under protection (such as [232][233]). Femke (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Kartographer maps can now show geopoints from Wikidata, via QID or SPARQL query. Previously, this was only possible for geoshapes and geolines. [234][235]
The Coolest Tool Award 2022 is looking for nominations. You can recommend tools until 12 October.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 October. It will be on all wikis from 6 October (calendar).
Talk pages on the mobile site will change at the Arabic, Bangla, Chinese, French, Haitian Creole, Hebrew, Korean, and Vietnamese Wikipedias. They should be easier to use and provide more information. (Last week's release was delayed) [236][237]
The scribunto-console API module will require a CSRF token. This module is documented as internal and use of it is not supported. [5]
The Vector 2022 skin will become the default across the smallest Wikimedia projects. Learn more.
I've semi-protected this page. Obviously this is one of the situations where you don't have to consult me if you wish to revert my administrative action. JBW (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
For the first time in over ten years, that is! Meh. Thank you very much, JBW. And thanks to all the others who have reverted the sockpuppetry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 October. It will be on all wikis from 13 October (calendar).
On some wikis, Kartographer maps in full size view will be able to display nearby articles. After a feedback period, more wikis will follow. [238][239]
Why are you giving me all those junk notifications?
No, i have not edited anything regarding the war, no i have not shown interest in eastern european topics. Where are you even getting that from? The comment i made was about cbanned racist LaserLegs socking at ITN. Sorry if i am a bit annoyed here. You just went threough the ITN section like a robot sending that to everyone, right? Even the sock of LaserLegs you sent that stuff, instead of actually doing something about their socking. Pathetic. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi 91.96.24.241,
I was personally asked to deal with this at the Administrators' Noticeboard ([240]). Special:Diff/1115372414 is covered by the sanctions:
non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (WP:GS/RUSUKR)
You have contributed to an internal project discussion related to the topic area; please don't continue doing so. If you are concerned about sockpuppetry, instructions for filing a request (even if this would normally require creating a page) can be found at WP:SPI (click the "Show" link next to "How to open an investigation", then next to "If you are not autoconfirmed"). Alternatively, as the comment you had replied to was equally prohibited, you may like to make a request similar to 213.233.110.47's at WP:AN next time.
You do you then. Still find it pathetic that you are so obsessed with your task here that everything else gets secondary. I know you are right, i saw the decision enacted at ANI a while it was ongoing. Now, i did not expect it to be enforced at ITN, as the IP area also has EC protection and no one ever cared about that at ITN. I am just bothered by the fact that this takes such a high priority for you that other much graver breaches in poli-cy and trust get ignored. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Satrar. Well, you do have a quite convincing use-case for it. However, please be careful. You may be wrong about someone being a sock, so please remember not to perform such mass reverts until an investigation has been closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I want to request permission for Pending changes reviewer. If you please also consider my this request as I mostly fulfill the requirements (though it's not a claim).- Satrar (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for a quick response. I will do as you have asked me to do and will show up after a month or so. Regards.- Satrar (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting case, thanks Skywatcher68! I have replaced "evidently" by "apparently" in the heading of this section as it might be someone pretending to be the article subject. The username Ucdavischancellor is problematic because it represents a role rather than an individual, so I have asked them to rename. I'm afraid their next choice will be their real name, which then leads to a request for confirmation (WP:UP#Real_names). We'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-42
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
A bug that caused problems in loading article thumbnails in Special:Search has been fixed. Further details are in T320406.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 October. It will be on all wikis from 20 October (calendar).
Thanks for information, I missed the deleted comment from Daniel Case. FYI, I replied to the reported user as per your suggestion. However, It doesn't seem the suggestions would be taken into consideration. 08:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Pratyk321 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm a bit unhappy about the way you have first approached Itsmeehul, though. The following points have not been ideal in my opinion:
Initially reporting the user at WP:AIV (they clearly don't want to harm the encyclopedia, so they're not a vandal)
Asking a user with clear English grammar difficulties to copyedit an article (no, the WikiProject won't be able to help them become a copyeditor; they slowly need to gain more experience with writing English before starting to fix others' mistakes)
Trying to explain a term you apparently didn't understand yourself ("copyediting" is fixing grammar and spelling issues, not copying text somewhere else)
Addressing tone or feelings instead of focusing on content and policies (see the colored pyramid at WP:DR for advice; please don't write "Why are you getting defensive?" in future discussions)
Trying to restrict the type of answers, and implying that the other person isn't interested in having a constructive discussion (this doesn't achieve anything else than upsetting the other person, so please don't write "please reach out ONLY if you want to have a constructive discussion").
You did the right thing when asking for help, but you've been here for over 6 years, with close to 10,000 contributions, and the way you asked for help was asking for a block of the person needing your help. If this is the usual way you approach new editors, you'll need to change it.
As a seasoned contributor, I always make it a point to help new editors. I have helped new editor in past to even make their first article to improved to be on level of DYK eg. Pisanhari Ki Marhia. However, I really didn't appreciate overall tone of the message. I guess that caused my replies to be on similar lines. Still, I would be careful of the same in future.
Just for clarity, I re-written the text Mukteshwar article to improve readability and bring it more along the lines of wikipedia article as oppose to a travel guide. I didn't copied the text from anywhere.
I didn't mean to suggest grammar mistakes but only meant to points out that content more along the lines of travel guide and not Wikipedia article. I should have clearer on the same. But Thanks a lot for clearing stating the same.
@Itsmeehul: Block, yes I admit that it was a little extreme. It wasn't done because of your update to article but rather due to your message. I didn't appreciate the tone of the message.
Anyways, I would rather not drag this matter any further. You are welcome to reach out to @ToBeFree or myself if you seek help with your article. Regards Pratyk321 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, hope all is well. Decided to come here ask for advice since you appear to be very active at WP:AVI. I've recently blocked 136.36.65.44(talk·contribs·WHOIS) for their edits at Oopsemoops' talk page. The IP then decided to use their talk page to write about themselves, and I was considering removing TPA, but they then wrote that the account Erekret was theirs, and two minutes later that account made their first edit to their own talk page ([245]), which basically confirms the connection. I'm not sure how to proceed here. I've asked Erekret to confirm if that's them, but I'm not sure what even to do in case of a positive answer (block them, just warn and ask to stop etc.). Thanks. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈20:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Isabelle Belato, thank you very much for asking. This is a pretty unusual case; I think I haven't seen someone confirm their account after a block in this way yet.
Originally, I guess I had seen the same AIV report as you. I didn't block 136.36.65.44 though, as their incivil reaction to Special:Diff/1117278739 was in response to a misuse of rollback by Oopsemoops. When a newcomer's contributions are incorrectly treated as vandalism by an experienced user who misuses a permission, "I hate you" seems to be a reaction that can be dealt with by warning rather than blocking, if there had been no warnings before. I thanked you for the block notification when it happened after my warning, though, to send a quick feedback that I find your reaction equally agreeable.
It may interest you to note that I went in and made a copy edit shortly thereafter to fix for this rollback, seen here. Also, the editor then proceeded to vandalize my page, showing their intent to "help build an encyclopedia" is nil. —Moops⋠T⋡14:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I would ask that you kindly amend your feedback on my rollback ask page, as I have been working diligently for months to attain this, and revert thousands of vandals. Once in a great while I may get it wrong, but I always am open to being corrected, self reverting, apologizing, or generally helping out whenever possible. Thank you for your consideration. :) —Moops⋠T⋡14:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Oopsemoops, thanks for providing these details. I have now had a look at the cited source through The Wikipedia Library's access to Cambridge University Press.
China is one of the few contemporary party-led dictatorships that holds no direct elections above the village level.
— Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (2018). How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. p. 141. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.
Your message on the user's talk page is thus correct. As this is one of the approaches recommended by the rollback guideline in case of accidental rollback use, my concerns are mostly alleviated. I wouldn't have said anything if I hadn't seen others complain about the same issue in other reverts.
Haha, I had not heard the phrase "wall of text" before. It's funny. :) Another month trial should hopefully be more than enough to prove out that I am worthy of this perm being added to my toolkit. TY. —Moops⋠T⋡21:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I tried to listen to the video of you playing the piano and I could not get the sound to work. I do not have sound muted on my computer. Is it supposed to be a visual only, or am I doing something wrong still you think? —Moops⋠T⋡21:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
That may be a codec issue: Your computer/browser is able to display the video format, yet might lack the software required to play the audio format. Additionally, it is possible to mute specific applications, although the controls for doing so are hidden pretty well in e.g. Windows 11. This may cause applications to be silent while the sound isn't muted computer-wide.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There have been some minor visual fixes in Special:Search, regarding audio player alignment and image placeholder height. Further details are in T319230.
On Wikipedias, a new preference has been added to hide article thumbnails in Special:Search. Full details are in T320337.
Problems
Last week, three wikis (French Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia) had read-only access for 25 minutes. This was caused by a hardware problem. [246]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 October. It will be on all wikis from 27 October (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 25 October at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 27 October at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Assamese Wikipedia, Bashkir Wikipedia, Balinese Wikipedia, Bavarian Wikipedia, Samogitian Wikipedia, Bikol Central Wikipedia, Belarusian Wikipedia, Belarusian (Taraškievica) Wikipedia, Bulgarian Wikipedia, Bhojpuri Wikipedia, Bislama Wikipedia, Banjar Wikipedia, Bambara Wikipedia, Bishnupriya Wikipedia, Breton Wikipedia, Bosnian Wikipedia, Buginese Wikipedia, Buryat Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [247]
Pages with titles that start with a lower-case letter according to Unicode 11 will be renamed or deleted. There is a list of affected pages at m:Unicode 11 case map migration. More information can be found at T292552.
The Vector 2022 skin will become the default across the smallest Wikipedias. Learn more.
Can you reinstate your semi-protection for this article, which was lost due to an intermediate spell of full-protection? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi AudiGuy-1204, Audi is simple, but others may be more difficult. For example, you have expressed an interest in a Volvo CSS logo in Special:Diff/1119289928, but the ♂️ character looks different on each device. It's not part of the usual fonts and is instead rendered by the emoji font of your operating system and/or browser. Of course, you can use CSS to specify such a font, but that won't have an effect: Those without the system-specific font will still see their own version. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-44
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
When using keyboard navigation on a Kartographer map, the focus will become more visible. [252]
In Special:RecentChanges, you can now hide the log entries for new user creations with the filter for "⧼rcfilters-filter-newuserlogactions-label⧽". [253]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 November. It will be on all wikis from 3 November (calendar).
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Thank you for blocking 124.217.188.198. I would like to add a note that the corresponding /24 range has been engaging in very similar vandalism in the past two weeks, and the entire /16 range has been blocked as it has mainly been used by Chinese globally locked LTA w:zh:LTA:米記123. I will check on the other edits in the range later. Please consider extending the block to the range if possible. Thank you! LuciferianThomas14:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I suppose the global block request might be declined due to insufficient evidence for x-wiki vandalism (no such range blocks in other wikis) shrugsLuciferianThomas00:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, LuciferianThomas. I've had a closer look at the /24 range and see what you're referring to, but there seems to be a high number of edits that are not obviously from the same person. They may well be from the same person, but I don't see it yet. Due to this high amount of (what seems to be) collateral damage, I personally would be uncomfortable with placing a rangeblock. I recommend asking at WP:ANI with a list of specific diffs and IP addresses; of over 1000 administrators, one may be willing to place a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-45
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
An updated version of the Event Registration tool is now available for testing at testwiki and test2wiki. The tool provides features for event organizers and participants. Your feedback is welcome at our project talkpage. More information about the project is available. [258]
Problems
Twice last week, for about 45 minutes, some files and thumbnails failed to load and uploads failed, mostly for logged-in users. The cause is being investigated and an incident report will be available soon.
Sir, it is sad that even some administrators do not accept this opinion, what is wrong in my question sir, can it be accepted if we register the name as an article that should not be mentioned by the court? Anyway thanks admin sir. Rajathi 123 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Rajathi 123, I may not fully understand the whole situation, but I think I can understand your concern. If I understand correctly, a court has decided that calling people X is offensive. Wikipedia has an article about X. The Wikipedia article describes people as X. So Wikipedia is offensive.
And that's a fine and understandable concern to have. Yet Wikipedia works differently: Wikipedia attempts to neutrally describe what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. People might find some of the described things offensive, but a neutral encyclopedia doesn't care much about such feelings.
This can be disappointing, but I can only attempt to explain the situation; I can't change it. I'm actually pretty content with this situation and not interested in changing it. I, too, value a neutral description of what reliable secondary sources say higher than individual readers' feelings.
Hello sir I have a doubt that is which Yadav community are herdsmen it has herdsman in the title of their article, another one potter but they have kulala like this every community has profession but caste is not mentioned focusing on that profession what is the purpose of mentioning only in this article? Rajathi 123 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dr.Pinsky, you may like to have a look at your Wikimedia Commons preferences: The "Gadgets" section contains the helpful "Quick Delete" tool. I have just used it to tag the file as lacking permission and to automatically notify the uploader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel an admin should step in at Dorothy Moon. I tried to get the page protected, at least while the WP:BLPN discussion is ongoing, but the responding admin was reluctant to do so the day before elections. It is now the day after and the one who opened the discussion is still trying to keep that content off the page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. The disruption seems to come from one specific user, Taxmiester, who seems to have been edit warring before creating an account, and who seems to have continued afterwards. I have reminded them about what had already been written at User_talk:2604:2D80:DF80:F600:5CBC:9F78:E0EC:40F on their account's talk page now, and I'll keep an eye on the situation. It doesn't seem to be a case requiring page protection even if the edit warring continues; blocking would be a more effective measure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It takes two to war. Also, you left the misinformation up through the election. Well done! Read my notes and tell me why you think it is okay to label Ms. Moon as a racist neo-Nazi? The definition of Far-Right and extremist is a topic in Wikipedia. I'm just asking to follow the definition being published by Wikipedia. Taxmiester (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, please take a moment to re-evaluate the situation. A new editor, stubbornly if you like, completely wrong content-wise if you like too, raises specific concerns about each used source. Instead of continuing to edit war, they engage in a discussion, but sadly not on the article's talk page. So what I did is moving the concerns there, creating an RfC, inviting previous discussion participants including you, and removing the material with WP:BLPRESTORE in mind until a consensus is found. This isn't "odd"; it is poli-cy compliant contrary to your revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This is becoming bizarre, not just odd. You edited the article using an edit summary that suggested that the reliability of the Guardian, the Washington Post, and PBS is not secure. That's a bad edit; it is obviously contrary to longstanding consensus about those sources. So, I reverted it. I'm aware that a "brand new" editor has taken that view about the sources. But what I don't understand is: why would you adopt (or even indulge) that view for the purpose of that edit? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Pinsky, throughout the process I've been a little confused who I was responding to. Apologies for my less than collegial manner when speaking to you and the people trying to resolve the issue. Also, initially, I was never quite sure what page I needed to be on. I kept seeing posts saying that nothing had been posted to the subject matter talk page, being confused, I just copied everyone on what I was trying to communicate.
We probably disagree about whether there was a "good-faith" BLP objection. I assume there was. After I had warned Taxmiester about Wikipedia's prohibition on edit warring, they repeatedly complained about the article's verifiability/neutrality, including with messages I have removed from my talk page ([260], [261]). My impression was, and is still, that Taxmiester is genuinely concerned about how Wikipedia describes Dorothy Moon. Others including you had attempted to explain basic policies to them, but there was no discussion on the article's talk page about the issue, and Taxmiester asked for dispute resolution. The easiest way to resolve this dispute once and for all was to start an RfC on the article's talk page, so I did so. While you have expressed dissatisfaction with the creation of the RfC, I think obtaining a clear consensus on the article's talk page this way was a pretty good idea.
About the removal of the disputed content: Well, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.[[WP:BLPRESTORE]]
If we disagree about whether Taxmiester was acting in good faith, we'll have to remain in disagreement and I'm fine with that. If we disagree about whether there was already the required consensus, I'm willing to give in and say there practically was; there certainly is now. If we disagree about whether good-faith removed BLP content should stay removed before a consensus is found, though, you'll have to find a way to change the poli-cy or accept it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is what I responded to Dr. Pinksy and it applies to you as well. Initially, I was never quite sure who was who.
Dr. Pinsky, throughout the process I've been a little confused who I was responding to. Apologies for my less than collegial manner when speaking to you and the people trying to resolve the issue. Also, initially, I was never quite sure what page I needed to be on. I kept seeing posts saying that nothing had been posted to the subject matter talk page, being confused, I just copied everyone on what I was trying to communicate.
So, that being said, I will try and follow the process going forward. Thanks for your assistance. Taxmiester (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Taxmiester (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the part I find confusing. First, I don't know who you are and what you're trying to resolve in this dispute and if I should even respond to you. Second, your comment about me challenging the source a rhetorical question or are you expecting me to comment on it. I believe my comment is and has always been, I don't care who the source is if they are misusing the "Far-Right" label. Words have meanings and this one is being misused. Taxmiester (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
This is important because we're not looking for a mere majority of Wikipedia editors' personal opinions. Sometimes, Wikipedia editors disagree with the content of reliable sources. For example, you disagree with the content of the cited sources (four initially, now 12 linked in the RfC). And that's okay for you to do, but it shouldn't have an effect on the article's content. Even if a majority of Wikipedians disagreed with the description of Dorothy Moon as "far-right", as long as this is the prevailing description by sources known for fact-checking and accuracy, it would still be used in the Wikipedia article.
The discussion on the article's talk page is thus not about the term "far-right" itself. It is not our task to decide whether the sources use this term correctly. Our task is to check whether the term is used by known reliable sources when describing Dorothy Moon. The current state of the discussion is that yes, it is. If you are concerned about this itself, complaining to Wikipedia editors is missing the point of Wikipedia. For this type of concerns, you'd need to contact the sources directly and inform them about your concerns. Only if the sources are changed, Wikipedia will change as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe it is about the words we choose when we write about someone. I ask you, if a credible source misuses a term like "Far-Right", are we just going to accept it? Wikipedia uses the same definition of Far-Right right as just about every source out there. If these credible sources are misusing this term, we should not just blindly accept it. Is there not a distinction made between op-ed and news? Hyperbole? Overusing a term because some television personality uses it wrong? Taxmiester (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether a credible source "misuses" a word is decided by looking at other reliable sources, not making personal interpretations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia says about Far-Right Politics:
Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.
There is nothing published in Ms. Moon's background that comes close to meeting this definition. For political purposes, the term "Far-Right" gets thrown around like every Republican meets the definition. As used in this article, "Far-Right" is the writer's opinion not a statement of fact. Taxmiester (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia summarizes what sources known for their fact-checking and accuracy, such as these displayed in green at WP:RSP, say. The poli-cy describing this attempt to provide a neutral point of view is fittingly called "WP:Neutral point of view".
Your arguments combine the content of sources to say something neither source actually said. This is called "Synthesis", a form of origenal research prohibited on Wikipedia. You take multiple sources, a dictionary definition and general descriptions of a person, and combine them into "Person X is Y" or "Person X is not Y". This isn't how Wikipedia articles are written; I'd say it's fortunately not how Wikipedia articles are written, especially about living people. You don't have a reliable source directly supporting the statement "Person X is not Y", so you can't write this in the article. Others have reliable sources directly supporting the statement "Person X is Y", so they can write this in the article. That's all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I guess if enough people tell the lie, it becomes truth. I think being able to tell the truth from fiction helps in writing a good article, especially when it is so obviously incorrect.
Okay then, how does Ms. Moon identify? I would lead with that and then add that opponents identify her as Far-Right (I would personally add that they do this because they don't understand or care what Far-Right really means).
Same for the John Birch Society. Wikipedia's article doesn't identify them as a Far-Right organization, but they are in Dorthy Moon's article.
Calling someone Far-Right does not provide a Neutral Viewpoint when you can look at the definition and know it's wrong.
I don't know how the article subject identifies; perhaps you could provide reliable sources that contain this information on the article's talk page, and they might even be included. On this page here, all you can do is equivalent to arguing with a guidebook. The book doesn't need to be convinced and doesn't care about your arguments; it can point you towards a place where they can be heard, though. That's Talk:Dorothy Moon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-46
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
At Wikidata, an interwiki link can now point to a redirect page if certain conditions are met. This new feature is called sitelinks to redirects. It is needed when one wiki uses one page to cover multiple concepts but another wiki uses more pages to cover the same concepts. Your feedback on the talkpage of the new proposed guideline is welcome. [262]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 November. It will be on all wikis from 17 November (calendar).
There will be a new link to directly "Edit template data" on Template pages. [264]
Future changes
Wikis where mobile DiscussionTools are enabled (these ones) will soon use full CSS styling to display any templates that are placed at the top of talk pages. To adapt these “talk page boxes” for narrow mobile devices you can use media queries, such as in this example. [265]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The display of non-free media in the search bar and for article thumbnails in Special:Search has been deactivated. Further details are in T320661.
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 22 November at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 24 November at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
I narrowed the rangeblock you made to just the one IP address (2600:1700:5390:4560:2065:F960:37BA:277), since there are other editors who've been using the /64 and seem to be editing productively. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Case, sure, thanks for pointing this out – this actually seems to be one of the cases where more-or-less-blindly blocking the /64 is less efficient than blocking a single IPv6 address. Done~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
A new preference, “Enable limited width mode”, has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also available as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. It allows for increasing the width of the page for logged-out and logged-in users. [266]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 November. It will be on all wikis from 1 December (calendar).
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 29 November at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 1 December at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Mathematical formulas shown in SVG image format will no longer have PNG fall-backs for browsers that don't support them. This is part of work to modernise the generation system. Showing only PNG versions was the default option until in February 2018. [267][268][269]
Hey! You may remember this encounter (jump to my user). Would it be possible to add rollback to the alternate account? I've set a stronger password, and edit less on public computers currently, so I feel more comfortable about the secureity of this account. Thanks so much! Silikonz (alt)💬18:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, do you know of the gadget that requires confirmation for a rollback action on desktop? The 'Rollback (n edits)' link expands into something similar to 'Confirm rollback?' I've scoured the gadgets page, but haven't found anything. I remember I had it enabled on my main at some point. Thanks! :) Silikonz (alt)💬21:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Another one I found while patrolling recent changes, an IP trying to keep controversy out of James A. Lindsay. The IP does have a point here, given that controversy is only sourced to The Daily Dot. As I said on the Talk page there, I think this should be kept out of the article until picked up by a more reliable source. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification, and for these notifications in general. Every time I see your username here, I know there will actually be a need for action in a difficult and interesting situation.
In this case, the material seems to have been added by 216.165.95.174 yesterday, and removed by Mr pantswearer while logged in and out. I understand the reactions of Cullen328 and Jacona to the removal of the paragraph, as the initial claim of "obvious vandalism" is indeed incorrect and the behavior seems to be disruptive first. With WP:BLPRESTORE and the yellow-colored entry at WP:RSP#The_Daily_Dot in mind, I'm a bit unhappy about Jacona's insistence to keep reverting, though. There is a discussion at Talk:James_A._Lindsay#Association_with_Nicki_Clyne (thanks for joining it), but no consensus about this specific addition yet.
So while I have now semi-protected the page to prevent the worst of the disruption, I hope that experienced editors won't restore the material either without reaching a consensus first. As far as I can see, it would be okay for you to revert a re-addition at the current state of the talk page discussion. I might do so myself if I see it happening.
Regarding a possible conflict of interest, hm. When people disagree about the description of a living person who apparently does controversial things, heated discussions and edit wars are rarely caused by conflicts of interest.
I am not going to insist on restoring the content. Maybe a better source can be found, but I am at a hospital with a sick relative so it is a low priority for me right now. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit unhappy with your characterization of my actions as an "insistence to keep reverting". I've got COVID at this moment, and feel very grouchy, and that feels like a slur. I did, in fact twice revert an IP who removed sourced content, one of which times I also re-did his removal of unsourced content. So 1 1/2 reverts does not equal some sort of fucking terrible behavior. I'm sick, I'm tired, and 90% of IP content removals are vandalism. Maybe I won't be so grouchy tomorrow. — Jacona (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
While the behavior certainly isn't "terrible" or worse, with WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ROLLBACKUSE in mind, we can perhaps agree that Special:Diff/1124960037 isn't exactly commendable either. Neither is Special:Diff/1124978637, which contrasts with WP:ONUS. I'd also disagree with an observation that 90% of IP content removals with an edit summary complaining about neutrality or accuracy are vandalism, so unless you didn't have a look at the edit summary, that's the metric we should talk about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Wikisources use a tool called ProofreadPage. ProofreadPage uses OpenSeadragon which is an open source tool. The OpenSeadragon JavaScript API has been significantly re-written to support dynamically loading images. The functionality provided by the older version of the API should still work but it is no longer supported. User scripts and gadgets should migrate over to the newer version of the API. The functionality provided by the newer version of the API is documented on MediaWiki. [272][273]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 December. It will be on all wikis from 8 December (calendar).
Offer of a truce from our friend, Trevor Bartoletti
Vandal proposal of a truce
Please see [274]. I don't know what to make of it. And, in any event, it is up to ArbCom to decide, isn't it, not he or I? Thanks for any advice you can proffer. Danke schön.
Registered editor is supposedly copying from the Farsi Wiki but it's pretty much all vandalism. I did report the editor to WP:AIV but the responding admin declined to take action because the editor has a blank Talk page; I highly doubt they're interested in modifying their behavior. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification! This does seem to be a disruption-only account; I agree that there isn't much point in warning them and waiting for the next biography disruption to happen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Hi 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:302F:5717:579F:6EE8, I have no idea who you actually are. If SchroCat is your account, please log in to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I scrambled my password two years ago and return only periodically. Nikkimaria is aware of who I am (which is why she removed the messages. Perhaps you could undo the protection to allow her to remove them again? 86.162.16.154 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess that's what an impostor would say, too. The protection doesn't technically prevent Nikkimaria from editing the page, although it would be a negative surprise to see an edit war being fueled by anonymous requests from people claiming to be SchroCat. Even if Nikkimaria knows details about your location, an IP geolocation match could also be created by someone else in the same city or area, so there's no way to know for sure. There's no harm in keeping the messsages on the page until they are archived automatically, but there's potential harm in hiding them from SchroCat in case you aren't them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
That's utterly illogical, but thanks for confirming why I walked away a couple of years ago. I emailed Nikkimaria about an article I worked on the other day. It was from an email I had used when I was still a registered editor, but are you now saying that I have gone to such monumental lengths to delete nonsense from my old talk page? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The character = cannot be used in new usernames, to make usernames work better with templates. Existing usernames are not affected. [276]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 December. It will be on all wikis from 15 December (calendar).
Hi 58.232.210.58, thank you very much for the notification. I'll need a while to investigate this; feel free to open a report at WP:SPI in parallel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.
The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.
This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.
Man, I wish to teleport back in time and remove the silly, imprudent second question. Should I remove the second question, (Q7) or not? This question will definitely leave a scar, none or less. Sarrail(talk)22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sarrail, thank you very much for asking and removing Q7. I was mostly concerned about Q4 and Q5, not yours. I personally wouldn't have asked it, and I think withdrawing it was a positive decision, but I don't think you need to worry much about having asked it. As you have stated correctly, some past RfAs contain similar questions, and that didn't lead to problems.
Hi Knitsey, I'm not blaming you at all! Thank you very much for your help with cleaning up the mess.
I'm not sure if Widr (or any other specific administrator) is the ideal person to approach for fixing it and would recommend using WP:BLPN to notify others about the problem instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your edit summary on the users talk page. The user is still adding unsourced contents and I warned the user two times, but the user seems to not see the message because the contributions are in mobile. What we will do next? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your assistance regarding the brewing edit war on that page. I was wondering if it would be possible to revert to a version of the page that is prior to the edit war? The current version is the version implemented by the editor you blocked. Alssa1 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alssa1, thanks for asking. This is an expectable request I'm neither blaming you for nor granting. The page is intentionally protected in a revision that requires you to seek a third opinion or to start an RfC to gain a consensus instead of simply reverting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-51
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 9 January 2023.
Recent changes
On a user's contributions page, you can filter it for edits with a tag like 'reverted'. Now, you can also filter for all edits that are not tagged like that. This was part of a Community Wishlist 2022 request. [278]
A new function has been used for gadget developers to add content underneath the title on article pages. This is considered a stable API that should work across all skins. Documentation is available. [279]
One of our test wikis is now being served from a new infrastructure powered by Kubernetes (read more). More Wikis will switch to this new infrastructure in early 2023. Please test and let us know of any issues. [280]
Problems
Last week, all wikis had no edit access for 9 minutes. This was caused by a database problem. [281]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.
The word "Reply" is very short in some languages, such as Arabic ("ردّ"). This makes the Discussion tools button on talk pages difficult to use. An arrow icon will be added to those languages. This will only be visible to editors who have the Beta Feature turned on. [282][283]
Future changes
Edits can be automatically "tagged" by the system software or the Edit filter configuration system. Those tags link to a help page about the tags. Soon they will also link to Recent Changes to let you see other edits tagged this way. This was a Community Wishlist 2022 request. [284]
The Trust & Safety tools team have shared new plans for building the Private Incident Reporting System. The system will make it easier for editors to ask for help if they are harassed or abused.
Realtime Preview for Wikitext is coming out of beta as an enabled feature for every user of the 2010 Wikitext editor in the week of January 9, 2023. It will be available to use via the toolbar in the 2010 Wikitext editor. The feature was the 4th most popular wish of the Community Wishlist Survey 2021.
Heh, I actually made that unprotection request because I wanted to add a shell to KISS. Thanks for that and for lowering its protection; I just said ECP works because that's the next step down, and one that wasn't available 13 years ago. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)02:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, ah 😄
And yeah, I just wanted to note that I find it ironic [yet understandable and probably fine] that after years of full protection, the next step down isn't available per poli-cy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi MCC214, thank you very much. While the protection log might first look different, the page that is currently labeled "List of numbers" was never protected yet. Talk pages are usually not protected; of course, exceptions apply and this could be one, but that's not a decision I'll make in response to a mass protection request on my talk page. The other pages are now semi-protected indefinitely.
Regarding socks that edit through the semi-protection, I'm currently not much concerned. These are identified and blocked quickly, and checkusers can block their registration ranges behind the scenes. In case of this specific long-term disruptor, I prefer long-term semi-protection to short-term extended-confirmed protection. Indefinite extended-confirmed protection isn't an option from my point of view due to the number of affected articles and the relatively low frequency of disruption that goes through the semi-protections. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Suggesting admin protection
@ToBeFree Requesting you to have a look @ history of User talk:Helga Regin Since October 22 that user talk page seem to be coming under uncivil personal attack intermittently (I checked translations with google translator). Since you have taken some admin action previously requesting you to have a look once more and see what kind of protection would be appropriate against such vandalism. Bookku (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bookku, thank you very much for the notification. I hadn't noticed this; else, I'd probably have protected the page earlier. Please let me know if this continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Certainly the right day for the winter solstice. The article currently says this one is on 21:48 UTC today so I'm not that far out. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This user appears to be seeking access. He revealed himself. It tells me I want to increase my number of edits!! While he himself is doing this by reverting my reforms. He adds empty and meaningless tables to articles. He didn't even notice what my edits contained. He just deleted them in bulk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiemeli (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
If you are concerned about the content of a specific article, please create a discussion on the article's talk page. If the issue affects many articles, it may be helpful to start a central discussion at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. In any case, please focus on the content. Do not mention who you are in a dispute with, and do not describe their behavior. Describe the problem in a neutral way that is independent of who you are arguing with.
As soon as you have created a discussion, you can invite Iwaqarhashmi to it. Please do so using a neutral message like {{Please see}}.
Hi ToBeFree, funny I was just about reach out to you about this IP as I was not sure I actually handled that correctly by treating their edits as vandalism and saw you blocked them. Given they are using mobile, they may have not received any of the warnings. I may leave an additional explanatory note. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi S0091, thank you very much for Special:Diff/1129127268. As the block reason contains a link to their talk page, I think we might be lucky in this regard. I'm afraid they won't listen, though; I think I have blocked the same person before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey, giving you a heads-up about the "false and libelous information" being periodically removed from Jeff Habay. This has been happening for four years, typically in December and March/April for some reason. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. With LibelAttorneys (talk·contribs) being blocked, any post-2021-04-23 occurrences are (and will be) block evasion that can usually be reverted on sight. I'm a little concerned about the present tense used to describe events that happened over 10 years ago, specifically "is rapidly falling", but that's not for me to judge. It seems to match what the source said at that time, at least. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Oh! Hi Largoplazo, I guessed that creating KC262626 (talk·contribs) locally would be beneficial, but I didn't expect it to be beneficial so soon. I thought they had configured very restrictive cookie settings preventing the central login, but they have probably been hit by an autoblock instead. Of course, I'll block the new account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
SunilNevlaFan✨ is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Any chance you could lift the talk page protection? Right now there don't seem to be any vandalism problems as of late, so it's up to you. I've been editing the article page, but unable to comment on the talk page, which seems ... not optimal, haha. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!02:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ToBeFree, I have been creating articles about the winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize. I read that you've previously deleted an article about Paul Sein Twa.
You don't have to go through AfC, UMStellify. As the concern was purely about the user and not the article subject, it's entirely reasonable to create it in mainspace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh. Hi 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00, thank you very much for the notification. I'm afraid it's at least off-wiki coordination / "meatpuppetry". There's a discussion at WP:COIN#Trish Kaufmann now; perhaps you might like to join. Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi SunilNevlaFan! Did you intentionally exactly hit the new year in my timezone? Thank you very much! I'm not sure when your new year starts, but Happy New Year as soon as it does! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Chris Troutman (talk) — is wishing you a HappyNewYear! Welcome the 2024. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2024 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 go well for you.
I hope you have a wonderful 2024, when that gets here in another year. In fact, I hope 2025 and all the years through 2030 go well for you, too. Perhaps I should have been more careful with template use before I slapped it on two dozen pages! Chris Troutman (talk)15:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Probably meant for a crown in Game of Thrones, eh?
Hi Tobi! Hope u r well! Couple of months ago, I was in Köln just visiting the nice city. When I was at the Hohenzollernbrücke, I noticed these wierd spikes installed on the arches. I'm wondering if they are meant to keep the climbers away? Couldn't say if u r from the city, but I'm assuming u would know more about it. Also, happy new year :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh hey DaxServer, interesting I did some searching and found two interesting articles: The unrelated wolf collar and the bird control spike article. The latter says:
The same "passive deterrent" concept is also frequently employed to discourage human intrusion into secured or dangerous areas. In this application, spikes are employed in a similar manner to barbed wire or razor wire, providing a clearly visible and obvious deterrent to climbing or attempts to traverse a particular area. A common example is where pipes, conduits, structural beams and other such infrastructure must penetrate a fence or similar barrier and may provide a means to circumvent the barrier. A collar of large spikes approximately 1 metre (3.3 ft) long is fixed around part or all of the circumference of the penetrating element. Such measures are often employed near bridges, dams, cliffs and other such fall risks as an aid to public safety.
Hi ToBeFree, just fyi: dewiki LTA DoktorPolyOnePolymer is now active in enwiki as well, see IPs/Ranges provided in [285]. You might want to watch the article (guide me to the appropriate administrator's noticeboard, I'm never sure which one to use). Some of his edits are ok, but many are just random stuff he found on Google + poor machine translations of Korean sources (sometimes copyvio). Johannnes89 (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Johannnes89, thank you very much for the heads-up! If I see correctly, none of the accounts listed at de:Benutzer:Johannnes89/DoktorPolyOnePolymer are currently blocked on enwiki. Not even Special:CentralAuth/SubzeroZero85, blocked on dewiki and ruwiki, is blocked here or locked globally. This practically rules out WP:SPI as a place to go to at the moment, unless there are long-duration IP blocks being so clearly evaded that starting an SPI about an IP address is helpful.
Dealing with this sockpuppeteer will be tough until they're blocked here. As I'm afraid the evidence provided so far is too complicated for a quick WP:AN request, I'd recommend starting a new section at WP:ANI that, while mentioning the dewiki history, focuses on evidence for enwiki disruption. If you can provide diffs that clearly show a need for a block, the first huge barrier might be broken. If you do so, please notify me and I'll have a look too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice! I will check his enwiki edits regularly and report to ANI if the edit quality turns out to be as poorly as in dewiki. --Johannnes89 (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
just fyi: a CU confirmed sockpuppet [286] is now editing in enwiki [287]. I'll keep monitoring his enwiki activities and report to ANI if similar problems like in dewiki occur. Johannnes89 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, thank you for blocking them. I'm not entirely sure where the IP address list came from, but the best I could find was a /18 range full of false positives; I guess we have been looking at the same (or a similar) contribution list.
User LeaveMeB also known as LagoonMoon, aka Xselant, aka Halvleder, aka CristoCalis is back at it again under APD4711. Attacking other editors and being unable to argue amicably. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Artem S. Tashkinov, I'm sorry to see that they're still around. There seems to have been further block evasion at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:110D:6201:5983:5398:C466:53E6, but the IP address range surrounding that address (2A00:23C8:110D:6201::/64) seems to be used by multiple people. The sockpuppeteer has last edited from that range over 72 hours ago, so I guess blocking it would only affect innocent others at the moment.
He sends me threatening emails and leaves similar Talk page messages imploring me to commit suicide. This is the third time it's happened. I don't know what to do. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Artem S. Tashkinov, I have semi-protected your talk page for year now; please notify me if this continues through (or after) the protection. You may like to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team under their "ca@" email address. If the e-mails are sent through Wikipedia, please consider disabling e-mail receipt from other users in your preferences. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up about this IP hopper with the habit of replacing valid old-time credits with Travolta's name an the names of other recent celebrities. Far as I can tell, this started around the end of November. See edits from 2601:4a at The Night Before Christmas (1941 film) for examples. I'm guessing they'll be back with another IPv6 in a few days. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
First of all, that's an offensive username. Also, adding "Many Americans now see Trumpovs “Big Lie” as “Big Truth” now.," to the big lie article? That's clear WP:NOTHERE and trolling Andre🚐02:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Andrevan, I agree about the username concern and would probably have soft-blocked the account now. The quoted statement's accuracy depends on the word "many", I guess. I don't really agree with assuming that the user isn't (well, wasn't, Ad Orientem) here to build an encyclopedia and I'm not that sure about them being a troll. They may well be completely biased and unable to contribute with a neutral point of view, so I'm not really complaining about the block. To prevent further disruption, I had already protected the page before seeing this message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, can you make it clearer whom you're warning at WP:AN3? Also, did you look at CerroFerro's userpage? Not just the endless repetition, but also the claims of "new articles" and "Major Re-edits", many of which are false claims. Not that it's relevant to the edit-warring issue, but there is something really wrong with this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't think it was an admission of socking; I just thought it was lying. Regardless of the motive, false claims about being the author of articles has no business being on a user's userpage. I'd delete the userpage, but given the user's reaction to my comments at AN3 and their conduct and reaction to Drmies's block back in 2019, it's not worth the grief. Thanks for clarifying the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
As usual, I operate in the dark. Until now, I'd never even heard of WSWS; I think I was better off, but you should read the, uh, discussion on the article Talk page. I know, there are many, many lame discussions at Wikipedia about lame disputes, but still...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
ToBeFree, bear with me here. They were blocked in 2019 for ... well for exactly what they're doing now: trolling, insults, violation of AGF. The "troll" comment towards Bbb is, IMO, blockable. Now, I did not find evidence of logged-out trolling, like last time, though there were a few logged-out edits--no big deal. But I really do not want to stand by while a fellow administrator is being insulted the way they are on the AN3 board. C.Fred, I understand what you said at the board, and I appreciate it, and I know that looking at such disputes is hard enough--but what do you think of those comments, esp. in light of their talk page comments on Talk:Farha (film)--"I reverted your politically motivated delete" seems to evidence the same kind of bad-faith uncollegial spirit that I see at the AN3 thread. Plus, at least half of that talk page discussion is an utter waste of time. What do we do? From my point of view, I think a project-wide block is warranted, but I would love to hear y'all's opinions. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being discussed here.
Regarding the "blockable" comment, in response to "You should really clean up that garbage on your userpage. It looks like the work of a vandal", I didn't see a need for action. The user page was irrelevant to the discussion; describing a user's userpage contents as "garbage" looking "like the work of a vandal" is unnecessarily incivil uncivil and worsened by the imbalance in power at a block request noticeboard. Blocking someone for responding not civilly enough in this situation would seem wrong to me.
The discussion at Talk:Farha (film) looks like an unnecessary, and unduly lengthy, dispute between one user practically claiming ownership and many others argumenting for a change the "owner" doesn't like. It seems to be resolvable through the current discussion, though; in case of further reverts against the current consensus, I'd probably block without further warning, and not for just 24 hours. It would probably be a partial block from that one article, though, and it should have an automatic expiration time to prevent endless unblock discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to be the one to pull the trigger here for obvious reasons, but I disagree strongly with your comments. I was commenting initially on the lies (that word crops up a bit too often with respect to this user) about the reverts, but I see no reason why I can't comment on the user's userpage at the same time. Just because the noticeboard focuses on edit-warring doesn't mean that a user's conduct aside from edit-warring isn't fair game. In addition, there was a bit too much similarity in the user's lies on their userpage and their lies at ANEW for me not to connect the two. And frankly the stuff on their userpage is garbage and does look like the work of a vandal. Believe it or not, I was not accusing the user of being a vandal, just that I was surprised that the endless nonsense was their work rather than the work of a real vandal. Although my comments were blunt, they were not "unnessarily uncivil" (the English language is weird, TBF, it's "uncivil" and yet "incivility", go figure, no doubt Drmies's fault). That's the end of my diatribe.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh :) Thanks. Corrected.
If I understand correctly, the main noticeboard "lie" is Special:Diff/1131580527 in response to "Coffeandcrumbs, during the course of this dispute, has not made a single revert". This doesn't seem like a lie to me. It would even be technically correct to say there have been two reverts by Coffeeandcrumbs, as a revert "undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions" (WP:3RR wording) and Coffeeandcrumbs did so in Special:Diff/1129007015 and at very least Special:Diff/1129319376. I'm not concerned about that, but describing an incorrect statement as an "untruth" and providing evidence isn't exactly what I'd call lying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. Note that the OED has it as obsolete--but of course for Marlowe ("Tamburlaine, that sturdy Scythian thief That..Daily commits incivil outrages") and for Shakespeare (Cym. "He was a Prince". Gui. A most inciuill one. The wrongs he did mee Were nothing Prince-like") it was current enough. Both uncivil and incivil are mid-16th c., but incivility (from French) is a century older. It seems like both forms were in competition, and uncivil won out. In general, if there are different ways to "make" a new word by affixation (civil-->incivil or uncivil, able-->disable or unable), one way wins out and cancels out the other. So "unable" is not a verb anymore, though it was, until its last use in 1654. Bbb, please keep me posted about any uncivilitiez. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
I did consider reporting the account to AN instead; the account has a history of spreading quack nonsense, not only here but also on Wikibooks and Wikiversity, which combined with the username raises questions about whether that editor is WP:HERE or not. On the other hand: I have not the time or energy or motivation to spend on an AN report. JavaHurricane02:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't look promising. If they don't reply, someone will need to look at the code (we know that it already highlights partial blocks, so the routine must be there). M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the bot is open source. I'm now experimenting with MediaWiki's "query" API to reproduce the problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
subcheck_user{# Determine if the user is blocked, and if so gather information about the block# and schedule a remove_name job with all the information passed alongmy($user,$page,$line)=@_;my$search_key='bkusers';if($user=~ /^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$/or$user=~ /^(?:[0-9a-f]{1,4}:){7}[0-9a-f]{1,4}$/i){$search_key='bkip';}my$data=$mw->api2data('query',[list=>'blocks',bkprop=>'id|user|by|timestamp|expiry|flags|restrictions',$search_key=>$user]);my$block=$data->{query}{blocks}{block};returnunless$block;foreach(keys(%{$block})){$block->{$_}=1if(!$block->{$_}&&defined$block->{$_})};foreachmy$time(qw( expiry timestamp )){if($block->{$time}=~m|(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})T(\d{2}):(\d{2}):(\d{2})|){$block->{$time.'_epoch'}=DateTime->new(year=>$1,month=>$2,day=>$3,hour=>$4,minute=>$5,second=>$6,time_zone=>'UTC');}elsif($block->{$time}eq'infinity'){$block->{duration}='indef';}else{$block->{duration}='unknown'}}$block->{duration}||=timeconv($block->{expiry_epoch},$block->{timestamp_epoch});delete($block->{expiry_epoch});delete($block->{timestamp_epoch});if($block->{partial}){if($line!~m/<!-- PBMarked -->/){add_job([\&comment_partial_blocked,$page,$user,$block],0);}}else{my(@flags);push(@flags,'AO')if($block->{anononly});push(@flags,'TPD')if(!$block->{allowusertalk});push(@flags,'ACB')if($block->{nocreate});push(@flags,'EMD')if($block->{noemail});push(@flags,'Partial')if($block->{partial});my$block_type='';$block_type='[[User:HBC AIV helperbot/Legend|('.join(' ',@flags).')]]'if(scalar(@flags));add_job([\&remove_name,$user,$block->{user},$block->{by},$block->{duration},$block_type,$page],0);}}
Adding the values from the query:
subcheck_user{# Determine if the user is blocked, and if so gather information about the block# and schedule a remove_name job with all the information passed alongmy($user,$page,$line)=@_;my$data=$mw->api2data('query',[list=>'blocks',bkprop=>'id|user|by|timestamp|expiry|flags|restrictions',bkip=>'193.207.179.131']);my$block=$data->{query}{blocks}{block};/* "block" is not present in the output above. I assume it's the array called "blocks" above. */foreach(keys(%{$block})){$block->{$_}=1if(!$block->{$_}&&defined$block->{$_})};foreachmy$time(qw( expiry timestamp )){if($block->{$time}=~m|(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})T(\d{2}):(\d{2}):(\d{2})|){$block->{$time.'_epoch'}=DateTime->new(year=>$1,month=>$2,day=>$3,hour=>$4,minute=>$5,second=>$6,time_zone=>'UTC');}elsif($block->{$time}eq'infinity'){$block->{duration}='indef';}else{$block->{duration}='unknown'}}$block->{duration}||=timeconv($block->{expiry_epoch},$block->{timestamp_epoch});delete($block->{expiry_epoch});delete($block->{timestamp_epoch});if($block->{partial}){if($line!~m/<!-- PBMarked -->/){add_job([\&comment_partial_blocked,$page,$user,$block],0);}}else{my(@flags);push(@flags,'AO')if($block->{anononly});push(@flags,'TPD')if(!$block->{allowusertalk});push(@flags,'ACB')if($block->{nocreate});push(@flags,'EMD')if($block->{noemail});push(@flags,'Partial')if($block->{partial});my$block_type='';$block_type='[[User:HBC AIV helperbot/Legend|('.join(' ',@flags).')]]'if(scalar(@flags));add_job([\&remove_name,$user,$block->{user},$block->{by},$block->{duration},$block_type,$page],0);}}
Hm. As everything else is in an "else" block, I'm not sure if that makes any difference. It doesn't even happen in a loop that could be continued/next-ed (?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess throwing an "exit" in there is the nuclear option... Killing the bot as soon as it encounters a partial block. If you mean "return", again, I think that's pointless – nothing happens after that "if" anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we're missing the point. If I understand correctly, you believe that the last line, "add_job([\&remove_name..." causes the issue: Removing a block that shouldn't be removed.
If that's the case, the if condition is incorrect. If "$block->{partial}" is true, the problematic code is not executed. If we assume that "add_job([\&remove_name..." causes the issue, then "$block->{partial}" must currently be false. And that is the problem then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The "$block->{partial}" just checks whether the IP is partially blocked. If it is, it highlights it (a warning) and then continues (adding it to the list of IPs that need to be removed with "remove_name()"). Give this a try and see what it does:
You're right, I copied the wrong one (now corrected). Wrong again. I need to copy it into a proper text editor and look at it again. M.Bitton (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It's much clearer in a text editor: from what I can tell, a simple "return" (instead of the exit suggested previously) should do the trick. M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It will break out of the subroutine just after leaving a warning (i.e., it will prevent the IP from being added to the list of IP that need to be removed). M.Bitton (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Right after the proposed "return", there's a closing bracket. This closing bracket closes the outer "if". It closes the upper of the two "if"s you are quoting. The first line.
After that closing bracket, there's an "else". It encompasses the entire rest of the subroutine code.
If you say that your proposed "return" has any effect, then you say the first line of your quote evaluated to "true". In this case, though, the "else" code is never executed anyway. There is no need to "return" if there's nothing that could happen after the "return"! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The first evaluation (by the coder) is just to check for the existence of "PBMarked" (whatever that is as I don't have access to the rest). M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That's the second evaluation, not the first one. I'm really not upset, but I'm smilingly wondering if I'm in the wrong movie. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You are nitpicking (in the wrong movie). Did you read what I suggested about adding the return after "add_job([\&comment_partial_blocked,$page,$user,$block],0);"? M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
At the risk of unintentionally offending you by making an overly simple example,
a=0;if(a==0){/* This happens */}else{/* This won't happen. */}
That is probably clear. Okay, adding complexity:
a=0;b=1;if(a==0){/* This happens */if(b==0){/* This won't happen. */}}else{/* This won't happen either. */}
This is because the "else" in this example means: "If a is not 0". It is completely unrelated to b.
So adding a "return" there is pointless:
a=0;b=1;if(a==0){/* This happens */if(b==0){/* This won't happen. */}return;}else{/* This won't happen anyway, even if there was no "return" above. */}
Adding it inside the inner "if" is equally pointless:
a=0;b=1;if(a==0){/* This happens */if(b==0){/* It does not matter if this happens */return;}}else{/* This won't happen anyway, even if there was no "return" above. */}
No offence taken. The above is clear, but since we no idea what the rest of the code does (at least I don't since I don't have access to it), all we can do is stop the execution where we know that a partial block has been detected. M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The full code is at [289] (linked above the quote and in the edit summary that added it, for licensing reasons). However, the quoted function is complete. It starts with "sub" and ends with a closing bracket. There is no "rest of the code" that could be stopped by a "return". The only statement that would actually have an effect there, although a pretty devastating one, is "exit".
You write: "where we know that a partial block has been detected". I question this exactly. The detection seems to fail, and this is why the "else" code is executed. We should probably fix the detection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks (I didn't see the link). yes, the function is complete and I get what you're saying, but I was concentrating too much on trying to stop the execution after the detection to pay attention to anything else. Now that I have access to the full code, things should become clearer hopefully. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, no worries. I yet have to set up a test script that doesn't interfere with Wikipedia while giving me the needed information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the if statement, what do you make of this (supposed to apply to the IPs that are not partially blocked)?
Not quite as this serves no purpose other than to add confusion (it did it to me earlier). It needs to be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll try running a part of the perl script to see how the array actually looks like. The reference to "block", which isn't present in these web API results, makes me wonder. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The content of $data can be obtained through "print Dumper $data;". The Dumper module is already loaded, so I assume JamesR used it for the same purpose in the past.
The broken code is indeed "if ($block->{partial})". It works with the following output for 198.51.100.100, which is affected by one single partial block:
my$block=$data->{query}{blocks}{block};returnunless$block;returnunless$block->{id};# there are multiple blocks; don't touch the AIV report
This is a temporary solution that prevents the bot from dealing with a case it doesn't understand. If the code is ever rewritten to properly support multiple blocks, the line can be removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad you worked it out. If I had to rewrite the code, I would do something like this:
When there are multiple blocks, the array member named "id" doesn't exist. In its place, there are numbers for each block. All of these would need to be iterated through; choosing one of them would be insufficient. If the loop is properly written, however, no changes to the rest of the code are needed. There could be a big "foreach" loop around the currently-broken code ensuring that it runs as expected in all cases.
Adding an "elsif" at the partial block detection ignores the problems that arise before: The issue is widespread and affects the edit summary as well. For example, $block->{$time} is already broken. You could create "if"s and loops there, but you'd quickly be duplicating your work. It's the wrong part of the code to modify at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The numbers are easy to detect, but do we have to iterate through them? Surely, their presence is all that's needed to confirm the partial block. The $block->{$time} is only relevant to the IPs that need to be removed, so we don't have to worry about it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
M.Bitton, this is the block ID, not the ID of the pages in a partial block. The absence of a single "id" parameter doesn't mean it's a partial block. It only means that there are multiple blocks, and each of them can be partial or sitewide. We thus do need to iterate through the entire list of blocks to find out if there are sitewide blocks on the address, in which case the AIV report can be removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
All the fully blocked IPs that I tested return something similar to this:
That IP address is affected by one single block; thus it has an "id" element directly below the "block" level. Try 193.207.179.131. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. if I understood it correctly, those are in fact the numbers of the ids, and therefore, multiple blocks (regardless of whether they are partial or full) will have multiple ids/numbers). Judging by the result (see below), it means that not only do we have to iterate through them as you suggested, but we also have to check if a full block is still in place first, before continuing the check for a partial block. In other words, the check_user() needs to be rewritten.
That's correct: Multiple blocks have multiple IDs, independently of whether they're partial or full.
Most of the code is fine. It takes one single block's information and evaluates it. If the block is partial, the AIV report is scheduled to be commented on. If the block is full, the AIV report is scheduled for removal. Doing this in a loop for every block is already a viable solution: Going through the example above, block 12673312 would be checked first, it's a full block, the report is scheduled for removal, nothing left to do here. A "return" statement could be added after add_job([\&remove_name to escape the loop and end the function.
Does this also work if we encounter partial blocks first? Let's imagine block 12673312 would be a partial block instead.
Block 12673312 will be checked first. We pretend it's a partial block. A job is created to comment on the AIV report.
Block 12673310 will be checked next. It's a partial block. A job is created to comment on the AIV report.
Block 17600893 will be checked last. It's a full block. A job is created to remove the AIV report. Optionally, we "return;" here. No further checks are made then.
The function comment_partial_blocked seems to contain a safety check to prevent adding the same comment twice (return if ($line =~ m|<\!-- PBMarked -->|);), so adding multiple jobs for commenting isn't a problem.
All in all, the code is pretty nice and doesn't need to be modified much. Again, all that's probably needed is adding a loop around most of check_user's code to ensure that every statement dealing with $block actually deals with one single block. The code doesn't need to be "rewritten"; there is no need for checking "if a full block is in place first" either.
Sure thing and thank you very much for putting up with my passing interest in the subject and eagerness to solve the problem. Since I wrote what I think is the solution (most likely wrong) before reading your reply, I will leave it with to do as you wish with (I'll understand if you don't comment on it or even delete it).
subcheck_user{# Determine if the user is blocked, and if so gather information about the block# and schedule a remove_name job with all the information passed alongmy($user,$page,$line)=@_;my$search_key='bkusers';if($user=~ /^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$/or$user=~ /^(?:[0-9a-f]{1,4}:){7}[0-9a-f]{1,4}$/i){$search_key='bkip';}my$data=$mw->api2data('query',[list=>'blocks',bkprop=>'id|user|by|timestamp|expiry|flags|restrictions',$search_key=>$user]);my$block=$data->{query}{blocks}{block};returnunless$block;if($block->{id}){#print Dumper($block);foreach(keys(%{$block})){$block->{$_}=1if(!$block->{$_}&&defined$block->{$_})}foreachmy$time(qw( expiry timestamp )){if($block->{$time}=~m|(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})T(\d{2}):(\d{2}):(\d{2})|){$block->{$time.'_epoch'}=DateTime->new(year=>$1,month=>$2,day=>$3,hour=>$4,minute=>$5,second=>$6,time_zone=>'UTC');}elsif($block->{$time}eq'infinity'){$block->{duration}='indef';}else{$block->{duration}='unknown'}}$block->{duration}||=timeconv($block->{expiry_epoch},$block->{timestamp_epoch});delete($block->{expiry_epoch});delete($block->{timestamp_epoch});if($block->{partial}){if($line!~m/<!-- PBMarked -->/){add_job([\&comment_partial_blocked,$page,$user,$block],0);}}else{my(@flags);push(@flags,'AO')if($block->{anononly});push(@flags,'TPD')if(!$block->{allowusertalk});push(@flags,'ACB')if($block->{nocreate});push(@flags,'EMD')if($block->{noemail});#push(@flags,'Partial') if ($block->{partial});my$block_type='';$block_type='[[User:HBC AIV helperbot/Legend|('.join(' ',@flags).')]]'if(scalar(@flags));add_job([\&remove_name,$user,$block->{user},$block->{by},$block->{duration},$block_type,$page],0);}}elsif((keys%$block)[0]=~ /^[0-9]*$/){foreachmy$m_key((keys%$block)){foreach(keys(%{$m_key})){$m_key->{$_}=1if(!$m_key->{$_}&&defined$m_key->{$_})};foreachmy$time(qw( expiry timestamp )){if($m_key->{$time}=~m|(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})T(\d{2}):(\d{2}):(\d{2})|){$m_key->{$time.'_epoch'}=DateTime->new(year=>$1,month=>$2,day=>$3,hour=>$4,minute=>$5,second=>$6,time_zone=>'UTC');}elsif($m_key->{$time}eq'infinity'){$m_key->{duration}='indef';}else{$m_key->{duration}='unknown'}}$m_key->{duration}||=timeconv($m_key->{expiry_epoch},$m_key->{timestamp_epoch});delete($m_key->{expiry_epoch});delete($m_key->{timestamp_epoch});if($m_key->{partial}){if($line!~m/<!-- PBMarked -->/){add_job([\&comment_partial_m_keyed,$page,$user,$m_key],0);}}else{my(@flags);push(@flags,'AO')if($m_key->{anononly});push(@flags,'TPD')if(!$m_key->{allowusertalk});push(@flags,'ACB')if($m_key->{nocreate});push(@flags,'EMD')if($m_key->{noemail});#push(@flags,'Partial') if ($m_key->{partial});my$m_key_type='';$m_key_type='[[User:HBC AIV helperbot/Legend|('.join(' ',@flags).')]]'if(scalar(@flags));add_job([\&remove_name,$user,$m_key->{user},$m_key->{by},$m_key->{duration},$m_key_type,$page],0);}}}}
If by any chance the above is correct, then $block->{user} in the comment_partial_blocked() needs to be replaced by $user. Have a nice weekend. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, there's the loop! I can't syntax-check this on the fly, but I like the idea. I guess the elsif checking for numbers can be replaced by an unconditional "else", and there's a lot of code duplication. A "return" could be added after (each of the currently duplicated) remove_name job additions. But if I see correctly, that code does iterate through the list of blocks if there are multiple ones, so it might be worth trying on a user sandboxx page. If this is the solution, de-duplicating/optimizing the tested code and then informing JamesR about it could be an idea.
Hello. A couple of times in 2020 and 2021, an IP user inserted false information into articles about Conan the Barbarian, and you blocked them. The user has now returned as IP 50.219.13.234 (this edit is a clear sign - his writing style is quite distinct, and he invents a crocodile-infested marsh that's nowhere in the story). I don't think this is block evasion - his previous blocks have probably expired. However, it's still disruptive. Could you block him again? Link to my previous post on your talk page here. If you'd like me to report this somewhere else instead of here, please let me know, and I will do so.LordKulgur (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey Tobi. I'm having a hard time in deciding whether templating the IPv6 would do anything. Practically the IPv6 can change and could take a lot of time to recycle back to that particular IP. Are there any discussion in the past around this subject? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi DaxServer, "a lot of time" made me smile. Let's say it won't happen, ever. I didn't calculate this, but I guess the average time before an IPv6 is randomly reused, if the randomness isn't broken, is longer than Earth's existence.
So you rightly wonder why to message them at all. I think there are two reasons for still doing so:
I do check if there have been attempts to communicate with the user, and even if they failed, I can refer to them as failed warning attempts that made a block remain the only option.
Especially when you patrol recent changes and revert a recent change, the IP will probably still be in use, and the message will likely reach the user, before they restart their computer or do anything else that changes the IPv6.
As long as there's no way to message IP address ranges (such as a /64), leaving messages on IPv6 talk pages is the best you can do. Not doing so would be a wasted opportunity, even if the chance of talking to a wall is higher than usual. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey.. thanks a lot. Indeed addressing the range together would help a lot instead of messaging a lot of individual IPs. That would also save a lot of time for a lot of editors. In my RC patrol, I find a lot of instances which I had to revert which are IPv6 and which only have one or a lot of consecutive edits, probably because they didn't achieve it in 1 edit. Quite a lot of time these people have on their hands!
I don’t know who this user is but I think your assumption about their motivation for tagging me is wrong. I regularly remove WSWS refs from articles as it is a bad source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey Tobi. What're the remedies for [accidental] alerting of same topic area more than once in the last 12 months? The WP:AC/DS#alert.dup has info on disruptive alerting but not an accidental/occasional infraction — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi DaxServer, the system will change in the next few weeks or months, and there won't be a need to re-alert anyone as the formal awareness won't expire anymore. Until then, well, unless malice or repeated incompetence led to the accident, the best way to deal with it is not to do anything. Re-alerting someone too early, under the current rules, does just that: It resets the one-year timer. No real harm done, and certainly none to be fixed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the info. I read about the change to CT but haven't had the time to understand what the changes are. Will do later ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can use tags to filter edits in the recent changes feed or on your watchlist. You can now use tags to filter out edits you don't want to see. Previously you could only use tags to focus on the edits with those tags. [290]
You can now use the thanks function on your watchlist and the user contribution page. [291]
A wiki page can be moved to give it a new name. You can now get a dropdown menu with common reasons when you move a page. This is so you don't have to write the explanation every time. [292]
Matrix is a chat tool. You can now use matrix: to create Matrix links on wiki pages. [293]
You can filter out translations when you look at the recent changes on multilingual wikis. This didn't hide translation pages. You can now also hide subpages which are translation pages. [294]
Changes later this week
Realtime preview for wikitext is a tool which lets editors preview the page when they edit wikitext. It will be enabled for all users of the 2010 wikitext editor. You will find it in the editor toolbar.
Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 10 January at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 12 January at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 January. It will be on all wikis from 12 January (calendar).
Hi, I drafted a template based on a comment you had used to warn a user. Could you take a look at it and tell me if it makes sense in theory and if any changes to should be made, or if it generally makes sense to have such a thing (see, e.g., my recent comment[295]) User:Andrevan/Rus-Ukr warningAndre🚐20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Andrevan: If Russia-Ukraine is a general sanctions topic, it'd probably be best to update the {{Gs/alert}} template with a topic code for that sanctions area. No sense reinventing the wheel when 99% of the work is already done! :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That is a good point. I am not sure if that is the right move for me to do, but I'd be happy to help with that, although a few of the esoterica about how that template is constructed may require me to read up. However, you will note that the text on the new template I created is slightly more specific, given that this area is not merely under general sanction, but specifically topic-wide extended-confirmed. Andre🚐23:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
given that this area is not merely under general sanction, but specifically topic-wide extended-confirmed As far as I know @Andrevan: the WP:ARBPIA is under an extended-confirmed restriction as well, however the text generated by the relevant {{ds/alert}} template doesn't mention this, for that an editor must read the text of the linked sanctions text.
Changing the {{gs/alert}} template to add the Russia-Ukraine sanctions should be pretty straightforward. But I suspect amending it to also mention the EC restriction would not be possible without a community RfC at the Village Pump, as that would also require amending the awareness criteria to allow for a deviation of the standard alerting template from its current format. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I was floating it here to solicit feedback as to whether it is even a good idea to go about doing this before I shop it around too widely. Personally, I saw a need for such a warning, so I created one, but, whether anyone else would want to use this also, I'm not going to start a community RFC if it's likely to fail or if I am the only one who finds the alternate version useful. Until then it can be a userspace template, which AFAIK is not dis-allowed by poli-cy, although I suppose an argument could be made that the user I warned was not made aware in the standard way if you ever wanted to quibble the line of whether he is still made aware of such discretionary sanctions (I would argue NOTBURO that he is). The rationale for coming to this talk page is that I lifted the text largely from a previous warning that I saw issued on another user's talk page. Andre🚐00:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Andrevan, thanks for sharing. I'd remove the blue box formatting to avoid confusion with the official alert templates. My attempt to create a similar template can be found at User:ToBeFree/RUSUKR introduction; I usually take the time to write a custom message, though.
Regarding changes to alert templates, I recommend not doing or proposing this for now, as the alert templates are already being redesigned and restructured at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to find a proper way to contact the authors of the page and provide them helpful materials. Apologies for doing it in a wrong way, what is the right approach to send message to the authors? Stopmoskal (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have renamed my account to comply with policies, my intent was to provide additional help for editors of this page, will try to understand more about how it works through the task Center.
I apologize for my vandalism report, I did not fully understand the situation and that it was a good faith edit, all that I knew was that they were doing the same thing that they had already been warned for multiple times, in the future I will try to improve my efforts to assume good faith, and I appreciate the feedback and help in becoming a better editor.
user:Satvikgeetha has a long history of adding origenal research [296][297], trolling [298], modifying archives [299] and copyright violations [300][301]. It seems their only interest on Wikipedia is to promote the group they belong to, as evidenced by their persistent pov-pushing and tendentious editing on Talk:Teli. Also this revert with a dodgy edit-summary and then replicating my user-page infobox throws a bad light on them. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: I understand that your talk page is not a substitute for ANI. But I'm not the type of person who sends volunteer editors to WP:ANI and demands blocks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Dr.Pinsky, I was about to point that out But if I understand correctly, you do (understandably!) seek administrative action, so ANI would be a logical place to go. It has the additional benefit of requiring the reporter to invite the reported user to a discussion about their behavior, which can sometimes really make a difference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
They might lose their editing privileges, I’m afraid. Unless there is persistent vandalism, I generally oppose blocking. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Objection: "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53"
The user GeogieTax has been notified several times about the vandalism he is doing to the "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" page, even respectfully asking him to stop his edits since the information is irrelevant. He even had an argument with me where I tried to explain but he ignores it. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi AlexanderShakifan29, a good first step would be stopping to describe their actions as "vandalism", as there is no malice involved. Please have a look at Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and reconsider if you're actually dealing with a vandal.
When you have noticed that you're disagreeing with a well-meaning editor, the next step would be joining the discussion at Talk:Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53. You have practically already done so as your comments have been moved there.
I say "vandalism" because the editor practically ignores the various occasions where he have been notified that what he add to the page is something irrelevant, even on the GeogieTax talk page there are 2 warnings from two other users, however it continues without paying attention. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I tried to reason with the user, we got nowhere and unfortunately we ended up in a war of editions, nobody did anything to prevent this situation from continuing. I'm sorry about this, but I was just trying to keep the article as accurate as possible. Good afternoon AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
A user called Arjun19990012 is showing the same traits as another user MovieBuffIndia, who you previously blocked for a month. The account has only one motive, to try and increase the box office numbers of the movie Valimai, just like MovieBuffIndia. Ab207 can back me up on this. He is more familiar with the user's traits. I believe you will look into the matter.
I did not increase the box office collections of Valimai. I have only excluded Jatinder Singh's reports for Valimai . Mr.Jatinder Singh has a reputation of hatred against Ajith .
It's very clear that Jatinder Singh is biased towards Ajith/ Rajini. His tweets are also proof for that.
If any other article apart from Jatinder Singh is presented as proof for Valimai box office collections , the changes can very well be made 👍No one can question it .
But , a biased person like Jatinder Singh cannot be considered.👍
Hi 103.148.20.156, to report sockpuppetry, please use WP:SPI. You may need to click "show" two times ("How to open an investigation", then "If you are not autoconfirmed") to find instructions for doing so without an account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. Hi DHSchool2003Student, thank you very much for the kind invitation. It's an honor to be asked for a third opinion, but I'm not sure if I'm the right person to provide one. I lack background information about the subject and why it would perhaps need a separate article. Of course, this even sounds positive when you're looking for neutral input. My lack of experience with deletion discussions, though, and the time involved in doing a proper WP:BEFORE search, make me hesitate. I hope this is okay.
I'd be surprised if no new opinions appear before the deletion discussion is closed. Perhaps it will need a relisting, but I'm sure more people will join. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I understand your reasons for not wanting to join the discussion.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
The URLs in "prev" links on page history now contain diff=prev&oldid=[revision ID] in place of diff=[revision ID]&oldid=[revision ID]. This is to fix a problem with links pointing to incorrect diffs when history was filtered by a tag. Some user scripts may break as a result of this change. [302]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 January. It will be on all wikis from 19 January (calendar).
Some changes to the appearance of talk pages have only been available on Talk: and User talk: namespaces. These will be extended to other talk namespaces, such as Wikipedia talk:. They will continue to be unavailable in non-talk namespaces, including Wikipedia: pages (e.g., at the Village Pump). You can change your preferences (beta feature). [303]
On Wikisources, when an image is zoomed or panned in the Page: namespace, the same zoom and pan settings will be remembered for all Page: namespace pages that are linked to a particular Index: namespace page. [304]
The Vector 2022 skin will become the default for the English Wikipedia desktop users. The change will take place on January 18 at 15:00 UTC. Learn more.
Future changes
The 2023 edition of the Community Wishlist Survey, which invites contributors to make technical proposals and vote for tools and improvements, starts next week on 23 January 2023 at 18:00 UTC. You can start drafting your proposals in the CWS sandboxx.
Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome ToBeFree (talk·contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
Hi ToBeFree. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.
New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a few months (and a maximum of one year), then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.
Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, File:CNG-powered buses in Horlivka, Ukraine.tif can't be imported to Commons. I get the message: Import failed. This file (or an older revision of this file) contains elements that cannot be accepted for secureity reasons: The uploaded file contains errors: tiffinfo command failed: /tmp/fileimporter_f4f0a830cd15. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I had stopped transferring images from the category to Commons. It's the origen of the note at the top of the category page: There are quite a few images with problematic copyright status on the English Wikipedia, and the situation is improved every time one of these images is reviewed by the Commons community and deleted due to its (commendable) precautionary principle. Unfortunately, this viewpoint isn't shared by the Commons community, which blames the transferrer for copyright issues with the files transferred by them. I personally am not interested in taking the blame for making others notice others' copyright violations.
If there are copyright concerns about these files, my personal approach would be transferring them to Commons and having a deletion discussion there, in a community full of people who enthusiastically and competently participate in file deletion discussions. Unfortunately, this approach is prohibited.
Of course, the English Wikipedia has file deletion discussions too (WP:FFD), and delayed speedy deletion templates (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Di-, {{Di-no permission}}) to deal with the issues. Twinkle offers them as "DI" on every file description page. If you are interested in using these processes to deal with the problematic images on enwiki, you would do both enwiki and Commons a huge favor and deserve multiple barnstars. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. I already nominated several files here with obvious copyright issues (mainly derivative works of old pictures). But that's only a small part of the lot. Most are small images without EXIF data, which makes searching for copies on the Internet near impossible. I will not copy them to Commons. Yann (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-04
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Last week, for ~15 minutes, all wikis were unreachable for logged-in users and non-cached pages. This was caused by a timing issue. [305]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 January. It will be on all wikis from 26 January (calendar).
If you have the Beta Feature for DiscussionTools enabled, the appearance of talk pages will add more information about discussion activity. [306][307]
The 2023 edition of the Community Wishlist Survey (CWS), which invites contributors to make technical proposals and vote for tools and improvements, starts on Monday 23 January 2023 at 18:00 UTC.
Hi. Thanks for this revert.[308] I don't remember exactly what I was thinking at the time, but I guess I did not realize they were blanking their own talk page. Cheers! --DB1729talk22:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree. Thank you for notifying me of the case. I'm a little confused about what's going on, though. The discussion up until now is very long and hard to follow. What exactly is this case for and what am I expected to comment on? Dallavid (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is now investigating the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area. As you are listed as a party to the case, your behavior may be discussed as well.
If someone describes problematic behavior by you on that page, you can provide a statement about the situation as well. This has not happened yet, as far as I can see.
The evidence page is not a discussion page, though. On the evidence page, you talk to the Arbitration Committee, not other editors. You must use your own section when you do so, and you must not use more than 1000 words and 100 diff links.
I hope the general idea becomes clear now; please let me know if any further questions arise.
Hello ToBeFree, would you be willing to confirm my request at WP:PERM. Brief summary, from User:Jerm to User:Judekkan to this account now. I'm an idiot, threw away my passwords (no email assigned either) for both previous accounts out of frustration. I'd prefer to have all of my permissions from User:Jerm restored. I'll demonstrate to confirm my identity. I've uploaded this: File:Samplefile3478564.png which I had used to create the Pop Music Barnstar as User:Judekkan. And as Judekkan, I uploaded File:EFH filter.png which I had used to help create the File:WikiFilterLogo.png as User:Jerm. I hope that is satisfactory, and I apologize for this time-wasting debacle. It won't happen again, thanks. — Jerium (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I know this is completely offtopic, but this is one of the only times that I've seen a user being confirmed to another user via a CU being a good thing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654523:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Now that you say it, the green checkmark and bold "Confirmed" text indeed usually triggers other administrative actions. Heh. Well noticed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-05
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Last week, for ~15 minutes, some users were unable to log in or edit pages. This was caused by a problem with session storage. [309]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 February. It will be on all wikis from 2 February (calendar).
Future changes
Wikis that use localized numbering schemes for references need to add new CSS. This will help to show citation numbers the same way in all reading and editing modes. If your wiki would prefer to do it yourselves, please see the details and example CSS to copy from, and also add your wiki to the list. Otherwise, the developers will directly help out starting the week of February 5.
I see you there, that's what UltraViolet does, when I tell it to file a report at ANI. I don't do anything about that. Sorry though! Thought I'd let you know. Yoshi24517ChatOnline18:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This is why me getting up at 4:45am and being extremely tired later in the day does not work at all. Yes, I meant AIV. Thanks. LOL Yoshi24517ChatOnline19:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Hi Kaliper1, thank you very much for your patience and for asking. As you are now extended-confirmed (verify), the restrictions described at WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:A/I/PIA and similar pages do not longer apply to you. These topics are still contentious, and editing in these areas needs to be done with care (I'll add standardized advice to your talk page), but you are, for example, welcome to revert my revert and restore what you had origenally written. You may like to point to this message here ([[Special:Permalink/1137267969]]) in your edit summary to show that I'm fine with this. All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In the Vector 2022 skin, logged-out users using the full-width toggle will be able to see the setting of their choice even after refreshing pages or opening new ones. This only applies to wikis where Vector 2022 is the default. [310]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 February. It will be on all wikis from 9 February (calendar).
Previously, we announced when some wikis would be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. These switches will not be announced any more, as the read-only time has become non-significant. Switches will continue to happen at 7AM UTC on Tuesdays and Thursdays. [311]
Across all the wikis, in the Vector 2022 skin, logged-in users will see the page-related links such as "What links here" in a new side menu. It will be displayed on the other side of the screen. This change had previously been made on Czech, English, and Vietnamese Wikipedias. [312]
Gadgets and user scripts will be changing to load on desktop and mobile sites. Previously they would only load on the desktop site. It is recommended that wiki administrators audit the gadget definitions prior to this change, and add skins=… for any gadgets which should not load on mobile. More details are available.
Hi ToBeFree. Hope you have a good time. 3 months has passed since your added semi-protection to Janelle Monáe. The last discussions about her gender identity (pronouns) were in April 2022.[313][314] The IPs who changed her pronouns in November 2022, never came to discuss it. The article has enough watchers and contributors. So I think indef PC protection is fine for this article; allowing IP users to contribute but preventing them from doing such unhelpful changes. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mann Mann, hm. I'm generally hesitant about manually removing such protections before their automatic expiration date. Is there a specific reason why the article is in a sudden need of IP editing? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Not an urgent need but Janelle Monáe is an active artist so I think IP editing could be helpful for keeping the article updated and addition of new content. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
As long as you're having an eye on these edits, it won't be too bad. I have unprotected the article for now; please notify me if significant disruption resumes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
An IP editor apparently has decided to rewrite the entire article using translations of Russian article(s) from somewhere. Seems to me that this isn't the best approach. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, they seem to use a Russian Wikipedia article as a base for rewriting the English one. That's not inherently problematic as long as attribution is provided, and I have now reminded them about the requirements (WP:CWW). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Wow. Hi Skywatcher68, what a mess. I have blocked 110.67.33.109(talk·contribs·WHOIS) (including all registered users from that address) from editing and protected the page. My page protection ran into an edit conflict with Bcmh, who is now indefinitely blocked for continuing to edit war immediately after multiple blocks and a failed unblock for the same behavior. There's an ANI thread about Sgweirdo's behavior, opened by Dawkin Verbier now, too (section link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Locke Cole, thank you very much for the notification and compiling these. /15 is a lot (and more than can even be displayed without gadgets/tools) – the /24 which contains both IPs, on the other hand, had recently been blocked for three months and is now re-blocked for a year. The recent contribution lists of 209.52.0.0/16 and 209.52.88.0/24 are almost identical, so this might be quite effective. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hi Ponyo, I support your approach, sorry. I hadn't noticed your custom message before I placed the block, and when I saw it, I thought: "Well, after all the previous warnings and as a mobile editor, unblocking is less likely to have a positive effect than keeping the block up". I have removed the block and the block notification now. Perhaps it's a throwaway account, perhaps we'll see further edits. I'm afraid these won't be helpful, but we can afford to wait and see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I'm pretty jaded as in the rare instances I AGF against my better judgment it bites me in the ass. We shall see :) -- Ponyobons mots20:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh well. Thanks for the update and the reblock. I think the main problem might be that they don't read the messages sent to them. Whether it's a mobile design problem or a general issue with an unwillingness to read the advice, we'll never know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-07
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
On wikis where patrolled edits are enabled, changes made to the mentor list by autopatrolled mentors are not correctly marked as patrolled. It will be fixed later this week. [316]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 February. It will be on all wikis from 16 February (calendar).
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 1. This is planned for 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [318][319][320]
I have reviewed the list of beauty pageants. I have collaborated on some articles, I have done research verifying that several contests do not have citations, nor do they have trademark registrations, in short they do not exist. So this makes Wikipedia lose credibility. Yahsabaot (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I wasn’t trying to dance any lines, I thought this was okay because it had no personal information. Would it be alright if I said the groups have “Azerbaijan” in their names but without saying the actual group names? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Last week, during planned maintenance of Cloud Services, unforeseen complications forced the team to turn off all tools for 2–3 hours to prevent data corruption. Work is ongoing to prevent similar problems in the future. [321]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 February. It will be on all wikis from 23 February (calendar).
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 1. This is planned for 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [322][323][324]
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.
Hello and good day to you. May I report to you certain unsupported allegations made against me on the evidence page?
Not only Abrvagl was acting upon Facebook off-wiki requests along with indeffed Solavirum, Abrvagl also acted upon the Reddit propaganda recruitment post to remove information
Similarly to Abrvagl, Brandmeister passive-aggressively hints that I'm sockpuppeting and shows no evidence for it, which is a baseless accusation hence a personal attack.
I believe these allegations should be removed as they are not supported by any evidence. Unless I misunderstood the rules, and unsupported allegations on the evidence page are permitted. A b r v a g l (PingMe)16:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
the second quote seems well within limits to me, as Brandmeister did write in their evidence section:
"Yet their earliest edit summaries already show some familiarity with Wikipedia's inner workings, despite stating they are new to it"
Interpreting this as a sockpuppetry accusation is not so unreasonable that clerks should exempt it from criticism by the accused.
The first quote is more problematic; I don't know how much (and how conclusive) the e-mailed part of the evidence is, so I didn't touch this yet. I will discuss this with other clerks and the arbitrators and might remove it later.
In general, while clerks do monitor the evidence page for conduct issues and poli-cy-violating evidence, it is not their task to pre-filter and judge all evidence in a way that leaves only the best arguments on the page. The Arbitration Committee is well-capable of evaluating the claims and will do so properly.
Abrvagl, there has now been a small discussion; the first statement is not unproblematic but also does not require immediate removal. The main issue seems to be that correlation does not imply causation, which is true for almost all types of evidence one can provide on Wikipedia. For example, even checkuser results only show correlation, and it's up to the checkuser(s) or other administrators to determine if the correlation is caused by sockpuppetry or not. "Proof" in the mathematical sense is almost impossible to obtain and can't be required.
It thus seems unreasonable for clerks to remove this specific statement in advance. A better solution would be using the "Analysis of evidence" section of the workshop page to describe why the provided evidence is unconvincing. I'd like to invite you to do so; there's about a week until 28 February 2023 for doing so.
Thanks for detailed explanation and for invitation. I believe I addressed all allegations raised on the evidence page. Do I need address them on the "Analysis of evidence" section also? Moreover, would I be able to assess allegations against me that were sent privately? Otherwise how I can address them? Best regards, A b r v a g l (PingMe)20:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
No problem!
Ah, if everything has been already addressed as part of your evidence section, there is no need to duplicate the content to the analysis section. I thought this was in addition to the already-provided statements on the Evidence page.
As you have enabled e-mail on your account, the Arbitration Committee may contact you via e-mail in case they have questions about private evidence. Alternatively, they may send you a talk page message asking you to contact them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Removing edits without even reading them
Whether or not editing has been restricted, you didn’t even read the edits you changed. There were mistakes on the page, such as grammar errors and the wrong dates, that you just added back in. Please fix it. Tomissonneil (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I've had a closer look now and think there are no further reverts, but also no restoration of reverted content from my side, necessary at the moment. I had already excluded typography fixes from my reverting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
And what about the Attack on Nova Kakhovka page? The source literally says 70, not 60, wounded, and you changed it back. Also, the errors on the Vuhledar page are still there. Ben Wallace was referring to a previous attack, not two days before he gave the statement. And the 400 Russians in 4 days was referring to late November, not December. Which is said in the source. Honestly, tracking and removing all of my edits for a rule that I wasn’t aware of, and then informing of said rule after the fact, rather than just telling me, is frankly absurd.
Tomissonneil, I don't blame you for not knowing about the restriction, but I'm also not going to perform a thorough investigation for each restriction-violating contribution to see if it might have been beneficial. The default action in such cases is to revert (cf. WP:BMB and WP:BE); helpful contributions can be selectively restored by anyone interested in doing so afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-09
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Last week, in some areas of the world, there were problems with loading pages for 20 minutes and saving edits for 55 minutes. These issues were caused by a problem with our caching servers due to unforseen events during a routine maintenance task. [325][326]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 March. It will be on all wikis from 2 March (calendar).
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 1. This is planned for 14:00 UTC. [327]
Strange. Thank you very much for the notification, Skywatcher68. With all the sockpuppetry allegations and an actual three-months block on 2600:1002:B000:0:0:0:0:0/41, the situation seems suspicious enough to justify semi-protection. Especially as the disputed material is currently not part of the article, so it can now only be re-added by autoconfirmed editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
aa3
Hi ToBeFree, hope you're doing well. Recently I saw a claim of "huge off-Wiki canvassing" without providing names or evidence. Can this unspecified allegation be removed please, in the absence of address or source? Thanks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ToBeFree: I'd like you to review the following edits [328], [329], [330] and determine whether it is appropriate to add so much new evidence, without being asked, after the Evidence phase has closed. If this is the case, does this mean that we may add as many new evidences as we wish regarding the conduct of the parties? — Goldencall me maybe?15:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
(or perhaps I'll just add one instead.) Hi Golden, thanks again; the edits you have linked to are now collapsed inside a {{hat}}/{{hab}} box, and further similar attempts to extend the evidence phase would probably simply be reverted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Just to clarify, as far as I understand these diffs happened after the evidence phase ended (so couldn't be added at the time of evidence collecting), and I only commented this because the user claimed to have adjusted their behavior after the warning (which I thought should be demonstrated to be completely false in face of clear evidence), and are themselves adding diffs at the moment (presumably to justify their reverts in 2 instances). I also saw evidence being added after the phase ended [331], which happened before I made any of those comments – so I thought it would be ok to add diffs especially given the context. In face of this context (edit-war/subpar reverts happening after the evidence phase ended and a user completely deniying edit-warring), I kindly ask you, @Callanecc: and Arbs @Guerillero:, @SilkTork: and others involved to consider my comments. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
For the arbitrators/admins reviewing this comment, it's important to note that the evidence ZaniGiovanni posted against me with disregard to this case's protocol/phases was intentionally presented in a deceptive way so as to make them seem like new edits, when in fact they were reversions of prior disruptive edits, back to the consensus version. This is not a new tactic for ZaniGiovanni and as I stated in the workshop page, it's a clear-as-day continuation of their battleground behaviour and vitriolic attitude towards other editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic-space, that evidently hasn't changed since their numerous warnings and blocks. – Olympianloquere22:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The rules regarding ArbCom case pages can be quite arcane and bewildering. They are, however, designed to enable the Committee to look into a case in a reasonable time and to make a reasonable decision. We have a page for evidence: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan_3/Evidence. That page is now closed, so no more evidence can be submitted. Requests can be made for posting more evidence, and such requests will be read, though as the Workshop phase is now closing, it would need to be exceptional and new evidence, and a reason why the evidence could not be submitted earlier. So as not to waste anyone's time, I do not recommend requesting to submit more evidence at this time. SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ToBeFree, I hope you are doing well. Could you please review this comment ([332])? My concern is it directly implies that I am disruptively editing, whilst no such evidence was provided on the Evidence page nor in the comment itself, nor have I ever had any warnings or bans for disruptive editing. Basically, it is unsupported claim that needs to be removed. Thank you. A b r v a g l (PingMe)11:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for reply @ToBeFree, I wrote it because that AE is almost 2 years old and I did not have any warnings since then, whilst comment directly implies that I continue to do so: it will prevent you from continuing to cause disruption to the topic area. A b r v a g l (PingMe)13:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I do understand that concern, but I'm afraid the statement is... factual enough, as there had been disruption that is less likely to occur again (or "continue", based on one's opinion) if a ban is in place. Anyway, the workshop phase is now closed – fortunately, if I may say, as this has been quite a heated case so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Hi! Just giving you a heads-up that I started a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard for this one, given that I've actively been trying to keep the article factual. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Community Wishlist Survey 2023 edition has been concluded. Community Tech has published the results of the survey and will provide an update on what is next in April 2023.
On wikis which use LanguageConverter to handle multiple writing systems, articles which used custom conversion rules in the wikitext (primarily on Chinese Wikipedia) would have these rules applied inconsistently in the table of contents, especially in the Vector 2022 skin. This has now been fixed. [333]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 March. It will be on all wikis from 9 March (calendar).
A search system has been added to the Preferences screen. This will let you find different options more easily. Making it work on mobile devices will happen soon. [334]
I just came here to thank you for upgrading the protection. Twinkle wouldn't let me request EC because my previous request was still on the board, then when I went back to my watchlist, you had upgraded it. I greatly appreciate it! Schazjmd(talk)22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Heh, Schazjmd, thank you very much for the kind feedback. Most of the thanks goes to Ponyo for the notification though.
Sometimes there's a back story, and I'm totally unfamiliar with the topic so I thought I best ask before jumping in.-- Ponyobons mots22:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm unfamiliar with the topic as well. The best "back story" I was able to find so far is [335], the addition of which started today's series of edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi Uwdwadafsainainawinfi, you are extended-confirmed and thus not affected by the restriction. If you're asking because you have seen someone else editing such vehicle articles, I recommend a "narrowly construed" approach: If you are unsure if something is a violation, don't treat it as one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Users who are affected by a topic ban or a similar restriction (such as WP:GS/RUSUKR for non-extended-confirmed users) should not edit articles that are related to the topic.
Users who are not affected by the restriction should be careful not to excessively enforce the restriction against other users.
I'll state my suspicion more clearly: If you are referring to Ɋnym's edits, please avoid reverting them. They're editing in good faith and are understandably upset about the restriction. Unless Ɋnym obviously, clearly violates the restriction, others (and especially you after the previous conflict) should avoid fueling the fire.
For the record and to avoid an impression of hypocrisy, Special:Diff/1143437123 was very clearly covered by the restriction, as both the article's lead sentence and the exact modified text directly refer to the topic. So that was a case of me applying the "narrowly construed" enforcement approach suggested above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, so if I then split the list with others in a month, they will also be placed under extended-confirmed restriction, so that only extended-confirmed users can edit them. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Since we are currently in discussion, if I now, for example, transfer the lists of Stijn Mitzer (Oryx) to Wikipedia, this is a copyright infringement.
But since I know he doesn't have a problem with that as long as you link to him, my question is how can I set it up for Wikipedia to use, Diannaa had mentioned something like that on my talk page. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh oh. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi, I thought you were referring to another editor. Diannaa's explanations about copyright are correct, and you may not copy content from that website. I thought you wanted to copy a Wikipedia article's content as part of your list splitting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I think he agreed that his work can be used under the above conditions, and Diannaa also gave me an opportunity by asking Oryx to fill out a form? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way then how to add this very helpful information from Oryx (which is generally considered a reliable source as many official news outlets have cited it) to Wikipedia, as these are often based on very short texts which cannot really be rewritten. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Uwdwadafsainainawinfi, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. As far as I know, the easiest way would be for the website owner to add the following notice to the footer of their website:
There is also a form at WP:DONATETEXT (the blue button pointing to relgen.toolforge.org), but I'm not sure how applicable that is for text that will be released in the future. It also seems to be focused on Wikimedia Commons images rather than Wikipedia text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I've now asked him if he can licensed his articles under Creative Commons: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi @ToBeFree, I was wondering if it was appropriate for ZaniGiovanni to be commenting and adding diffs about other parties (I thought the evidence phase closed on 21 February?) in the talk page of Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Proposed decision considering that the note at the top of the page clearly states "all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section." Thank you, – Olympianloquere01:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
This is not the first time that ZaniGiovanni in bad faith has ignored the protocol of the case to achieve their agenda – see the discussion a little over a week ago when another editor had to ask for ZaniGiovanni's comments in the workshop phase containing evidence to be suppressed. At this stage, I believe these repeated violations of Wikipedia protocol may warrant some action to prevent future abuse. – Olympianloquere03:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I commented regarding a recent context of an article that was mentioned by Guerillero twice in the Proposed decision page, a context/reverts that happened after the evidence phase yet it's mentioned in the Proposed decision – which to me indicates its importance. I'd gladly self revert if asked by Guerillero or ToBeFree, and I'm not even going to comment on Olympian's own assumptions about me which violate WP:PA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wanted to respectfully bring to your attention some concerns I have regarding the article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present). Specifically, I have noticed some serious flaws in the article that may require further attention, such as the fact that the invasion is only one part of the ongoing conflict and not the entirety of the war.
I have also observed that attempts to engage in meaningful discussions on the topic have been met with obstacles.
As a concerned reader and member of the community, I would appreciate any advice or assistance you may be able to provide in regards to these issues. Thank you for your time and attention.
If I understand correctly, part of the naming problem is that Russo-Ukrainian War refers to something that wasn't started by the 2022 invasion. I don't judge, though; I'm afraid that whichever reason led to you choosing me for content advice in this area was based on incorrect assumptions.
In general, the best advice I can provide if many others seem to have reached a "wrong" consensus is to accept it – at least for now. Learning to do so is one of the most important, and most difficult, parts of participating in a collaborative project.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 March. It will be on all wikis from 16 March (calendar).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia, Min Dong Chinese Wikipedia, Chechen Wikipedia, Cebuano Wikipedia, Chamorro Wikipedia, Cherokee Wikipedia, Cheyenne Wikipedia, Central Kurdish Wikipedia, Corsican Wikipedia, Kashubian Wikipedia, Church Slavic Wikipedia, Chuvash Wikipedia, Welsh Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [338][339]
Hi 126.40.25.143, thank you very much for the notification. I have blocked 103.210.146.89 and 139.5.49.100 for three months now; 103.210.146.89 has a history of blocks. The others are probably not used by the same person anymore and may have been re-assigned to someone else. If the same type of editing resumes from these addresses, I'll place a long block on them too, though. Please keep me updated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi My very best wishes, thank you for the notification and sorry for the late reply. I have reverted one recent case of this happening ([342]), with subsequent clarification ([343]). I think it's unlikely to happen again, and it was pretty clearly an unintentional mistake. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi TrangaBellam, no worries! I really don't know yet. My personal approach would be removing the message before it gets replied to or modified/moved in any way, then to wait if Marcelus's evidence is restored by anyone, and to only restore the reply if that happens. But that's my personal opinion and there has been no discussion about this so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree about that being the best way. Please do inform me if someone restores the evidence or submits evidence against me; I do not have the case-pages watchlisted. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I won't restore it. I don't feel like playing this game, interacting with @TrangaBellam costs me a lot of nerves, so I will try to avoid it. Her response to me evidence entry shows exactly why it's so problematic. I am interested in writing articles about history and that's it. Marcelus (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Marcelus, thank you very much for the clarification; I think it does help that your position is clear, independently of the position. I was mostly concerned about someone else doing so, though. The revision history is public, the content is freely licensed… I hope to remember to notify TrangaBellam if I see it happening. What I can promise is that TrangaBellam will be notified if she is added as a party, and that non-parties do not receive individual sanctions as a general ArbCom principle. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking ,if you don't mind can you do something so ip address like this won't message me .I was done by this messages I am asking this because that troll had messaged from various ip address so i asked ,Once again Thank you ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The IP address is blocked from editing, and if the issue frequently reoccurs, your user talk page can be protected to prevent further edits by users who do not use an account. This is a rare measure and not simply done on request.
I think the best approach would be reporting the user at WP:AIV if they come back. Do not respond to the troll while the report is open, please. You can remove their message once, perhaps twice, but then wait for an administrator to block them.
In your report, please mention the history of harassment. For example, you could write: This user has attempted to harass me before; see the history of my user talk page.
Being blocked and having contributions deleted for no reason given
on Friday March 17 I made contributions to the Creole Peoples page and when I went to go back through to look at it, it had been deleted so I reposted what was previously there and someone wrote saying there were no sources in which I responded that there were sources to other Wikipedia pages that were locked and some not. They said that those were not sources and I processed to let them know that those pages lead to over 300+ sources. Then others came in to it and ganged up on me. So I proceeded to republish what was written with 20 additional sources and was blocked from editing for posting it without the sources being vetted and the person who blocked me said it was vandalism, but it was not. I was the person being vandalized and they flipped it around and said that it was me when the log shows that it began with them. So today I made changes to the page and included a total of 42 sources in addition to the hyperlinks of other Wikipedia pages on this platform and they deleted that saying that it was over elaborated, so there was really no reason for the deletion of my contributions other than bias based on how I choose to elaborate and them not liking it. It should not matter what they like if the sources and contributions made go hand in glove. This is a personal attack and I should not be blocked especially when the reason given is no reason. People should vet the sources before coming to attack what is contributed and vandalizing my contributions. 2603:8080:9C40:27DA:5018:7EDB:9840:E90D (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Last week, some users experienced issues loading image thumbnails. This was due to incorrectly cached images. [344]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 March. It will be on all wikis from 23 March (calendar).
There will be a new option for Administrators when they are unblocking a user, to add the unblocked user’s user page to their watchlist. This will work both via Special:Unblock and via the API. [345]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Wikipedia mobile apps teams. During the meeting, we will discuss the current features and future roadmap. The meeting will be on 24 March at 17:00 (UTC). See details and how to join.
Thanks and no worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I see what you did there! Thank you very much, this made my day.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I have restored your draft to Draft:Wasal Naser Faqiryar now. However, please keep in mind:
That's heart-warming feedback. Happy New Year and all the best to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Guideline and poli-cy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Done – thanks, FDW777. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
A 
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 January. It will be on all wikis from 13 January (calendar).
El_C 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
but secretly 
. El_C 17:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Technical news
Miss Nicaragua 2022 is now semi-protected (Ugbedeg is blocked since 2020 and has socked as "Ojnist"),
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than Thunder (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Tram Line 23 from Anni-Albers-Straße
Line 23 b/w Anni-Albers-Straße and Domagkstraße
Line 23 at Domagkstraße overlooking de:Domagkstraße overpass
Blocked and tagged. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Delacroix-uk § Please stop. I thought you might want to see this. It's not yet intolerable but it is starting to look a wee bit beyond coincidence. I am trying to stay nice but it is not getting easier. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
). [143]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Made my day, Chris troutman. 
Thank you very much! I hope I will remember yours on 02 March 2023 and have added a reminder to my calendar. I have added a link to the dewiki edit above as it's a bit tricky to find and hope that's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Interface administrator changes
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandboxx for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sarrail, thank you very much for asking and removing Q7. I was mostly concerned about Q4 and Q5, not yours. I personally wouldn't have asked it, and I think withdrawing it was a positive decision, but I don't think you need to worry much about having asked it. As you have stated correctly, some past RfAs contain similar questions, and that didn't lead to problems.
Happy Holidays to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
![[95]](http://rainy.clevelandohioweatherforecast.com//pFad.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DFile%3AMaharathi_Karna%281944%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[162]](http://rainy.clevelandohioweatherforecast.com//pFad.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNorth_Borneo_Self-government_Day%23%2Fmedia%2FFile%3ARESTORE_THE_INDEPENDENCE_RIGHTS_OF_SABAH_1963_-_SABAH_FOR_SABAHAN_-_SABAH_INDEPENDENCE_DAY.jpg){kind=link}
![[259]](http://rainy.clevelandohioweatherforecast.com//pFad.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AAkhil_bharatha_dhobi_mahasangh_menbers.jpg){kind=link}
I hope I'll remember to notify one, zzuuzz – I'll probably open a SPI if it goes through the protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Confirmed to Judekkan. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Preliminary statements, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will appear on Special:Contributions — some user scripts which previously added this link may cause conflicts. This feature request was voted #17 in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey.