Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-03

User:SpBot blocked

Could an admin unblock the bot? It appears to have been automatically blocked by a wayward abuse filter. --Rschen7754 03:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed filter. When copying back after testing, I pasted over a restriction.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 AFC Beach Soccer Championship

I had created an Chinese edition "2019年亞洲沙灘足球錦標賽",however when I tried to link this page with other language, I received this message: You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action. Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by -revi (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Open proxy: Leaky webhost: Contact stewards if you are affected .

Start of block: 16:19, 13 July 2018 Expiration of block: 16:19, 13 July 2021 You can contact -revi to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 65.49.126.65, and the blocked range is 65.49.0.0/17. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

So can you stop blocking my IP, so that I can link this page with other language? Thanks. Younis7435 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've exempted your account from global blocks. You should be able to edit now. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews.org portal

The Finnish Wikinews has over 1 000 articles. Wikinews.org portal needs updating. Thank you. --Crt 12:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Done - diff. It'll take some days until it displays on wikinews.org (portal upgrades happens on Mondays every week). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Crt 11:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting speedy deletion of page CNBanner:Talk page consultation 2019-text2/uz-cyrl

The page created is vandalism. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but then I realized it doesn't pop up in Category:Deleteme so maybe I should post here. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 02:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

105.227.136.8

Would an admin delete the translations created by 105.227.136.8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) and possibly block them? Thanks. Nihlus 03:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nuked. --Vogone (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.181.20.252

193.181.20.252 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: This ip is globally blocked and is vandalising pages here. Thanks BRP ^ever 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Protect my talk page

Continuous destructive editing after protection expiry.--Xiplus (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Done – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please notice 187.114.195.71

This IP is personal attacking. --云间守望 11:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

And see this, directly accuse someone to be socket puppet (马甲) in no reason. --云间守望 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Module:Category handler

Just a thought bubble that we may wish to do some editing to this module so that we have better visibility on pages being listed at Category:Deleteme. It is somewhat painful to have to dig through some layers to get to files, or to rely on indirect categorisation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Harassing IP 125.38.13.231

• 125.38.13.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

This IP has harassed my talk page [1] and still harassing many pages. I sincerely ask you sysops' help to deal with it. Thank you.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Rollback the edit in question, for the rest will wait for a sysop to determine.--Cohaf (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Added links. Nihlus 08:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have left a note for the user.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:PatoBelly

PatoBelly (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Probably an account for advertisement purposes. 云间守望 15:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Locked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Emoji blocker

As part of my abusefilter improvements, I carved off filter 208 from a global filter, and removed the namespace restriction and made it blocking. However, as some users objected to this, telling that I need consensus, I've rolled back the changes.

In my opinion, consensus wasn't needed for this filter because its settings (excludes autoconfirmed users) were squarely designed to catch vandals. The namespace restriction was removed as I caught instances where the filter was bypassed that way.

Please let me know if I can reinstate the filter changes. Thanks. Leaderboard (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• AbuseFilter 209 is about the stewards elections. Perhaps you mean Special:AbuseFilter/208 (which I just disabled)? Did you remove this from some other (split) filter or just copy (fork) it from another filter? You set 208 to give out a spam warning that tells editors to resave if it is wrong, (this doesn't appear to be anything to do with spam) - and then you block the edit anyway. In lack of some blatant or urgent disruption, discussing before creating blocking filters is generally a good idea; followed by a log-only monitoring run to see what type of possible FP's could be generated. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Sorry, I meant filter 208. I copied it from a global filter. I wanted to modify the spam message for this filter, but you apparently told me not to make any such modification due to translation issues. Normally I would create a separate message just for this filter. (Edit: I checked for false-positives before deploying by checking for metawiki hits on the global filter) Leaderboard (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: I said not to change the mediawiki default disallow message at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed without discussion, not that new custom messages can't be built for special use cases if needed - but that has nothing to do with adding a 'warn' message (telling editors they are spamming at that) that encourages editors that got a false positive save again - then following that with an absolute block action. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I've updated the messages, please check Special:AbuseFilter/208 again. Leaderboard (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Broad swathe filters like this do little. They are trying to catch a vandal using one momentary type of vandalism, and that methodology can be altered so easily. From that point you are playing filter catch up and are basically feeding trolls, giving them their jollies. Don't play the game. There are better alternatives available, and just calmly resolving vandalism when it occurs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: Just so that I can understand what type of filters are acceptable, can you tell me how are your filters (eg: 200) any different from mine? Leaderboard (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

    Specific, targeted and actionable; will have low possibility of false positives at any time. Apart from that, please heed the remainder of my previous message.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-admins: the filter is about disallowing usage of certain emoji unless autoconfirmed. — regards, Revi 13:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/161

I propose to reduce the condition from autopatrolled to autoconfirmed, as this otherwise hinders occasional users' ability to tag spam userpages. This has already been done at MediaWiki (reduced from autopatrolled to 2 edits), and there has been no issues over that change.

Also see this. Leaderboard (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, please do not, that was problematic. Leave it as is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll say regrettably  Oppose. Meta userpages are very visible and will have too much damage. My 1st few meta edit was trying to tag a page for spam and was prevented by this. I then saw others able to tag then wonders why they can and I can't, I then asked one of them and they explain autopatrol is needed. I'm then realise autopatrol is given to experienced editors and I might not have enough experience, and went on gaining it by tagging other pages. This makes me more confident in my patroller role when granted. If anyone wish to help but get caught, the abuse filter message can point to here where we help them to tag or grant them autopatrol / patroller depending on the case. I am not keen to drop to autoconfirmed. I very welcome the protection it gives to my meta userpage from vandals and LTAs who managed autoconfirmed at times. --Cohaf (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as well, they can just tag the talk page and we can deal with it the same. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No support, hence I won't be implementing the change. Leaderboard (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Leaderboard (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:185.46.76.64

185.46.76.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: curses. Please delete all revisions, including summaries. IKhitron (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not done at this time as user has stopped.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Why not? I did not ask to block them, just delete the curses from the history. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  @IKhitron: We don't normally delete curses simply because someone curses or swears; the criteria is mentioned in Meta:Deletion policy. Your request does not indicate that we are in the criteria; if you believe that we are within that space then the request needs to address the criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for your answer. Well, it's hard to understand if it meets the criteria because it is too short: "abusive or infringes on policies". What policies? Is "Fucking nazi" abusive enough? IKhitron (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  That would seem to fit under point 9. Attack pages: content created solely to attack, threaten or denigrate any user, person or organization.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for your help. IKhitron (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Shall anons be allowed to edit archives

Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Questions/Submitted/1. This is close to a 3RR violation if I do a further revert, anons are keeping on to alter archives, well intended but we know that we don't edit other users comments when they are live, much more we don't even they are in archive without their consent. Errors are errors that should stand unless they are grossly degrading. Shall we implement something to prevent such archives to be edited. Communication seems futile as me and others, including a steward, had told them the above so bringing it here for community review.--Cohaf (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted them and left a message on their talk pages. If they continue, they should be blocked accordingly. If they IP hop then protection should be implemented. Nihlus 02:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nihlus. Since we are talking about filters, here and on SN, I think for Board Pages and archives in general, one can also be implemented. --Cohaf (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be up to the board. If they don't have an opinion, then it should be done as it seems like common sense. Nihlus 02:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The filters were designed so we could add such pages, or page hierarchies as the occasions warranted. Might want to do some jiggling so we can have some variable filter sets that align with different rights to make things more plug and play.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we put the series of Board Elections page to only autopatrol can edit for now. Actually another way will be to have a tag when someone is editing or removing comments / statements made by others. --Cohaf (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No further comments, I take it as not much consensus, closing, thanks for attending to this Nihlus.--Cohaf (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for membership on Patroller User Group

Hello, I would like to be a member of Patroller User Group to quickly revert vandals, and patrol pages around here. Recently, I have been tagging pages for deletion and undoing edits. I believe, i can make good use of this tool. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Done — Defender (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Defender! Kind regards — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Request Patrollers right for Tomybrz

Hello, for some reason above, i request Patroller right on this wiki to help other patroller and to be "more" fast (the undo action take lot of ressource to charge). I have experience with rollback right on fr.wikipedia. Regards. Tomybrz Bip Bip 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

OK @Tomybrz: don't break things :D — xaosflux ^Talk 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:117.136.54.137

117.136.54.137 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Previously blocked as 125.38.13.231, still having personal attacks at here. The two IP matches in behaviour, leaving messages on user talkpage that aren't pleasant and editing Requests for new language pages. Hope can be managed and this is block evasion.Cohaf (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose We are members of Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle, thus our comments are always fall under Assume good faith, why do you revert such normal comments? --125.36.185.54 02:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

AGF does not apply when you were breaking civility. Yes, this is likely to be another sock account, with them reverting an edit I rollbacked as it containing personal attack and claims their edits can only be reverted by stewards. In addition, their first edit is today and after I made this report which makes it even more probable.--Cohaf (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cohaf: If you would love to build a big frontier wall between you and IP users, of couse that's your freedom, but by this way you lost the trust of entire world. --125.36.185.54 02:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The key reason of your edits are "Hey you're IP user, so you are not our users", how can a sane user be not laughed by this? --125.36.185.54 02:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm living in Venezuela, the reason why you think I am probably their sock is indeed shame: Venezuela network providers have entirely sanctioned by US, so their TCP access aren't likely to be still VE (which are mostly transfered by US nodes), but rather we have to use CN nodes. --125.36.185.54 03:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, StevenJ81, could you please handle all these IPs from making disruption at Requests for new languages/Wikisource Literary Chinese ?--AldNonymous^Bicara? 03:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Before that, I require @Cohaf: to say sorry to us, to our members of Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle. How can a "Duibuqi" be very hard in this case? --125.36.185.54 03:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, what he did is correct. He didn't owe you an apology. These IPs disruption and personal attack at Requests for new languages/Wikisource Literary Chinese need to be stopped ASAP. I will no longer reply to these conversation anymore. I just gave comment for context to meta-admins.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Aldnonymous: Have you saw my comments above carefully? The reason that that registered user wrongly assumed me as sock is simply because of US sanctions to Venezuela, do you know what happened in our mother country Venezuela? In any cases, that user who "reported" this section is the actual breaker of AGF. --125.36.185.54 03:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• 117.136.54.137 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)
• 125.36.185.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

not blocked

• 125.38.13.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

blocked. All 3 geolocates well to a region via WHOIS and given their behavioural similarities, I think we can call it the same person or meat at the very least.--Cohaf (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Based on this, clearly 1st one is the same account as 2nd one already.--Cohaf (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Because you don't know sanctions from US to the Venezuela? --125.36.185.54 03:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

---

From this line, I will only reply with Spanish, to disclose What you all are doing damnly: En la mañana del 13 de marzo, Nuestro CANTV, el famoso ISP de Venezuela ha sido sancionado por el Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos. Y mediante sanciones, CANTV ya no puede acceder a los servidores ISP principales, ya que están ubicados en San Diego, por lo que nuestro acceso a Internet está bloqueado injustamente. Recibí un SMS de CANTV que, debido a las sanciones, el proveedor internacional del nodo tendrá que cambiar a China Unicom.Así que mi dirección IP parece de China, pero realmente no soy un chino, soy Venezue.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:8902:9321:7540:AAD4:A6A5:1F84:726F (talk) This IP gelocates to same locations as the rest also.--Cohaf (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

¿Por qué no me das suficiente tiempo para que sepas el hecho de Venezuela? --2409:8902:9321:7540:AAD4:A6A5:1F84:726F 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cohaf, ya sea que conozca el hecho de Venezuela o no, primero no debe desconfiar de un gran número de usuarios de IP; al hacerlo, está perdiendo a sus amigos.--223.104.7.114 03:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• not done at this time. Warning issued. comment by admin We block problematic IP addresses where the editors are problematic, not for any other reason. So, if the IP addresses continue to problematic from now they will be blocked. Warning ends.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No further edits by IP, thanks billinghurst. Will continue to monitor and put up new report if needed. --Cohaf (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete two pages in the CNBanner namespace

Hi. The following two pages have been tagged with {{delete}} for about a week:

• CNBanner:Talk page consultation 2019-text2/ast
• CNBanner:Talk page consultation 2019-text2/tet

I previously asked why these pages weren't showing up in Category:Deleteme, but didn't receive a response. My guess is that it is because they are using mw:Extension:Translate, which may have a "feature" where categorization only applies to entire pages, not individual translation units. In any case, those two pages should probably be deleted. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 12:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this indef a false positive

AtpsPlus- Education (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) was indef blocked by our AF with reason of specific LTA. I don't see it being an LTA as their contributions on bpy, bnwiki, urwiki seems normal. Is this a false positive? I don't recall any LTA such as this. --Cohaf (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bsadowski1 already unblocked as a FP. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Noted with thanks Xaosflux.--Cohaf (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 12:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning 2602:306:3357:BA0:4980:734E:84AB:376D

• 2602:306:3357:BA0:4980:734E:84AB:376D (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

Vandalism at user talk page. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 22:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete CNBanner:EU Translations-message-body-5/sk and CNBanner:EU Translations-message-body-3/sk. Thanks! --Patriccck (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. --Vogone (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Patriccck and Vogone: The pages have been recreated, and previously no overt reasons for deletion were provided, can someone please advise whether these pages should be remaining. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The pages must stay here. I not speak sk, I create pages with wrong translates (by sk user). I'm sorry. --Patriccck (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Understood.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Welcome

There is still an outstanding edit request on Template talk:Welcome. Would an uninvolved administrator implement the requested change in order to restore functionality to the template? Thanks. Nihlus 12:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Nihlus 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

where should Transwiki importer be requested?

where should Transwiki importer be requested?

want to import some templates for use at Translat-a-thon/NYC/2019. thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say a discussion here and further request at SRP would be a good way, though I see that at least in one of the previous cases a direct SRP request was placed. But which templates do you want to import? If it is just for one page then it would be simpler if others just do it for you. --Base (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Meetupsig}} is the first I was trying. these also are currently red links (at the page I linked above) and I haven't decided yet if they're appropriate, going to check how complicated they are: {{NYC bus link}} {{NYCS Crosstown}} {{NYCS Queens Plaza}} {{Rint}}. --Jeremyb (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Still need {{Meetupsig}} from enwiki. Imported hardcoded versions from w:special:expandtemplates for the others. --Jeremyb (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It is available now. --Vogone (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, tested, it works. --Jeremyb (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jeremyb (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment

I'm being harrassed by User:BJM1994[2], blocked as a sockpuppet on English Wikipedia.[3]. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, That account and the socks(?) already locked by steward User:Defender. Thank you.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 03:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --AldNonymous^Bicara? 03:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection Request

Could Cascadia Wikimedians/2018 Wikimedia Conference report please be protected due to the recent history of vandalism? (see page history) --Terra ❤ ^(talk) 13:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Already protected by User:Tegel.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 13:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --AldNonymous^Bicara? 13:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Nvnnvc

Nvnnvc (talk · contribs) has made a pathetic attempt to impersonate me. It is clearly a new account of Nvnbvc (talk · contribs). Please block it. — RHaworth (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @RHaworth:Blocked by billinghurst. -- Cohaf (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, billinghurst. Sadly, they will probably come back again. — RHaworth (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. If it continues here we can build some stronger defences; we can add to global level defences as required.

Trolling … when that is the best that life offers them. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So what stronger defences can you build? It hardly seems worth bothering but you could block I hate RHaworth (talk · contribs) and add it to the list of socks of Nvnbvc, etc. — RHaworth (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

And throw in en:user:Child in time 123 as well! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

translation request

could someone please have a look at Translat-a-thon/NYC/2019 if my translation tags look reasonable and mark for translation? the languages we set as priority on the corresponding banner are:

• ar - Arabic
• bn - Bangla
• bo - Tibetan
• de - German
• es - Spanish
• fr - French
• he - Hebrew
• ht - Haitian Creole
• it - Italian
• ja - Japanese
• ko - Korean
• ne - Nepali
• pl - Polish
• pt - Portuguese
• ru - Russian
• tl - Tagalog
• ur - Urdu
• zh - Chinese

Meta users are welcome to help translate but we also will have people involved with the event working on some of the languages. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jeremy, it was a lot of work, but I'm glad I put the time in.--Pharos (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for marking translation

Community health initiative/Partial blocks/Description for use in local wiki communities. Thanks! --Xiplus (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done - the page is not correctly setup for translation. @Base: could you fix it and mark it yourself afterwards? It'd be easier than to create/fix new/existing translation units later. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Done --Base (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Base (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

I request deletion on the below-mentioned redirects and their talk pages. These are redirects from moves of portal under construction, towards a better title.

1. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk
2. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk/Community Health Initiative
3. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk/Header
4. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk/Home
5. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk/Resource Exchange
6. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk/TechCom
7. Indian Wikimedias Coordination Desk/Wikisource Help Desk
8. Indian Wikimedia Coordination Portal/Community Health Initiative
9. Indian Wikimedia Coordination Portal/Header
10. IWCD

KCVelaga (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• The redirects /Home and /Resource Exchange have backlinks. The rest should be safe to remove. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17: Cleared backlinks. KCVelaga (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: Why would we be removing redirects to active pages? Redirects exist for a particular reason, and are cheap, so why not retain them?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: As mentioned above, these redirects from moves towards a better title. Also, this portal has not yet been announced to the community. We are in the process of creating, and then realised a better name for it. There are no backlinks for any of these, so it would be good to clear these, to avoid any potential confusion between two titles which sound the same. KCVelaga (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

But that is not addressing the question of why do you wish to remove the redirects? I have no issue with the page moves, better names, etc., though for pages that have existed for a period of time why would you remove redirects? Redirects are cheap to the system, and have next to no negative consequences when they are to active targets. As we can only change local links, any external links (other wikis) are affected.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 I think by indicating that the portal wasn't announced yet the user hinted that there are no external links here to be expected to exist. --Base (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

And still for a page that has been existing for 6+ months, that is in Google, and is still just redirects. What is this ultimate tidiness movement that thinks that we speedy delete redirects?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo Don't delete redirects. — regards, Revi 19:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  I do not believe this applies here, for the reasons outlined by KCVelaga. There is absolutely no point in popularising a name in e. g. search suggestions which has neither been advertised nor is recommended for present use, and has only been part of an early page draft. --Vogone (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving pages from userspace there to userspace here

Hello. I just had two essays deleted from my userspace on another Wiki. There was general non-objection to my placing them here in Meta-wiki userspace instead. They're completely innocuous, drafts for conflict resolution techniques.[4][5] I'd like them imported with the edit history intact. I used Special:Export to save them to files, but I don't know if it worked properly, and of course I don't have import permissions. Is this something that would be acceptable to request here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If it remains in Meta:scope, it can be hosted here but IMO those doesn't fall under the remit of meta, maybe Wikiversity or Wikibooks?--Cohaf (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say "If you click either of those two links, you can see for yourself," but the admin who deleted them in the first place just threatened to re-delete them within the next half hour, so depending on when you see this message...

They're conflict resolution techniques meant to wind down arguments. They are both very preliminary, but I think they could be scrubbed up to work on other parts of Project Wiki. I participated in an idea drive here on Meta in I want to say 2016, and I think there are enough arguments here for these techniques to be relevant. I also took a brief look at [[Category:Essays]] and it looks like they would fit in. Learning fast to edit and Eleven enemies of truth seem to be acceptable here. Hm, I like this one is instructional, so it's even more similar. Okay, I'm going to read the essay category all night if I don't stop now. Of course, I would want to keep Slowdown and Downturn in my userspace for a while to work on them until they're ready. There was some constructive criticism that I haven't been able to implement yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cohaf: They look perfectly on-topic for Meta-Wiki to me. They are clearly off-topic for Wikibooks; it's not a textbook chapter teaching general dispute resolution techniques. They could be on-topic for Wikiversity, given content like v:Category:Wikimedia studies, but I don't think it would be as obvious a fit as Meta. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

PiRSquared17I personally will think it's fine in user space but as if scope I'll think it's better for this to see mainspace which I think Wikiversity should be a good space. I won't be nominating it for deletion if it's moved here. Per below, I'm interested to know who's the admin is it?--Cohaf (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal to place essays in either userspace or mainspace on Meta-Wiki, as noted by the existence of Category:Essays. Meta:Scope specifically mentions essays as an example of content that is within the remit of Meta-Wiki, in fact. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Noted, I'm a little confused about the context. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, Who is this "admin" you are talking about? An admin on meta-wiki? Because in my opinion it's perfectly okay and not out of scope of meta-wiki--AldNonymous^Bicara? 04:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The admin is Pi zero on en.wikinews, see the deletion logs here and here (and the associated talk pages). PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Aha so it's not meta-admins then.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 05:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm the not-meta admin involved. To clarify, I've no stake in whether the essays are in-scope for meta; but Darkfrog24 has sole copyright on the content of the essays, so if it's in-scope here they could just copy it here without involving any admin here. I thought that was the purpose for which a temporary undelete of the pages was requested. However, I'm concerned that their desire to import the revision history here may be about potentially re-litigating the original page deletions. The idea of importing the dispute (which, on en.wn, was already about project disruption) makes me uncomfortable. --Pi zero (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

1) I want to continue working on these essays. Before Pi zero here deleted them, there was some constructive criticism on how enforceable they were and I have not had time to implement it.

2) I want to preserve the record. There was some drama surrounding their deletion from my userspace. Pi zero said the essays constituted "trolling." That's the sort of thing that starts rumors and damages reputations. I am worried that sometime in the future someone might say, "Hey, what about that time you were TROLLING on Wikinews?" I want to be able to point to these essays and their edit history and say "Does it look like I was trolling to you?" I've had some bad experiences on Project Wiki over the past few years, and this time there's some evidence that I didn't do anything wrong. I'd feel better if it remained where I can access it if it comes up.

3) I do not believe Meta is the appropriate place to contest a Wikinews admin action. The appropriate place is Wikinews' own articles for un/deletion page. But some of the people who have so far opposed permanent un-deletion specifically suggested moving the essays to Meta, so here I am. I'd rather keep them on Wikinews, but I'm submitting to the community's decision. Who knows? If I make the essays workable and they catch on here at Meta, some version may be reimported to Wikinews down the line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming they are the only editor, there is no need to deal with XML imports at all, just make the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment We have a reasonable latitude on what people do in the subpages of user space where it is within scope of the WMF wikis. I wouldn't speedy delete a respectful essay that may be pertinent to another wiki (though less pertinent to meta) out of hand. Any page would of course be able to be DR per policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: The reason I want the pages imported with their edit history intact is because I was accused of misconduct. I want to be able to point to them and say "See? That is exactly what they looked like when they were deleted" so no one can say "Well when the admin deleted it, maybe it read '[Person] is a smelly fish!' but Darkfrog24 took that out before moving it to Meta."

You wouldn't think this sort of thing would come up, but sometimes it does. I want it there just in case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

All that would matter about a page here would be if it meets the meta-wiki standards, noone here is judging, reviewing, or really has jurisdiction over your behavior on a single other project. You'd also have to request undeletion again, because I can't see anyone trusting a user-provided XML export for an import. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I want to make sure I understand you correctly—if I arrange another undelete, are you prepared to transfer the page over? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: we don't have transwiki set up from wikinews to here, and I don't expect we will build it - so this would require manual processing by an importer or steward. My suggestion is above, just make the page - there are no attribution/copyright concerns as you are the only author. Whatever drama you had at wikinews, just walk away from it. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted someone to import it manually, but I've asked and it looks like this is the answer.

I'm trying to find a way to walk away from the drama without walking away from Wikinews entirely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Protect Template:Protected page text/full

Highly visible template that is used in the MediaWiki namespace and should be protected. ( Template:Protected page text and Template:Protected page text/semi already are) Pppery (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Done StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Some page create to the sock of Allthingsgo in meta

1. Talk:Remarks on collecting address when organizing event
2. User talk:NumCinq
3. User talk:Advo7

There have some evidence (See above) can prove Allthingsgo use the sock to do the Vandalism of sock,but these page had been deleted,I need to see their content and record in the LTA page for Allthingsgo only,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment I really don't see what kind of information will help us in identifying socks of User:Allthingsgo. They had since turn dormant and the record is seriously very detailed already to the point that it really helps them to create socks to evade our attention. Do we need to undelete the pages or just a list of users who edited the pages can be sufficient. MCC214 can you clarify?--Cohaf (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I need to undelete the pages,because there have some evidence in here,such as harass user (Cross-wiki ping user)(e.g.:[6]),use unclickable sign (e.g.:/*words*/),use /*words*/ in edit summary etc.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So if a sysop can give the list of crosswiki pings (who pinged who) should be fine already? Or will an email of the deleted version helps?--Cohaf (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Will an email of the deleted version helps?Yes.Also,I should see the history of these page.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)