Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2020-10

Request "MassMessage sender" user right

Hello, I am working on Wikipedia Asian Month 2020. I need to have MassMessage sender user rights, in order to send messages across wikis. Thanks for your help! --KOKUYO (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@KOKUYO: Happy to grant, but can I have a sample MMS and recipient list. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage:: See User:KOKUYO/Message05 and Global message delivery/Targets/WAM 2020.--KOKUYO (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@KOKUYO: Granted for 6 months. Do tell me if you need longer. Btw, I didn't receive email certification even though I am organizer last year. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage:: Hi, I am the leader of WAM. I check the database and the organizer list of WAM 2019 but cannot find your information. If you want the certification you need to provide the evidence/ record to prove that you were the organizer last year. Best, Li-Yun Lin (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Giratto

Giratto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: It makes vandalism. If possible, delete the pages it opened. --Uncitoyen^talk 02:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Was blocked and locked --DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.103.205.255

95.103.205.255 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Previously it has been blocked for 31 hours. The same IP's vandalism continues. --Uncitoyen^talk 11:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Sgd. —Hasley 11:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 11:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Please clear the spam block on a UTRS appeal

I have filed precisely one appeal of an en.wiki block, at UTRS 35464. The system is now falsely claiming that it is detecting multiple appeals, and is preventing a second on that basis. Please rectify this obvious mistake, or as a more sensible alternative, address the clearly improper talk page protection at en.wiki by the blocker David Gerard that has made it necessary. He has absolutely no grounds for it, and the claim by Deepfriedokra that my first appeal that references his clear misuse of the tools cannot be processed because it contains a legal threat, is also obviously bogus. This is basic stuff, and it's quite ridiculous to think that these people think they can get away with it. Bernard Griffin (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bernard Griffin: Meta sysops have no jurisdiction over enwp stuff, we cannot take any action here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that needs to be rethought then, because this tactic of cowboy local Admins leaving innocent users in a position where they either have to sock, or reveal their email address, in order to file an appeal, is totally unacceptable. The Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy make it absolutely clear. It can and probably eventually will be the subject of court action. Bernard Griffin (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Aside this being the wrong venue, UTRS is correctly detecting your previous appeal and preventing you from filing a new one as the previous one was closed so recently. – Majavah ^{talk/contribs/sul} 18:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, what is the right venue, and might you know how long one has to wait for the stupid system to realise a further appeal has been dealt with? It is still falsely claiming spam, many hours later. Or is that deliberate? Is that how David Gerard is able to violate the local page protection policy, in furtherance of his ability to make involved blocks? People just give up on the very idea he is even accountable. Bernard Griffin (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

OP indeffed. Closing. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

PS. I had already told user they can appeal to ArbCom and/or Trust and Safety.Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

False positive for «Antispam»

I was trying to create an RFC which concerns Russian Wikipedia, but apparently URLs to https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff= are disallowed. I have no other URLs in my text. --Crash48 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Crash48, if you remove the phrase "calling me on my Vala phone number" it should work. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks! --Crash48 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Crash48 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Please block Sant Shri Satyaprakash Ji Maharaj (talk · contribs)

Spam only account. 轻语者 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Already done --DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

James Salsman talk page access

Can you please remove it per Special:Diff/20502244? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2020

Hi all. I've tried to start Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2020 and filled everything out, but I'd appreciate if someone double checked my work before the messages are sent to the users that need to confirm they want to keep their adminship (and a crat needs to be the one that requests stewards remove the rights of those that didn't have enough edits).

Also, I had a few questions:

• Are actions taken via CentralNotice including protection and editing of mediawiki namespace pages considered admin actions? I filled in the info assuming this was the case
• Are local ip blocks by stewards that are also local admins, when the local ip block is alongside a global ip block, an admin action? I filled in the info assuming this was the case

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both count. I can check the data later. (Did you use a script/quarry to generate it?) --MF-W 22:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I got annoyed waiting for the query to finish, so I manually checked for the latest edits, and used xtools for admin actions, though I then checked users logs manually (since stewards interwiki rights actions are shown the same as local rights actions). For looking at edits, I

1. Went to Special:ListAdmins
2. In my console, ran

$('#mw-content-text > ul > li > a:not(.mw-userlink)').hide();
$('#mw-content-text > ul > li > span a:not(.mw-usertoollinks-contribs)').hide()
$('a.mw-usertoollinks-contribs').each( function () {
    this.href = this.href + '?start=2020-04-01&end=2020-10-01&limit=20';
} );

I opened each of the contributions links - if there was a link to "older 20" then there were more than enough edits, otherwise I manually inspected. I did not include WMF or WMDE accounts in the list of inactive admins that might need rights removed --DannyS712 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions

• Another question: do actions taken using translation admin rights count towards admin actions? I filled in the info assuming this was not the case
• Do all edits to the spam blacklist count as admin actions? Specifically, if Special:Diff/20229978 and then Special:Diff/20229977 are counted, Base has exactly 10 admin actions by my count (assume translation admin actions aren't included, the other 8 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8)

--DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, given that the spam blacklist can only be edited by admins, I'd say it counts (and I'm totally not saying this out of self-interest...). GeneralNotability (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're exempt anyway from this round, but if you look at the edits its an addition and then immediately reverting it, so I wasn't sure. If indeed those should both be counted, then Base has made the 10 actions needed DannyS712 (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that the context was "do these particular edits to the spam blacklist count" not "do edits to the spam blacklist in general count." Disregard my comment. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Limited admins aren't included in AAR anyway, so not to worry, only full admins are. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind signing on an AAR page either way, since I am here. --Base (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I will take it as counted, unlikely someone will use rollbacks (accidental or not) to game AAR, if they do so I think we will be asking a de-RFA more than inactivity removal. Anyway ^ is as good as a sign on the AAR page IMHO. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course these count, there are not some actions requiring admin status that are worth more than others for the purposes of this policy. --MF-W 21:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

okay, in that case I have removed Base from the proposed removal list DannyS712 (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• StevenJ81 is granted indef limited admin bundled with incubator sysop, he is still an incubator sysop? I think he is exempted? Anyway limited admins, except seth, doesn't need AAR? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: per Special:PermaLink/18289188, @Matiia: removed him/her from the limited admin list. @Stryn: added him/her to the regular admin list a few months ago per Special:PermaLink/17917049. Normally, limited admins are exempted from inactivity with some exceptions. This situation is also seen in the AAR archive. I think bureaucrats will give a better explanation. --Uncitoyen^talk 09:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I did a few years ago (probably forgot that the limited adminship page existed). Stryn (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Steven is not a "limited admin" anymore since 2018. Meta:Requests_for_adminship/StevenJ81_(2). --MF-W 21:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, noted with thanks Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Question: Are CU checks considered admin actions? If this isn't the case, I suggest that we add something to the relevant pages to indicate that admins with CU/OS privilege will have the rights removed together with sysop. --Minorax (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I will say no, CU actions are for CU inactivity, and for me personally I will not like CU actions to be counted for even CU inactivity in any wiki as I don't want checks for the sake of pandering the CU log for inactivity (rare but some wikis might not have any CU work to do for a period of time). For OS is still reasonable, but then we run the risk that an OS for the sake of pandering OS log might OS things that a simple RD can suffice. I hope you get what I am driving at, not opposing counting but the risk factors. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Interface administrator inactivity

Per Meta:Interface administrators, "Other interface administrators lose their access if they have not made 10 global edits in the last six months." The only non-admin interface admin outside of WMF accounts appears to be User:Dschwen, and I do not believe they have made 10 global edits in the last six months (though I couldn't check deleted contributions). I found, since April 1, 2020:

• 2 edits on commons, both October 2 - c:Special:Diff/478354908 and c:Special:Diff/478356158
• 1 edit on dewiki, April 19 - w:de:Special:Diff/199054617

should this user's interface adminship be removed? Also, why is it for global edits and not meta edits, for a meta-specific permission? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Because this is of course what the community wanted. I suppose it could be called a Lex Dschwen: Meta:Babel/Archives/2018-07#Closing?. --MF-W 21:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well if the intent was to allow Dschwen to maintain interface adminship, it seems that Dschwen is more inactive than expected. Perhaps if needed, they can simply make edit requests, and the policy can be changed to require meta edits? DannyS712 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Babel / RFC discussions? Either down to 1 global edit / 6 month or perharps let's remove the permission since IA is sort of more higher risk than Admins? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Request: IP block exemption

Can you please grant me IP block exemption permission? I'm activist based in Egypt and I use VPN for safe browsing to evade surveillance. I have the permission already on English and Arabic. Ircpresident (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ircpresident: you don't appear to need it here at metawiki as you were able to edit. If you are wishing for that for other WMF wikis, then please look at global IP block exemptions and make your request at SRGP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Request patrol flag

I'm now using RTRC to view vandalisms and spams. This flag can see some non-patrol edit/page. It will help me a lot for my work. Thanks. 轻语者 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Undo counts + deleted contributions doesn't seems a lot. However, seems trusted in many other projects and they > 500 edits here which seems okay. If patrol marks are useful, let's enable it for all autoconfirmed users. Just a suggestion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Granted. The user seems to be trusted at at least one major project, has some edits here, and presents a valid need => no reason to not grant. Patroller is quite low-level permission here. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

«Antispam»

Hola Estoy intentando ayudar a la creación del artículo [Alexandra Vicencio], por lo cual agregué muchos links a una de estas páginas y me aparece esto:

Warning! — Your edit has been automatically identified as being spam or advertising. Please note that such edits are not allowed on any Wikimedia project. Users that engage in such behaviour will have their editing privileges removed. If you believe that the edit you wanted to make was constructive, we sincerely apologize. You may click the Submit button again to confirm it. A brief description of the rule which your action matched is: «Antispam». Feel free to report false positives to our administrators' noticeboard.

La información que estaba agregando era constructiva. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azu9707 (talk)

Hola Azu9707! Son dos problemas aqui. En Meta-Wiki, usarios nuevos no pueden poner enlaces a Facebook o Blogspot. Addicionalmente, usarios en Meta-Wiki no pueden ayudarle con el filtro de ediciones en eswiki. Necessita usted pregunta a aqui por ayuda. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Operator873^talkconnect 20:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for procedural assistance

Good Day to all,

I was attempting to add

{{RFD|section=User:Starburst1415}}

to User:Starburst1415, In accordance with the instructions at RFD since I noticed the nominator had not yet done so and may have forgotten. However apparently you need the autopatrol flag to edit the primary userpage of others. That is assuming I'm reading Special:AbuseFilter/161 correctly. It's by no means a time-sensitive task but a sysop, autopatroller, or WMF account will be needed to do it, thanks.

𝒬𝔔 20:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Done - {{RFD}} tag added as appropriate. Operator873^talkconnect 20:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 𝒬𝔔 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for importing the Template:Tlg from English Wikipedia

Is it possible to import this template (with en:Module:Tlg) from English Wikipedia? Thanks. --Yining Chen (Talk) 12:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yining Chen: Why do we need it? {{tlx}}, {{tl}} etc. are all available and do a similar job fine.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:Sorry, I am not familiar with these templates.I will use them instead. --Yining Chen (Talk) 10:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done Then. We have existing template, no need to bring in another module in this case. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

User:DHN Là thằng chó

Need a nuke on User:DHN Là thằng chó - I'm not sure what he/she's doing but it's not very productive from the looks of it. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 04:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's our lovely LTA. blocked and nuked, locked. --Sotiale (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cannot save .css page

Hello everybody! I'm not able to save a page.

Here the content I want to save:

Template talk:ItWikiCon/2020/Session/homepage.css

Here the page (I was able to create an empty page):

Template:ItWikiCon/2020/Session/homepage.css

No warning, no error. Can someone do this for me? Thanks --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I already wrote it to you on your talk page. You can't change the background color with templatestyle css-Files.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's report here the related errors: phab:T266157 and phab:T265675. Thanks WikiBayer. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Global ban of James Salsman

• Requests for comment/Global ban of James Salsman

Unless we're trying to go for a world record of unanimous support to globally ban an editor or something, this should probably be closed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I will hope it's a month but per policy 2 weeks - 1 month is acceptable. Consensus is quite clear. However, not a sysop or crat can implement the outcome, although many are stewards, but this seems better on SN. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism in User Page

My name is Mayank, my members page is getting vandalized. My meta user page has a link to my Hindi Wikipedia user page, my user page without any reason add user request delection template, I clear or page for vandalism but in In a few hours user: shubham yadav add delection template, actually shubham yadav you put your personal information in the page, i clean his page wikipedia policy, but then he puts the information back, there is six administration on hindi wikipedia but he Not active for a few days, user: Hindustanilaguage add request protection on my page, please do something now, save my member page from vandalism. link of My user page [1] (thanks)Mayankkkkk (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mayankkkkk: Your user page here has not been edited by anyone but you (history). If you are talking about your user page at hiWP, then please talk to hiWP, that is not within our remit or control.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir, you are an administrator, but you will refuse like this, so where will the users with minor rights like us go?  So only we can see the view, I wish I had the authority to fight vandalism, I wish you could give me some user rights on Hindi Wikipedia, to fight barbarity, thank you for answering my questions (thanks )

Mayankkkkk (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mayankkkkk: यह पृष्ठ मेटा-विकि के प्रबंधकों से मदद मांगने के लिए है, वे आपको हिंदी विकिपीडिया के विषय में सहायता नहीं कर सकते। अगर आपको हिंदी विकिपीडिया के विषय में सहायता चाहिए तो आप हिंदी विकिपीडिया के प्रबन्धक सूचनापट पर अपना अनुरोध करें। धन्यवाद! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: CptViraj (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Campaign banners are loading too slow/too late

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T52865

Banners of a CentralNotice are shown after the content of the page is already visible. If you try to click on a link or in the search box and the banner is shown at the same moment, you unintentionally click the banner and you are directed somewhere you didn't mean to go. If you are already reading an article, the newly loaded banner shifts the content further down and you lose the focus of where you are reading.

Possible solutions to avoid this undesirable behaviour:

1. load banner at the same time as the content
2. reserve space for the banner when the page is rendered and show it when it's ready
3. show banner at the end of the page (such that the content doesn't move when it's shown)

I hope this is the right place to suggest this. If not, please tell me where to go. --KeinGuterNameMehrFrei (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The better place is Wikimedia forum. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@KeinGuterNameMehrFrei: I think the bug report in phab:T52865 describes your issue - if so you may follow up on it there. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The issue is probably not going to be solved since users have been pointing it out and making suggestions to overcome it since at least 2013.--KeinGuterNameMehrFrei (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporary gadget 2 and protection for new wiki name contest

Hi. Briefly: Following on from my previous note last month, this is an FYI that we're using a different temporary gadget for round 2.

Also: Requesting full page-protection for Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/Names from now until 11 November as the gadget can break if that structure changes.

Context: (Without repeating what I wrote before!) For Round 2, we're going to use the gadget that ladsgroup created for the MediaWiki logo vote. This makes it easier to process the votes by making the formatting consistent, and will be re-usable for the future Logo contest which will happen once we've determined the name. The code is at MediaWiki:Gadget-AbstractWikipediaDraggableVoting.js. It can be tested by either participating in the MediaWiki logo vote, or with this demo link.

We've added translation features to the gadget, and I'll write to the translators next with a request for help with that. We'll enable the gadget for 2 weeks on 27 October. If you have any concerns or suggestions, please let me know. Much thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Done I've protected the page. Let me know if anything else neds to be done. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I should have been notified, because this page was incorrectly protected even though I was the main and only effective contributor to its translatability. I did NOT break it (as incorrectly stated), and I had even contacted the WMF member about this. He did not made that page translatable (and in fact no WMF user even made any page translatable for this project). I patently made the work for them, several of them even thanked me about this. I also fully tested the effective translatibility by making real (and full) translation to French, and tested the layout was correct as well for RTL languages. I also announced that pages were translatable to other languages on several online communication channels. Almost all pages for this project are now translatable because of my work, which also made them correctly navigatable, and properly categorized (the initial versions were not at all, foxusing only on very basic navigation in English).

It just happened that the page was modified by me when the gadget was still NOT available (and I had contacted the WMF admin that created it, asking him about why the gadget was not there). I added also the status that the vote was still not open (this was forgotten and caused other users starting to vote). I also made clear changes to signal that votes for the round 1 were closed (and it was illusory to modify the round 1 votes).

So I really respected the intent of this page: it was reverted then bloacked against me very unfairly: I asked the WMF author to reply me, he did not reply in that time and just "complained" here unfairly. He then replied to me after that. But then you've applied the full protection (meaning that new changes to the page that have new defects in their translatibility cannot be fixed now. I don't understand that decision taken here, without any try to contact me, that was the main (and mostly the only maintaininer of its translation, as if I had made things incorrectly). So my reply here ios for the record: a bad decision taken here, ignoring the real facts known. I've not broken anything, and always wanted to help (and this has really helped the project by making it accessible to all many more people; and I've not destroyed any feature that was still not active. The gadget may have been broken, but only in a stage when it was is alpha version and not deployed at all: I had asked to the initial user of that gadget because I found him after he started using it on his own "private" version in alpha stage, he could have replied to me and this happened in a stage were the round 2 was still not open, and even was delayed further: the additional delay was not announced by them directly, but I annoted the pages as I discovered it. the same thing will happen now with the end of round 2: lack of maintenance or delayed maintenance, that the admins will not longer care). Look at the history of all those pages, and you'll see that all was I did was genuine, and that I cooperated actively with the authors, asking them in case of problems. And it was very fair and in full line with the spirit of this project and Wikiemdia policies. But now this blocking decvision goes against that: it was blocked to anyone,n including the msot active contributors, and even the active WMF participants in the project team that can no longer edit it themselves as well! verdy_p (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible socking

Since viwp CU had verified A and JohnsonLee01 as the same person (or at least compromised or whatsoever), both indeffed on viwp (A on self request), I am of the point that this application both account had participated in a voting, which is sort of against socking rules. What shall we do with them? For now, I will remove JohnsonLee01 autopatrol flag given the lost of trust given (1) Socking (2) Irregular welcoming in mass (noted on their talkpage) which shows they are not yet autopatrol ready. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We can't alter the past I think. At this point, the only recourse we have is to revoke A's global renamer permission, see the RfC. The other thing the global community can do is to globally ban A and/or JohnsonLee01, but I don't think that's going to pass.

Few notes: I can't speak Vietnamese, but A's block reason says "accounts used by many people: Wikipedia: Requires verification of account / A" in Google Translate. Doesn't seem like self request to me. Also, they're apparently two different persons, but they shared their accounts with each other. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The 1 year seems initial block, then moved to indef (first via user request) and now there are community members asking for indef (if I google translate viwp discussion properly). I don't think we are going for global ban though. True, quite stale for a block. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Czech Wiki Photo 2020 - addressing of Commons users

Hi, we (Wikimedia Czech republic) are now organizing the "Czech Wiki Photo 2020" contest and we´d like to address as many Czech users of Wikimedia Commons as possible to join this event with their photographs. The contest itself is a promotion of Wikimedia Commons for newcomers and something like "thank you" for already active users.

Our aim is to send one meassage on talk pages of cs.wiki users (who simultaneously recorded at least 50 editations on Wikimedia Commons in the last year) which would state: "hi, join our contest". Just preparing the list of users. I suppose we need the right to send such a number of messages. Thanks! --Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a request for mass message sender permission. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to look to a Central Notice? Sending a message to users on all wikis without their invitation is not something that would be encouraged. If you are just talking about a specific wiki, then please ask at that wiki as each wiki has the ability for local mass messaging, so I suggest that you talk to Commons administrators at c:Com:AN.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst Linking [2]. Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

And if this is a mass message for only cswiki, any of their 34 admins can send it locally. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Are you willing to help out this user to send locally and is a local cswiki MMS appropriate for this occassion? (cc Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) ) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage Seems to be already done by a Commons administrator for Commons talkpages - thanks. We don't have local massmessages, and I originally adviced Jakub to request temporary MMS here, as I thought it would be the easiest way to grant Jakub the privilege to send massmessages (without being a sysop somewhere) :-). Well, at least the task is done. Thanks everyone. Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Block request

• 86.115.240.160 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) Reason: Vandalism. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^(CA) 08:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please protect my user discussion page

Hi Admins,

the so called Unitymedia-Troll (a troll, which is mostly active in de.WP and de.WIKT) is vandalising my discussion page on meta again. Please protect my discussion page again for IPs and new users.

And please protect my discussion page indefinitely if possible, because this troll will probably not stop in the near future.

Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Done for a couple of years. If this vandalism is a problem at small wikis where you are not normally editing, then please let me know, we have a filter that we can tweak to be able to close out some of that sort of vandalism.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete unused OAuth applications

Hello, During development of Diff we planned on using an OAuth solution for logging in with Wikimedia accounts. At the time that solution did not pan out. I created the following OAuth applications. Now we are working on developing a new solution and require the callback URL to be different. OAuth app creators can not edit existing applications, so I will create new applications. Could someone please delete the following two applications as they will not be used. Thank you.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:OAuthListConsumers/view/3068f2845e7d658664afa82e19b33f7a

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:OAuthListConsumers/view/ed5dcd2e8d17f8cfcd47e00a1d099764

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF) Hello, no one can truly delete an application once it's created. To reduce risk of credentials abuse, I've rejected both apps, so MediaWiki would reject any authentication made through the credentials. As soon as you will propose a new app, just bump the consumer version field. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec, ah, understood. Thank you for your help! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Could not create account on smnwiki due to AbuseFilter 173

See abuselog. Request to modify this abusefilter. Thanks! --Xiplus (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see why that's tripping the filter, but anyone know why that particular phrase is blacklisted? GeneralNotability (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

My guess would be some kind of LTA that creates abusive usernames with Xiplus' name in it. I think @Shizhao could answer that better, since he is the creator / maintainer of this particular filter. Wiki13 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Before this is answered properly by the filter maintainer, I've created a local account for Xiplus manually. Enjoy :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Since it's catching all Xiplus etc names to prevent LTA, I think best is not to change. What we can do is to manually create the account which is what Martin did or alternatively is to suspend the filter (i.e. - the Xiplus part) for a while (1-2 mins) for Xiplus to create the account. Can be co-ordinated with a meta sysop I guess. If it's an once off event, I see no need to change the filter. Alternatively, we can set up some rules exception, if Xiplus have any idea can contact me via email and we will adjust by there. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Just add & accountname != 'Xiplus'. Xiplus (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

On a second look, the log seems to catch a lot of false positives. If it's zh abusive names, the filter is not catching anything in zh for last 100 logs. I am now a little concerned about contributors being put off from contributing. I think there is a need to change the blacklisted terms or etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Global filters are not working on large wikis. Xiplus (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xiplus: I meant "not catching anything in zh" =/= not catching anything in zhwiki rather it should mean not catching anything meaningful for the purpose of the filter. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

fixed filter Existing usernames should not be blocked from creation through abusefilter, that is the purpose of title blacklist which allows autocreations. Filter should be rewritten split on create and autocreat and utilise some match strings  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Done further fixes (temp till Shizhao can respond). Should have resolved the issue with both of our fixes.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Translations by দিব্য দত্ত

Hi. I recently came across Special:Contributions/দিব্য দত্ত, which included "translations" that were just copies of the English, or mostly English. I deleted some of the recent ones, but looking at [3] shows that this is a much larger problem than I had initially believed, and I don't have the time at the moment to go through all of those edits and review them. Can another admin take a look? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks transactional. The original script is not well set up for translation, and the user is just copying the framework prior to translating.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't think there are much issues, user is a sysop at as wiki, and they are translating as stuff, I trust they don't do any malice. I think they might need some guidance on translation on meta if needed, but nothing much to worry I guess? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: This seems legitimate translation, would you mind if I go through all and restore those which I think is legitmate? Yes, some are pure wrong language. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I deleted some that I shouldn't have - feel free to restore any and all that you feel should be restored DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: It's easy to accidentally delete, they are mixing proper translations and faulty ones, I think if it's me I will also accidentally delete those. I had went through all, and restored those which seems reasonable. I checked the contributions, there are some other pure English, let me handle them. Yes, I agree this is a greater problem, if someone have the time could talk to them about translations. I am also a little short of time.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I settled all, will appreciate someone counter-checking my deletions / restorations if it's possible and won't mind too for any reversals of my restorations and deletions. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jayanta (CIS-A2K): A note to identify that it appears that table elements of Indic Wikisource Proofreadthon 2020 are appearing in translations, and some of the means to manage these by translators has caused a few concerns due the solutions imposed. Just in case you want to do some tweaking, or at least noting for next time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a note here, the pages they translated isn't in Bengali. If you google translate those translations, it will show Bengali, however, if you go to aswiki and translate their main page, google also detect Bengali. The script of Assamese and Bengali is pretty similiar, near to each other, hence, there isn't the wrong language problem. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

142.114.115.89

I don't know if I'm in the right place, but 142.114.115.89 (talk · contribs) is cross-wiki vandalizing. [4] 2806:104E:1D:1BC3:C3AF:497:6B36:4EF6 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Not the right place, though Already done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

70.44.24.245

70.44.24.245 (talk · contribs) - Clear vandalism and possible homophobic edits to Wikimedia LGBT+. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Open Proxy Operator873^talkconnect 21:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

109.15.175.11

109.15.175.11 (talk · contribs) - vandalism on translations. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Already done by Tegel --DannyS712 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for patroller

Occasionally I see vandalism here but without rollback it is a slow process to revert, especially when there are multiple edits to revert. I can use it to revert vandalism faster and in some cases use mass rollback, which would have been useful for a recent vandal. I am trusted with rollback on a number of other wikis. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access

for spammer Special:Contributions/ChauMadera6711727. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have globally locked the account instead as spambot, so they can say goodbye to it. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That works too cheers! :) --IWI (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)