User talk:Slakr/Archive 26

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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, please see what about SineBot job today on Talk:COVID-19 testing:

09:46, 5 December 2020‎ SineBot talk contribs‎ m 9,689 bytes +254‎

--5.171.73.162 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Bot work right; it was a mistake.. sorry. --109.52.248.53 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slakr,

I saw passing this edit from SignBot, after my revert. Do you know how why it happens? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker 09:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that in many cases, new users do not add {{

Hi, user Ушкуйник (talk) was repeatedly warned. Сontinues pro-Russian vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.62.157 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion regarding your bot account is currently open at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Clearing_bot_watchlists. Please see and respond to the discussion there. If you do not respond, developer action may be taken without your cooperation. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For creating the wonderful SineBot-so useful for keeping track of conversations and who wrote what. EpicPupper 18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, User:SineBot appears to be out of action. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sinebot just did this, signing an IP user's question at AfD; those usually don't have signatures, just the heading with username at the top. Might be enough of an edge case that it isn't worth fixing; not sure. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And again, User:SineBot appears to be out of action. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey slackr! If it's possible, I would love if you either released SineBot's source code publicly, shared it with me, or operated SineBot on other wikis across the Wikimedia movement. Could you consider any of those? Specifically, operating SineBot at Wikibooks is my current goal. Thanks!

) 01:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems that SineBot is down, unfortunately. An unsigned comment [1] has not been signed for over an hour. Bot sandbox doesn't seem to be monitored either. Any clue? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Out of action again, apparently. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way SineBot can be repaired soon? I've had to constantly sign unsigned comments on my own Talk page for the past few months now and it's starting to annoy me at this point that the bot hasn't been doing what it's been programmed to do. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Slakr, I see your Bot called ProxyBot/ProcseeBot has blocked me and I wish for your bot to either be shut down or Unblock me. Since I'm not an Administrator I can't power the bot down myself. Thanks.

Hello, Slakr. 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 {{

ygm}} template.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE

Could you respond here, Slakr? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The barbaric act of Confessing Sins to the priest only began during the 14th century at the Lateran Council. The concept was quite unknown to earlier generation of Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.24.139 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, notice that your bot hasn't run in a year - is it's function no longer needed such that we can desysop it? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Oh my bad... the old server one half of it was running on, an ancient bare-metal instance, seems to have died in the last year when IBM/Softlayer killed off the entire datacenter it was in. Unfortunately it was the part of the bot that was used to verify the proxy as open/usable (i.e., it had an httpd on it that responded back via a special handshake to verify authenticity/outbound ip addresses), so it's been assuming all the proxies it's been scanning this whole time are closed. :P

Anyway, it's likely still needed at least in part; iirc another admin is running something similar, but clearly it can't hurt to have backup (having anything less than 1 seems to devolve into wiki chaos quickly). I'll get it back up when I get a few ticks; I've been massively busy this year. :(

Hope everything is going well with you, incidentally. LTNS :P

Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 07:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, yes

WP:BN to deflag the bot (you can always ask for restoration again later, bot's don't need RfA's!) Thank you and best wishes. — xaosflux ^Talk

10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. BRFA activity by month Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots. Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots. Overall Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired). September 2019 Y Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 · N2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 · ? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4 TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019. Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request. October 2019 Y OAbot 3, DannyS712 bot 47, Pathbot 2, PearBOT 2, DannyS712 bot 59, DannyS712 bot 62, HasteurBot 14, PearBOT 4, WOSlinkerBot 4, MilHistBot 5 Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthony pointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!" November 2019 Y BHGbot 4, YiFeiBot 2, DannyS712 bot III 64 · ? PearBOT Old bots do new tricks: DannyS712 bot III 64 prowled redirects, YiFeiBot 2 archived GoCE requests, and BHGbot 4 removed links to portals deleted at MfD (until its authorization was revoked in January at operator BrownHairedGirl's request). December 2019 Y DemonDays64 Bot, DannyS712 bot III 66, Bot1058 6, Monkbot 15, MilHistBot 6, PearBOT 5, DannyS712 bot IV 65 · N2 SportsStatsBot · Xinbenlv bot, SteveBot 8 Redirects to be autopatrolled: A RfC took place at WP:NPP, closing with unanimous consensus that new redirects should be automatically marked as patrolled by bot. DannyS712 wasted no time, and submitted DannyS712 bot III 66 the next day; it passed two days after that. 200,000 bios get short descs: Along a similar vein, JavaScript Wiki Browser. One particularly neat task, PearBOT 5, automatically generated short descriptions for more than 200,000 biographies. In the next issue of Bots Newsletter: What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers? What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page? What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild? Will reFill ever get fixed? What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway? Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!) These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

User:Slakr/sectionlinks.js

Hi, just to let you know that I fixed some cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in User:Slakr/sectionlinks.js. If an attacker created a page with certain JavaScript syntax in one of the headings or in the page title, then when a user with the script installed visited that page, they would run the attacker's code. As far as I can tell it is only you who has this script installed, so I guess that means you're a little bit safer now. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

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.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

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.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

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.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

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.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What are sinebot's criteria for deleting talk posts? I made a talk comment about the Mu Us desert. Within a minute your bot deleted my post.

My post was not abusive or racist or trolling. I pointed out an inconsistency in the article content. 70.77.20.244 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(

signature which you forgot to include in your message. --David Biddulph (talk

) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. BRFA activity by month Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot . Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots. After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever. Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020. Overall In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs . Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired). January 2020 Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore. Y ST47Bot, Seppi333Bot, Qbugbot 4 · N2 PkbwcgsBot 25, PkbwcgsBot 26 A new Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022. Two new bots dropped in January 2020: ST47Bot, the successor to STBot, and Seppi333Bot, whose task was to perform a weekly update of four "massive" wikitables for WikiProject Molecular Biology. CfD 'd. February 2020 Y AnomieBOT 78, Cewbot 2, DannyS712 bot 67, DannyS712 bot III 63, PearBOT 6, DemonDays64 Bot 2 · N2 PearBOT On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved. On February 18, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview . March 2020 Y Bitbotje, FACBot 6, TheSandBot 8, Qbugbot 5, Cewbot 3, SDZeroBot 2, PrimeBOT 31, WikiCleanerBot 12 · AntiCompositeBot In March, a long Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code). Some of the twelve bot tasks approved this month were draftspace ). April 2020 Y TheSandBot 9, BHGbot 5, DannyS712 bot 69, SDZeroBot 3, ST47ProxyBot, WugBot 4, SDZeroBot 4, DatBot 10, WikiCleanerBot 11, WikiCleanerBot 13, WikiCleanerBot 14, AntiCompositeBot 2, Cewbot 4 · N2 DaedanBot 1 · Creffbot A non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18. diffusing categories), TheSandBot 9 (taking over some tasks from the inactive RonBot), and WugBot 4 (updating data at {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}}). Also, DatBot 10 was approved to scale down non-free SVGs — I didn't even know that was a thing. A WP:BOTCOMM should explicitly specify that bot operators must be responsive to concerns raised on English Wikipedia specifically (as opposed to Phabricator, SourceForge, Toolforge, et cetera). Eventually, the policy was amended to its current form : Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via anonymity ) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it. May 2020 Y MajavahBot 3, DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, Dreamy Jazz Bot 4, QEDKbot, William Avery Bot 2, DannyS712 bot 68, PrimeBOT 32, TheSandBot 10, Bot1058 7, BHGbot 6, EaglesBot 2, Cewbot 5, WikiCleanerBot 17 · N2 MDanielsBot, PhuzBot 3, Gedimon · ? PearBOT 7 MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status. Other approvals for this month were William Avery Bot 2 (processing redirects in {{R from scientific name}}), DannyS712 bot 68 (allowing users to schedule bot reminders for themselves), TheSandBot 10 (removing blocked/locked users from Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices), Bot1058 7 (updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink), Dreamy Jazz Bot 4 (adding {{WikiProject Biography|living=no}} to talk pages where their associated article is in a year of death category), and QEDKbot (deleting and nominating empty categories). General syntax fixing tasks were approved for DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, PrimeBOT 32, BHGbot 6, Cewbot 5, and EaglesBot 2, as well as WikiCleanerBot 15, 16, and 17. Seven bots who fell below activity requirements (with neither the bots nor their operators having any edits or logged actions in two years) had their bot flags removed. They were NekoBot, Robert SkyBot, DASHBotAV, VoxelBot, JackieBot, ReferenceBot, and CensusBot. On May 12, EmausBot was blocked. June 2020 Y QEDKbot 2, AnomieBOT 79, WOSlinkerBot 6, Yapperbot 2, Yapperbot, AnomieBOT 80, Dreamy Jazz Bot 5, WikiCleanerBot 18, HasteurBot 15, MusikBot II 4, NoSandboxesHere · N2 RedWarn · ? Seppi333Bot 2 In July 2017, partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored. On June 7, LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors). David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so". Two new bots had their first BRFAs approved: Feedback Request Service, and NoSandboxesHere, to remove {{user sandbox}} from articles in draftspace using Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox . Conclusion What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers? Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project? What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles? Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki? What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits? These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

If you are allowed to do so, could you please add the content that I added to the Alyssa talk page to its article? I used much time to add that content, but the page is protected.2600:8807:A788:6800:3966:13C1:8DBD:798 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your Sinebot has had its edit removed for vandalism, I am unsure but there may be a bug within your bot. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Correction, it was an Annonymous user that posted the offending content. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Heya, I know you've not been around much lately but I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion over at BOTN about ProcseeBot. If you get this message and are still interested in maintaining (or passing along, or restarting, or whatever) this bot, please join in the discussion. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Please note, this bot has been desysoped as inactive (

WP:BOTN. If it will be permanently retired please also let us know so we can -bot flag it. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk

22:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could help me with the attempted deletion of my page on Jean E. Irving & page on Giovanni battista Meneghini!!. No prob if not!! Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind reading the talk section for Calcifediol. I believe primary study is being misinterpreted and the main article for Calcifediol should be altered. Please see talk section "Conversion time of D3 to Calcifediol" for further information. Thanks.

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj was born 20 July 1858, not a 27 July 1858.

Reliable source

• Listen the Sant Samagam Hindi audio book on RSSB YouTube channel. 2409:4055:2E0B:7C60:315D:CB09:9A5A:790 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey could you disable the TPA for ‎94.245.129.116? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Looks like someone already did. =) --slakr^\ talk / 18:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep I asked Luk3 since you didn't seem to be available when I posted this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi slakr. Please unlock the article so it can be edited for the ITN and DYK nominations currently underway. Mr. Plante's nom in ITN is likely to be directly impacted. As I say on the article Talk page, the content dispute can be moderated by editors with other methods, and in any case the participants are unlikely to resume disruptive edits with so much light now on the article. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jusdafax: as I said at the talk page, the protection should remain while the issues are resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, we regularly get some mild edit warring when a subject has just died. I think it can be discussed simultaneously on his talk page whilst other users contribute to his page. We're all adults here after all. The lock seems a little too heavy handed, in my opinion. Can you please unlock? --Jkaharper (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@

Ds/alert}}s on people's talk pages if anything even remotely looks like it might start up again, too. --slakr^\ talk

 / 09:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Many years ago I created an insufficiently detailed article about Jits Bodunaxa, which you rightly nominated for deletion. Since that same person now has a proper article about her, I think it would be appropriate to recreate the page as a redirect. I think a redirect under this spelling of her name is appropriate because it is the spelling used in the title of Modern Mohegan: The Dialect of Jits Bodunaxa. Since this book was the first I heard of her, I think it's quite likely that people finding it for the first time will search it in Wikipedia to find out more, and currently that search finds nothing. I would add this name to her page, but it is already there under a different orthographic system. ave mathju at ase manoya (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@

redirect to the destination article if you feel it applies. Sorry for the late reply. --slakr^\ talk

 / 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have "recreated" it, although I realized while doing so that I made an error in the original page, as the B should be capitalized. I think when I originally made the page I didn't realize Wikipedia had case sensitive page titles. So, I have actually created it under

Jits Bodunaxa

using the "From an alternative language" template.

No problem with the slow reply, look how long it took me to get around to appropriately remedying the error on my part! ave mathju at ase manoya (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

See diff. 46.97.168.199 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I noticed that in this edit SineBot added a signature to something that was just an addition to a list in a comment. I don't think the bot should've done this since the comment is already signed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:AIV / similar noticeboards / discussions, it's ignored because the presumption is the user knows what they're doing due to edit count. Because it was a "new entry" and a signature wasn't in-range of the diff, the bot assumed it was adding to a discussion. --slakr^\ talk

 / 09:42, 21 June 2023 (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

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slakr Hi! Only wanted to check how to add content to a protected page, or request it to be added by someone else as I find it extremely important to be added in the protected page. I was looking to add in the See Also section, the actress Tunisha Sharma's suicide, but in Sushant Singh Rajput's high profile suicide case (Internationally recognized) I saw a protection button which I could not infiltrate. Please help. I did add Sushant Singh Rajput in Tunisha Sharma's page. These are extremely popular Indian celebrities affecting different age groups, Tunisha was very popular in teen crowd and male crowds. While Sushant was Internationally acclaimed actor. Personally, I am devastated by these stories and cannot not think of helping Indian celebrities more and more, whatever it takes. To honor their contribution in my life. (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ SpottedCheetah

I added a request to Wikipedia:Help desk / April 30 / Wikipedia:Help desk #Edit request to a blocked page.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Once in a while I've come across a contribution which was not signed, e.g. from 2007, on Talk:Hinterland.

Is there a way to call the bot's attention to a specific contribution or talk page like with a template?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: Not currently; it was a possible planned feature in a "Cosinebot" that hasn't yet come to fruition. I kind of got blackholed into the real world for the past few years. :( You can of course use {{unsigned}} (and related) to manually do it yourself, but there's not yet a magic way to get the bot to do it.--slakr^\ talk / 09:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for: the ping, your answer and the link {{unsigned}}.

From this link's page it looks as if one would still have to:

1. search in the history: when a specific post got posted,
2. then who posted it ( registered or IP address ),
   Only when one knows this fact can one decide which template to use.
3. remember how the appropriate template is called -- or fetch this information from somewhere else -- if one knows from where,
4. pick / copy the necessary data manually from the history and
5. insert them manually into the template.

What I was hoping for was/is a function which does all this, plus makes it un-necessary (for the human editor) to know whether a contributor was logged in or only had an IP address.

My guess is that most IP addresses are dynamic, which means: after more than 24 hours they are no longer valid, which would make a link to it's talk page useless as well.

So, in most cases, the only usefull service which was rendered by the template would be:

• the standard wording and
• the link to Wikipedia:Signatures.

Because of all this "hassle", when I want to add a signature of someone else, I still just edit everything by hand, even if my wording might not be exactly standard.

Steue (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for all your work on SineBot (and everything else). A question about the bot has come up at User talk:Bbb23#Removal of post. If you have a moment could you take a look at that thread and see if you can diagnose why the bot failed to sign in that instance? Obviously, the specific instance is trivial, but wondering if there's a more systemic issue that might warrant a tweak to the code. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@

tl}} template use, making the assumption that either someone knows what they're doing, something more complex might be happening (e.g., collaborative editing), and/or that by signing the addition it might add a signature in an awkward way, given the unlimited variability of template output. It also flips from opt-out-of-signing to opt-into-signing when someone reaches 800 edits (though that's not the case here); I mention it because it might(?) also sometimes be a source of @Bbb23:'s frustration over when it skips someone's post. --slakr^\ talk

 / 00:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that User:Kuia34 made another revert masked under an edit summary of "adding maintenance tags" [2], after your decision. I was redirected away from making another report, so I figured out messaging your talk page would be the best option. Also another diff which I forgot to mention, where user creates a talk page "box" to promote his opinion on the exact, ongoing content issue [3]. Kate the mochii (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your report was removed by Bbb23 for a reason let it go

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1162884320&oldid=1162884206

Most of the edits you were reporting me for were already from yesterday too. Kuia34 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the reason was "duplicate report". Kate the mochii (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a duplicate report because most of the edits you reported me for was from yesterday. You refuse to remove things from the article because they go against your own personal opinion and ignore multiple sources and when your called out you try and report me??? Kuia34 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is a list of all your (section-blanking) reverts. There are in fact 4 in 24 hours.

15:07 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162865610 (hidden as "adding maintenance tags")

23:07 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162751609

16:49 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162697519

13:28 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162667467

12:06 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162656320 Kate the mochii (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

4/5 are BEFORE 23:42, 30 June 2023 which is aprox when you reported me(not to mention some os these edits are actually the exact same ones you reported me for yesterday)The only edit that is AFTER you reported me is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(subculture)&oldid=1162865610

I explained why I removed it on the noticeboard so I'll just copy and paste it here :

"the reason I removed that section is because we talked about it and you said you would implement the changes but you never implemented it so I decided to do it . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMultiplicity_%28subculture%29&diff=1162863714&oldid=1162863154(this is where you claimed you implemented it) for context this is some of the stuff I asked them about that they claimed to implement but didn't do : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMultiplicity_%28subculture%29&diff=1162799600&oldid=1162799519 " Kuia34 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have brought up two additional diffs (one I missed which proves three revert rule violation, and another with a disingenuous edit summary and that is literally hours after the noticeboard post).

I will stop replying to you from now on. Kate the mochii (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine but don't forget to remove the stuff relating to the general DID community that isn't in reference to the multiplicty subculture since you have yet to get source to support your claims and you continue to be disingenuous and edit the article to fit your own opinion on some online discourse at that.......... Kuia34 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Wikipedia:Casting aspersions Kate the mochii (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process I just type alot and even though I keep explaining to you what the topic is you keep saying that my claim is something else so then I have to come back and correct you as to what my actual claim is and then the process repeats. As for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions your right some of the comments I've made were a bit much and I could have brought them up better in a slightly more civil manner. Kuia34 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent close here. I wish all closers were so thorough and evenhanded (even if I think most parties would have preferred some kind of consensus being reached this time around). Thanks for not supervoting to manufacture one. I think an eventual RfC 3 will iron this out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to concur with McCandlish; I think you very fairly summarized the positions. Unfortunately, two of the involved editors are now edit warring to introduce substantially the same language into the MoS section despite the close. After being reverted twice, BilledMammal is now seeking to undertake further discussion on the talk (as they honestly should have from the start under the circumstances), but despite that discussion having already gotten underway, LokiTheLiar has chosen to force the language back in. I've tried to explain why I think this is problematic, very much out of process, and likely to frustrate a community already fatigued with issues around this language further, but Loki at least seems unconvinced.

I really have no inclination to take the matter to ANI (and lack the time even if I did), but I'm certain that's where this is headed if someone doesn't intercede quickly and get Loki to understand that this is not how consensus proceeds in such circumstances. Again, BilledMammal seems to have already slowed their roll and committed to discussing. I wasn't sure what the best option was if trying to avoid ANI, but I figured the admin who closed might be the most logical first top.

Jayron32, I'm not sure that Slakr is about just now, so I hope you will forgive me for notifying you as well, as the only other admin I know is aware of the previous discussion and the slow moving edit war. This feels like a potential tinderbox. I'm trying to decide right now whether to add a notice below the original discussion. On the one hand, I think the community perhaps should be informed about the result of the discussion being disregarded. One the other, I'd love to give the editor in question an opportunity to hear from someone else that they are beyond the EW line and stand down before really getting themselves stuck in a bad place. Unfortunately, their responses on the MoS talk page are not encouraging me to feel that is likely. Thoughts? If neither one of you wants wrangle this issue (which would be understandable), I'll simply leave a notice below the closed discussion about what is going on, and the community can sort the matter out. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I left the notice at

WP:VPP

: I made pretty voluminous efforts (as have a number of other editors) to explain to BM and Loki why further discussion and consensus was necessary before adding this language to the MoS, especially in light of the scale of the previous discussions and the controversial nature of the proposed additions. And to explain why edit warring is not an acceptable way to enforce their preferred version regardless of the circumstances. But as of this moment, the response has been a bunch of IDHT. I'm not interested in getting into the dispute any deeper, but I felt the community ought to be made aware that the close is being disregarded.

That said, if either one of you feels, in your administrative capacity, that there is a better way to accomplish that oversight purpose, you have my full blessings and encouragement to remove the notice. Personally I don't have the inclination, nor especially the time, to push the behavioural issues to AE, ANI, or ANEW, but it feels like it is headed in that direction, unfortunately. And despite my attempts on the Mos talk page to encourage discussion over edit warring, I think at least Loki is only more entrenched as a result of my observations. BM is somewhat ambivalent to the feedback of myself and others, but is discussing rather than trying to force the changes at this juncture. Please ping me if I can clarify anything about the chain of events: otherwise I am washing my hands of the matter before it gets any more disruptive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I participated in an earlier discussion on the same topic, so consider myself involved from an administrative point of view, so I will refrain from acting in this regard on this discussion. Sorry! --Jayron32 11:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all, Jayron: that's clearly the right call in the circumstances. I knew you hadn't contributed to the most recent RfC, but I didn't think to cntrl-f the first one. And admin with the ban hammer isn't necessarily the only option here in any event. It would be more useful to find somebody with credibility among those who !voted support in the RfC, who might be able to convince Loki (and to a lesser extent, BM) to slow their roll a little, rather than charging ahead. The most frustrating part about this is that the new language might be a viable compromise that enough of a consensus could get behind, in an open community discussion. But with this approach of trying to individually force the language into the page, by edit warring if needs be (a strategy that is never going to be tolerated longterm by the community, in this context) they are actually undermining that consensus that they will ultimately have to seek. Acting this way is just not going to do them any favours at the outset of that ultimate discussion, which is sure to be a close run thing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No prob =)

@Snow Rise: Although it's a bit late of a reply (and it might be stating the obvious), but you probably don't need to try to hunt down an in-the-loop admin / closer if people start edit warring on a policy page; it's usually evident to onlookers, someone else will probably discover it, and/or you can point it out at AN3/ANI/RFPP, as you already mentioned. I usually sort of naturally avoid taking any ancillary action on a subject after a close (unless something obvious needs doing specifically from me, like a page protection); I effectively go into them uninvolved and leave uninvolved... besides, large closes are exhausting in and of themselves and by the end I'm typically completely done with reading about the subject for a while. :P

--slakr^\ talk / 04:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a perfectly fair tact for an admin (or any closer for that matter) to want to take, and this may be the first time I've ever brought such a matter to closing admin's attention in this fashion, but I think consulting you as closer was a logical first step in resolving the issue in the circumstances: I was observing editing of a policy page starting the very day of your close of a centralized community RfC of massive scope rejecting substantially the same proposed language, and felt someone with advanced permissions ought to have eyes on that situation. At the same time, I felt an ANX filing would have been an impractical and arguably unfair escalation that would have accomplished little other than to ramp up the temperature of the affair further and become a time sink for the community.

Thankfully, after a certain amount of discussion and additional community voices chiming in, the editors in question went back to the drawing board for a new proposal, which I think in time may ultimately create some resolution to this perennial issue--so all's well that ends well. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)