Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2015/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at QEDK's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I pinged you, you're probably busy but I thought I'll just ask again. Hope you don't mind. QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


Tech News: 2015-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Revision scoring will help to automatically identify bad-faith and good-faith edits. The point is to make it easier to block vandals and welcome newcomers. It currently supports Wikidata and 14 Wikipedias. [1]

Problems

  • Meta was not given access to information from Wikidata last week. This will happen later. [2]

Changes this week

  • You will be able to use wikilinks in Flow topic titles. [3]
  • IP users will have a toolbar with links to the user talk page and user contributions. Some Wikipedias already have this feature. [4]
  • You will be able to edit the graph size in the visual editor. You can either specify the size in the graph dialog or drag it to be the size you want it to be. [5]
  • It will be easier to write math in the visual editor if you don't know LaTeX. You can use symbol buttons instead. [6]
  • You will be able to use syntax highlighting when you write math with LaTeX in the visual editor. [7]
  • UploadWizard will look a bit different. [8]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 December. It will be on all Wikipedias from 10 December. (calendar).
  • New MediaWiki versions will now be on Catalan and Hebrew Wikipedia on Wednesdays. Other Wikipedias get the new MediaWiki version on Thursdays. [9]

Meetings

Future changes

  • A new beta feature will show users links to related articles at the bottom of an article. It will not be enabled by default. [10]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Iaaasi

Hello! I'd like to inform you, according to IP location finder tool, banned user and notorious sockpuppeter Iaaasi still presents here, in the English Wikipedia. His sockpuppets, among others 79.112.44.71, 79.116.93.136, 86.123.40.170, 79.116.93.90, but I also suspect Hahun (same style, same articles, and usually check&follow my edits). --Norden1990 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Everything has been taken care of. Mike V • Talk 04:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Possilikely

Template:Possilikely has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TL22 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


Tech News: 2015-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes this week

  • Meta will be able to use information from Wikidata. [11]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 December. It will be on all Wikipedias from 17 December. (calendar).

Meetings

Future changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not ignoring you.

Not ignoring you. I reverted this post of this morning cuz Berean Hunter told me to chill for the day and I want things to chill for a bit longer.--Elvey(t•c) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad/EmailStatus

Hey DQ, how do you update this template? Is it done with a script? Can you please share? Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tiggerjay The last line on that page states it is updated by DQB Mlpearc (open channel) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah why didn't I see that before... Yes, you're right... Too bad that wasn't something I could easily replicate on my own. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
[14] If you want I can post a blank version of the config up too. It's designed for Gmail specifically, i'd have to look up other settings if you had a different client. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay: I have replied to your mail. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Tech News: 2015-52

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • Because of the holidays, the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 11 January 2016.
  • The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2015? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us! You can write in your language. Thank you!

Recent changes

  • CompletionSuggester is a new suggestions algorithm for Search. It is available as a Beta feature since 17 December. (more information)
  • The Multimedia team is running an A/B test for the cross-wiki upload tool. They are testing four different interfaces. The test is running from 16-23 December. (more information)

Changes this week

  • There is no deployment of MediaWiki scheduled until 12 January 2016 (calendar).

Meetings

  • Should administrators and other users with advanced tools need stronger passwords? You can discuss about it in a Request for Comments.
  • No meeting with the VisualEditor team on 22 and 29 December, and 5 January.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine✉

mail ping

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

AE2 case and changing your mind

Hi Amanda, I have been watching the development of this case, and I particularly note your recent addition to the proposed decision. Without commenting on the specific proposals, let me say how heartened I have ben to see an Arb responding to community concerns and reconsidering in a public way. I have watched ArbCom for a long time and have often wished for a greater willingness for Arbitrators to engage with criticism and to re-evaluate positions. You have offered an excellent example of how an arbitrator can be responsive, and I thank you for that. Reflection and reconsideration are public demonstrations of thoughtfulness and not weakness, and I hope others will follow this example in appropriate cases. EdChem (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


GMO

Thank you for taking the time to review the evidence. I believe Albino Ferret and David Ternheim also provided evidence so please look at their sections as well. I don't customarily edit where Kingofaces edits so a two-way iBan is unwarranted. I've done nothing to KoA that would deserve such an action, but the fact that you suggested a 2-way tells me his aspersions worked, and that's sad. Also, please keep in mind that I asked to be removed as a party to the GMO case because I don't edit GMO articles, but my request was denied. The aspersions against me by KoA were made at the Workshop, and again on the PD TP. The obvious question is why would I consider opening a case at AN/I after ArbCom refused to correct it? That's a backward process. Forgive me for not having too much faith in the AN/I process after I was POV_railroaded at that noticeboard without one diff to support any of the allegations. The case was initially closed with a trout slap to all, but it was soon overturned by an unwarranted block against me by another admin. I probably should have filed a case against that blocking admin but the AN/I had a chilling effect on me so I decided against it. Anyway, thanks for the offer to mediate but there's really nothing more I can do or say except that I want him to stop the aspersions, and stop poisoning the well. Atsme📞📧 11:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PS - the diffs KoA provided to support his aspersions against me were more aspersions against me. One pointed to his own post while another was a false accusation of me being a SPA that was dated a few years ago, and was not even close to being true. What his diffs say to me is that if an editor wanted to rid themselves of opposition, all they have to do is make false allegations, cast aspersions to discredit that editor, add a bunch of diffs that don't support the claims knowing it's highly unlikely they'll be read, and then file a case against that editor at AN/I using those diffs while casting more aspersions. I've seen it happen before, and that's why I wanted to nip this in the bud in hopes of setting a precedent while restoring my integrity. Why has it been so difficult for me to get that done? Atsme📞📧 11:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


Glyphosate

Thanks for the page protection at glyphosate. I'm not going to grumble about The Wrong Version, but I do have something I want to grumble about for a second and see if you have any ideas.

This recent outbreak was a good example where someone added content that had been attempted to be added a few months ago and I basically said in my revert, "Hey, we talked about this edit already and didn't have consensus on if or how to add this same thing in, so come to the talk page instead of reverting if you feel strongly about seeing it added."[15] Such a request seems to be ignored more often than not. One of my main concerns[16] during the case was that we needed something to drive the point home that that people need to work on consensus building after a new change has first been reverted instead of re-reverting. It feels I've been doing nothing but whacking the concept over people's heads until the cows come home with little luck.

So besides individual 0RR restrictions and blocks as options, is it also possible to craft a discretionary sanction that applies to the article(s) that basically says once new content or a new change to established content is reverted, editors need to go to the talk page instead of revert? Does that get too complicated? I'm not asking for such a sanction now (we'll see how things go), but I'm just trying to think of ways in the future us proverbial cats could maybe be herded towards what we ideally should be doing before other options become a serious thought. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I may not edit in this area, but some of the pages are on my watchlist because of the case. When I noticed what was happening I did request protection. DQ got there first which is a good thing. This is the exact thing I thought would happen and proposed a remedy in the workshop to address. I dont think 0RR is the answer, unless you want to impose it on everyone, but a remedy to ban those that jump into and add to the reverting past a certain number. AlbinoFerret 16:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: Thanks for stopping by and I appologize for my delay in a response. It may seem too complicated for some, but it's definitely something I'm willing to consider in the future as long as we blanket everyone in it. I'd still obviously like to round a few more page protections to see if I can drive the point home that way if this time didn't work though. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edison Lobos

Just a quick question: Was a rangeblock possible, or do I need to watchlist their most frequently hit pages? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep it on the watchlist for now...it's hard to determine right now what would be the most effective block, so as far as I remember, I did not make any blocks regarding the IPs involved. It will get easier down the road if they continue, but for now, it's a hit and miss game. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Your bot at UAA

Hey, so I'm not sure if it's supposed to be doing it, but your bot sometimes removes users who aren't blocked: [17]. In that instance none of them were blocked. If I'm seeing it right what it's doing is removing non-vios and moving monitors to the holding pen, which I assume is by design. If that's the case do you think you could have it leave an edit summary stating something like "Removing X blocked users, Y non-violations, and moving Z reports to holding pen. W reports remaining." instead of the generic "Removing blocked users and moving waiting requests"? I feel like it would be more helpful that way so that we know how it handled the reports. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Line 330 would seem to agree that it does do this. It just means this line needs a quick edit. I'll see about getting around to it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

40-char usernames?

I see the DQB bot flags up usernames that are longer than 40 characters at WP:UAA. I've seen this happen a few times now, but what I can't find is any policy that actually imposes such a limit. All I can find at Wikipedia:Username policy is "Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action" (emphasis in original). If I'm missing something elsewhere, would you be kind enough to show me where it is? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Over time I have taken no opinion and wish to remain neutral on what is on the blacklist and what isn't. I did not design the list, I only took over the last bots operation of it. Therefore BRD or WT:UAA are your best options on this. If you need help editing, I or The Anome are well versed in the coding aspect of it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I just keep seeing new users warned and even blocked for what look to me to be non-violations (presumably due to admins seeing them reported at UAA and assuming there really is a violation). I'll probably seek technical advice from one of you when I have a bit of time, but in the meantime I hope you're having a great <insert celebration of choice here> :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If admins are warning/blocking users for non-violations just because the users were reported to UAA for human review, then these admins need to be talked to. I'd rather see DQB continue reporting these gray cases for a human admin to make a final determination, but the admins in questions need to be a certain basic expectation of judgement in reviewing the automated reports. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Salvidrim!. I would just be sure the messages left by DQB on user talk pages (I haven't looked for any examples) are general, as in action/outcome and welcoming. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
AFAIAW, DQB only reports to UAA with a note that "reported usernames aren't automatically violations and should be reviewed". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: No it doesn't, there's one there now that says in its entirety...
"Matched: 40chars -- DQB (owner / report) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Clerk note: Username exceeds 40 characters. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)"
I've actually been hit with this myself with a clean start account (which I've since abandoned), and I recently unblocked someone after communication with the blocking admin and pointing out that there's no policy violation - the user was annoyed and we came close to losing them. I don't know if UAA was the source in both cases, but since those two recent occurrences I've been wondering where the erroneous "usernames mustn't be longer than 40 chars" meme was coming from - and it seems very likely it's these UAA reports. In both cases they were very experienced admins, so it's no good just sitting back and saying "admins shouldn't do this" when in fact they do - and I don't think there's a realistic way of educating all admins who might choose to help out at UAA when it needs it. If the bot did actually add a comment that > 40 chars isn't actually a policy violation, I think that would be fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is to expand the Clerk note to something like "Username exceeds 40 characters. Not a policy violation in itself, so review carefully." How would that sound? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


Forty characters and more.

Hello DeltaQuad, I noticed the Username Bot reports usernames that are 40 characters or longer ("Matched: 40chars"). But is there any policy about utterly long names, or is this decided (as far as blockingfor inappropriate usernames is concerned) on a case-by-case basis? E.g. I imagine a name consisting solely of repetitive characters that do not make sense as words, would be blocked earlier than a name that is still quite long but is at least readable? I do imagine such accounts do have a higher vandalism prevalence, but then they would get reported to AIV at some point no? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC).PS Please ping me when you reply. Horseless Headman (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

@Salvidrim: Duh, have I been sleeping? Thanks for moving. Horseless Headman (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC).


you asked

A short time ago, you posted somewhere asking what we (the community) thought. My reply is generally positive. I think you had the unfortunate luck to be caught on one of the worst committees in Wiki history - but I also think that you've comported yourself with exceptional grace. I think you've been fair, honest, brave, and acted with the utmost integrity. I'll work up an email to elaborate, but wanted you (and others) to be aware of my position.

While I'm here - I hope you have a very enjoyable holiday season Amanda. Best. — Ched :  ?  01:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2015/December&oldid=1146626143"