Jump to content

User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/13

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


IAC/Lindashiers

Thanks for that. I'm still mystified about the copyvio thing but have just spotted something - see Talk:India_Against_Corruption#The_alleged_copyvio. How low can these people stoop? - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite low, apparently. I had come to a similar conclusion when I saw that indiaagainstcorruption.net appears to contain nothing other than that blog post. The lack of wayback machine is also suspicious; although it's not impossible that the crawlers simply just missed it up until now, despite its existence, I don't know how you would have gotten to it to plagiarize it. The timing is another suspicious thing; I know that blogs are meant to be an instant-reaction kind of thing, but it still seems weird for a post dated April 5th to be discussing the institutional effects of something that happened only slightly over a month prior, at best--it doesn't seem like enough time. As your your actual source, I'm afraid Google Books doesn't give me a preview of the page in question, so I can't tell you how close the paraphrasing is. Probably best to try to rewrite it from scratch, to be on the safe side. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sitush: According to a whois lookup, indiaagainstcorruption.net wasn't registered as a domain name until July of this year, so yeah, as far as the blog goes, I'm not buying it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is a scam: the domain seems not to have been registered until 25 July 2014. I can't rewrite it because the template prevents me - admin, clerk, OTRS etc. I could propose something but I'm pretty sure that I've avoid the close paraphrasing. For example, the "populist yogi" claim appears all over the place: it is a standard description of the man and that we use it also merely reflects the common usage. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

...for not communicating with you first. I forgot my manners. If you feel that my additional tp revocation block was in error, I will go change it back.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I don't stand on ceeremony; if you feel that a thing is the right thing to do, there's no real need to ask me about it first. As it happens, I'm not really sure that TP revocation was necessary quite yet; to be honest, I have trouble following the user's thought process (they were threatening legal action unless they were blocked?), so contrary to their claims, I have no opinion about whether the legal threat has abated or not. I don't really see anything in particular that seemed to require TP revocation, but their general behavior has not toned down in the slightest, and from long experience, I think we all know that it won't, so you really just cut out the middleman, which I can sort of appreciate. So while I don't 100% agree with your TPA revocation, I don't think it's anything you need to eat crow about or undo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. They have the ability to communicate on their IP talk page which I left open after just blocking it for socking. If you want to continue your dialog with them, you may try there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly; we've tried that before, and yet here we are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Dkpatel seems like an obvious sock of Lindashiers, not merely a possible one. BEANS prevents me from saying why. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've emailed a Checkuser. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No doubt, but it doesn't really matter. They're already blocked, and if what we hear about proxies are true, a CU is unlikely to be able to shed much light on it anyway. I've about lost patience with it, myself; I've tried to be at least somewhat reasonable in responding to their allegations, but it's not going to go anywhere, and I can only beat my head against the brick wall of futility so much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise that you'd blocked them because there was no tag on the talk page - my bad. As for patience, well, been there, done that. This has become such a time-sink that in future I'd hope any patrolling admin would just block on sight. The socks/meats are just taking us round in circles and they never actually come up with genuine proofs. This latest subterfuge - the seemingly fake blog - has destroyed what ever credibility they may have had left. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
A minor point, but I assume that you meant Dkgpatel, not Dkpatel? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I did. I use umpteen different keyboard/mouse combinations in any one day and I'm afraid that I often make typos. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush talk page

Did you really mean to revdel something about Jstor?[1] Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I revdeled; RegentsPark had tried to revdel the stuff that was posted right before that, but neglected to actually revert it off the page. So, to actually make the revdel meaningful, I had to revert the page and then revdel all the intermediate edits, since they all still contained the text that had been revdeled. So yes and no; I did mean to revdel that edit, but not because of the JSTOR thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
So, can you fix it again for me? I thought I did the right thing this time but obviously that's not what happened. On Sitush's talk page, I mean. --regentspark (comment) 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: K, done. What you have to do is revert/remove it off the page just like any editor removing vandalism. Then, you have to revdel the page content of every edit starting on the one where the content was added and ending at (but not including) your edit that removed it.
See, there's a common misconception about revdel and page histories as a whole. Many people treat page histories as a series of diffs (which makes sense, because we mostly look at diffs when we're leafing through a page's history). That is to say, whenever someone makes an edit, the system remembers what that person changed and saves that set of changes in the page history. So, the present state of any page is its first version plus all those saved changes since, all compiled into a single page state. Under this train of thought, it would make sense that, for revdel, all you need to do is delete the revisions where the content is inserted, because then, when the page is being built, it'll just skip over those deleted revisions and everything will work out in the end.
But that's not how it actually works. What actually happens is that each entry in a page's history is an entire standalone copy of the article; whenever you make a change to a page, Wikipedia saves the entire page again, with your changes included, and that becomes the next entry in the page history. The 'natural state' of an entry in the page history is not a diff, it's the entire page. That's why revdel works the way it does: when you revdel the content of a single edit, all you're doing is disallowing people to see how that page looked between that edit and the next one; you're just deleting that version of the page. But if the next edit didn't remove the objectionable content, that content will still be in it, because the next edit took a snapshot of the entire page and stands on its own, including the objectionable content. So, what you have to do is basically create a new version of the page that does not contain the objectionable content (i.e. revert the content off the page with a normal edit), and then you have to delete the original edit and all the edits in between that and the removal, since all of those intermediate copies will contain the objectionable content along with everything else on the page at the time. That's why you'll see stretches of dozens, sometimes even hundreds, of edits revdeled or oversighted at once, all for a single edit: if there are a lot of edits between that one and when it was finally removed, all the intermediate edits will be problematic, even when the actual change in them was innocuous. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sort of. I'll try and wrap my head around this but will probably have more questions :) Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear

Re this, may I gently suggest you post something at BN? Come back soon. --Dweller (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I was kinda trying to keep this on the DL. It's nothing dramatic, really; I'm not using the 'crat bit for much of anything these days, and once the 15th rolls around, it'll be even less likely. Closing RfAs sucks, and I hate it, and I don't really want to do that anymore, so without renaming, there's not much left to do. So, I figure there's no point in having a tool I don't use. I have to admit, resigning this particular bit did cause a little pang, which is all the more reason it should be given up, really; I strongly believe that tools like these are just that: tools. They're not positions of authority for me to preserve and defend to the death. After all, you don't get emotionally attached to a wrench, nor have second thoughts about putting it back in the attic. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your service as bureaucrat, Writ Keeper. –xenotalk 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much I really did, but for what it was worth, y'all are welcome. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dweller: Hey, by the way, I think I unsubscribed from the mailing list, but could you check to make sure? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I second that thanks. Incidentally "keep this on the DL" is a new one to me, thanks for teaching me something. In the UK, DL is a type of envelope size. I'll try to check the mailing list. --Dweller (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"It might be a wrench, but think of the stench, I'm leaving behind." - "I Want to be Straight" ( 1980) (but not really). Due 'spect dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't a perfect analogy, but comparing it to putting a wrench back in the toolbox would've made it sound too much like it's still a thing I could pick up and use again at any time. Also, apparently the phrase "on the DL" has sexual connotations, so I'm learning things about my own idioms today... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"So thanks very much, please keep in touch, I'll be running along". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) ("Rwy'n barod i roi'r ffidil yn y tô" is quite close, I think.)
I thought you showed good judgment in the bureaucrat chats that you participated in, Writ Keeper. I thought you were a fine bureaucrat and I don't have any regrets about supporting your candidacy. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Same here. Thank you for volunteering to do a largely thankless job, Writ Keeper. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm late, it seems, but I wanted to drop by and include my thanks as well. Best wishes to you, and I hope you accept my thanks, and that of all at the Wikimedia Foundation, for your service. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Old school thanks

Cheers for this: [2]. Works beautifully.
Funnily enough, it was in thanking you for an edit that I realised it had changed, and I didn't like it without the dialog. So, thanks again, really... Begoon talk 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem; it's stuff like writing scripts that people find helpful that keeps me going on Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You have mail

Moderately time sensitive.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw; I don't really know what to tell you, but I'll compose a reply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It may now be moot, after seeing something I won't mention, I decided to email oversight.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Porbably for the best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

May need some help

Hey, WK. I've got an incipient conduct issue which I think might be fixed with some gentle nudging and admonition from a sysop and I know you well enough to know that you won't run into it either timidly or with guns a'blazin'. Would you take a look at Talk:Yemenite Jews#Flouting an Ethnic Group and the following section there and at User talk:Davidbena#Notice? Davidbena is doggedly pursuing the removal of a photo of a transgender person, Dana International, from the gallery at the top of that page on the basis that it is offensive to all or substantially all the ethnic group that page is about and that they will be offended if they see her posted as a representative of the group. Though David has generally referred to International respectfully, he's slipped a little on occasion over into offensive territory (referring to her on one occasion by her original male name and using the male pronoun) and has argued that she is offensive to the group in the same manner as putting a serial killer in a gallery would be to other ethnic groups. I truly don't feel that the latter was intended to be offensive or insensitive, but merely intended to be an example of analogous offensiveness to a group. (At the same time, he has made it clear here that he, himself, is offended by the image as a member of that ethnic group, so it's not all objective with him.) I've made the point to him that just as in the Muhammad images case there might be some weight to his position, but first he's got to prove that the group really would be offended. Several others have also attempted to do that, too, but he hasn't come forth with any proof but continues to flog the removal. As far as I can tell, David's a pretty good editor and content contributor, if still very green, and I'd hate to see him run off by an over-vigorous disciplinary program. But he's really hung up on this point and doesn't see that what first came across as a mostly-objective position is, due to his failure to provide support and his persistence, looking more and more like position against trans people which could, intentionally or not, fall awry of this section of the Manning naming case. I was quite willing to just let him wear himself out, but he's not giving up and he's drawing in editors who are more and more activist on the implied offense issues. He's clearly not going to win this, but I'm concerned about how much damage he's going to do to himself before he realizes that. Do you see something that you might do, short of topic-banning or blocking him? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (sorry about tldr; but you know me...)

Well, I'm tempted to just cut the Gordian knot by simply closing the RfC; the consensus, as judged by both strength of numbers and strength of arguments, is clearly in favor of keeping the image. I don't know how well an early closure will fly, though; you and I empirically know that consensus on this matter is not going to change, but it's not as who should say eminently obvious to the casual observer. And, despite the number of bytes that have been expended on it so far, there really isn't that big a turnout on this yet. I'll have to meditate on it; this is one of those cases where I want to use IAR, but not necessarily where I think that IAR generally should be used (from an admin-abuse standpoint). Clearly something needs to be done. It's times like this that I wish my RfA was still a redlink... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm involved but my suggestion: Close the RFC as invalid as the opening statement was neither neutral or brief. Hat the two current discussions as there's content in there that demeans a living person (BLP and the Manning case). Suggest that if another RFC is held, all the images in the infobox should be discussed, not singling out one. Finally, make it clear to Davidbena ‎on his talk page that any arguments against International's picture cannot be rooted in personal antipathies or perceived dislike a group may have for transgendered people. He needs to bring sources to the table. One more comment like the ones highlighted on his talk page will result in a topic ban from transgender issues, broadly construed. My two cents, anyways. --NeilN talk to me 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm involved. As of tonight. First I am not an activist - i don't get involved in gender/race/etc politics issues in WP, but in my few years of editing i have never seen something so ugly. davidbena's personal disgust at Dana International's transgenderism is transparent and the violations of BLP (denigrating statements, no sources used at all) and the arbcom ruling are unambiguous. I think his comments should be revdelled and a stern warning given, at least. in any case, i have made it very, very clear to him that i will bring him to AE if he makes any further BLP or arbcom ruling violations about Dana International, and if he is so foolish as to go there, that is on him. he has been very well warned. he seems to have added a lot of value elsewhere in WP, but on this issue he seems committed to the righteousness of his disgust and he finds it reasonable to keep pushing for WP to accommodate it. that is a problem that will get him into serious trouble here one day. maybe that day is today. let's hope not, but everybody chooses their own path. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Y'know, I think you're overplaying your hand here. Some of what he is saying violates BLP, but not all of it. Repeatedly comparing a transgender person to a serial killer obviously is. But saying that they, or a group of people to which they belong, would be offended by the image of a transgender person in an article about said group is not a BLP violation. You see, tolerance is a two-way street; I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in the rhetorical statement "Everyone must respect the differences of others, and nobody can think otherwise". It's a terrible thing that people view a transgender person as a sexual deviant that they must be ashamed of, but it is sadly true. Stating that fact is not a BLP violation; after all, it's talking about not the transgender person themself, but the others' view of that person. However distasteful those views are, we should not block people for simply expressing them, although we perfectly well can keep people from changing our articles on those grounds. Do you see what I mean? I know what free speech is not a thing on Wikipedia, but there is something to be said for allowing freedom for the thought that we hate, even if it's just in the background discussion.
So yes, there are problems here. I would actually be fine in revdeling the more scurrilous similes, but I would like a chance to talk to them first; if they are willing to remove the comments themself, that would probably be a better solution if they'd agree to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks for wading through all the ugliness. that is not fun. wrt to my behavior and analysis. i am very very aware of the two way street. if davidbena had restricted himself to saying "i am uncomfortable with an image of this person being in the gallery" or even "having an image of this the person in the gallery is offensive to me" -- that would have been OK with me - those are statements of his feelings, and he is owning them and being direct (and it makes it super clear that the answer we all have given him is the only answer we can give - not censored, with sensitive acknowledgement that we are sorry he is offended. that is how i responded to him User_talk:Jytdog#Request_for_Intervention on my talk page when he asked me the question.) as you noted, davidbena has only the narrowest path he can tread and in almost every comment he strayed from it. On the extreme end of the bad behavior, of course I agree with you. In the range of statements that you see as ambiguous, statements that "the image is offensive" are wrong on three levels - 1) there is nothing offensive about the image, which is very simple -- the issue is the person represented; pulling away the metonymy, we are left with the flat statement that "she is offensive". 2) the statement is a factual statement in the indicative voice - "the image is offensive". 3) no source was provided. this is a clear violation of BLP and the arbcom ruling. similarly, the claims that "the image is offensive to the community of yemenite jews" have the same three problems and are also violations. that's how i read it. behavior-wise, in my view having this discussion go on 3 days, in that way, is a stain on wikipedia, and that needed to stop. full stop. i acknowledge i took strong action but he had ignored all suggestions and gentle nudges and even warnings without teeth. So he got a warning with teeth. and so far he has respected that. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your point, and in a different context, I might agree with it. But here's the thing: these statements were not made within an article, but in a discussion page. If they were in an article, then yes, that would've been saying that she (and by extension, transgender people in general) is offensive in Wikipedia's authoritative voice, and that would've been a BLP vio, for all the reasons you stated. But this didn't happen in an article; it happened in a discussion page. On a discussion page, the way I see it is that everyone speaks in their own voice, not Wikipedia's. Thus, when someone says something like "she is offensive", mentally I would automatically attach the rider "to me" to that, since they're speaking with their own voice, not Wikipedia's. Similarly, when someone says "this person is offensive to a group", I would automatically attach "I think that...", because it's implicitly a statement of their own opinion. Now, those statements are absolutely not things we should base article changes on, for all the reasons you provide. They are still fairly unsavory comments. And I'll admit that they are ambiguous; it would be much better if their statements of opinion were made explicit. But I don't think I can go so far as to say that the omission of the riders on a talk page makes them a BLP vio; BLP vios can (and did) happen on talk pages, but what is a BLP vio in an article is not necessarily a BLP vio on the talk page. I see where you're coming from, though, and I can't say it's unreasonable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, I rather suspect that your comments, which I appreciate very much, will do quite a bit of good. Thanks for the intervention. It's not that I disagreed with Jytdog and the others, I was just hoping to save an editor who just needed some clue and who was not getting the point. If he persists at this point, then he's clearly identifying himself as someone who we might be better off without, notwithstanding his other virtues. He certainly would not be the first. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC) PS: And I now see on David's talk page that he's agreed to drop the campaign. See, WK, your comments have done a great deal of good indeed. Thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Writkeeper, thanks for your response. I actually went and carefully read BLP before I started citing it strongly. It is very clear that "This policy applies.. to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" (it says that several times) and it says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Right? Expressing your opinion about, GM Crops or how good a movie is on a talk page is one thing; but expressing revulsion over a living person on a Talk page is quite another... especially when personal revulsion is reified to statements about reality or projected onto how a group perceives something, all without sources. anyway, thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical issues with my account

I was working on the article Palace Hotel, San Francisco when I went to check my watch list and there was nothing there. So I checked my contributions and the only thing that showed was just those edits to the Palace hotel article. I logged out and then back in and everything seemed fine but when I checked my contributions...the Palace article did not show. I went to the article to see if perhaps the edits just didn't take and when I looked at the history...to my surprise the edits are there...but listed under my old user name Amadscientist. I went to the village pump and made a post there about the situation and while doing so looked up at my username and it was Amadscientist and all my signatures there were now changed as well. So I logged out and back and it is back to my Mark Miller name (my actual name), but I need someone to check to see what is happening as I do not wish to make further edits until the situation is sorted out. I really begins to look like I am running two accounts and is messing with the accuracy of the edit counts..which isn't that big a deal but...I use my contribution page to jump back and forth on articles I am working on. My main concern is that, whatever is happening be sorted out as to not flip back to the old name. Do you think this has anything to do with my global account? I would really like all my accounts, across the board to be under Mark Miller and thought this might have something to do with y request on commons yesterday to change my name there but I don't want to blame them as they have suggested I make the request on Meta, which I have not done yet. Help please!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Yes, it has to do with the interaction between your local and global accounts. Basically, what you have here is a set of two global accounts; one under the name "Amadscientist", which I think is your original global account, and one under the name of "Mark Miller", your new account. Basically, what happened on the Palace Hotel article is simply that you were still logged in as Amadscientist when you made the edits (you were probably still logged into that name after editing Commons, asking for the rename). So, that edit naturally went under your Amadscientist account. You see, the whole point of global accounts is that, once you're logged into one WMF wiki, you're logged into them all, so your login on Commons transferred over to here. So, that's the good news: your accounts haven't been smudged together or anything, and there's nothing wrong with the software; you were just logged into a different account.
But there's bad news, too. Local renames are no longer possible under any circumstances whatsoever: in fact, the tool isn't even accessible anymore. (This is a recent development, as of Sept. 15). So, unfortunately, it is no longer possible for your Amadscientist account to be renamed to Mark Miller on any WMF wiki, no matter what usurps you've obtained. What happens now is that renames must be done globally, on your global account, rather than just on your local account on the one wiki. The problem here is that, as I mentioned, you have two different global accounts; we can't Amadscientist to Mark Miller without conflicting with your account that already is Mark Miller (since, for example, it would have to rename the enwiki Amadscientist account to Mark Miller, and of course there already is a Mark Miller account on enwiki--yours). I believe that merging your two accounts is also impossible, so I think you're just kind of out of luck. Sorry. :(
If you would prefer to have your Amadscientist account named Mark Miller over your current Mark Miller account, then that can be done by just asking the stewards at meta:SRUC to rename your Mark Miller account to something else, which would free up the name, but the contribs that are currently credited to "Mark Miller" would then be credited to that other name. There's no real good way around it, I'm afraid. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This has never happened before and I think I am a bit confused as to why I have two global accounts.
  • Are you saying there is now a Wikipedia account for Amadscientist again?
  • I am stuck with Amadscientist on all my other accounts?
  • We no longer allow renaming of accounts on Wikimedia?
  • I jump back and fourth between commons on a regular basis and have the entire time I have been contributing to commons. Are you saying that when I do that my Amadscientist account will come up again.
  • Is it just possible (now that these things have oddly been changed) to just have the Amadscientist account as a legitimate secondary account so that I cannot be accused of sock puppeting when this happens or is this going to really become an issue that gets me blocked now?
  • Who do I call at the foundation to lodge a formal complaint about this...seriously? This is a mess.
Thanks for looking into this for me.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What I'm saying is that there always was a Wikipedia account for Amadscientist; it never went away.
  • You're not stuck with Amadscientist if you don't want to be; you should be able to use your Mark Miller account on any WMF wiki, unless the name is already in use on that wiki, which I think you said it was on itwiki.

    That will also change in the future when what's called "SUL finalization" happens, which hasn't happened yet. SUL finalization means that all accounts on every WMF wiki will be brought into agreement; whoever holds the "Mark Miller" account on one wiki will own it on every wiki, guaranteed, and anyone else who might've had that name before will be forcibly renamed to make room. But even then, the contributions you made in the past under the "Amadscientist" account will stay on that account; you cannot combine them with your Mark Miller edits into one account.

  • We no longer allow local renaming of accounts on Wikimedia. There is still such a thing as renaming, but only in a global context: it cannot be done on each individual wiki separately as it was in the past. Renaming is now all-or-nothing; your account is either renamed on all WMF wikis at once or it is not renamed at all.
  • It shouldn't come up, but it might depend on your browser or some other things. If you log into "Mark Miller" here, you should still be "Mark Miller" if you navigate over to Commons. Same thing in reverse: if you log into "Mark Miller" on Commons, you should still be Mark Miller here. What I think happened is that you deliberately logged into Amadscientist on Commons (to make the request about renaming it to Mark Miller), and, since Amadscientist is just as global as Mark Miller is, you stayed as Amadscientist when you came over here to enwiki. What you could've done is just logged out of Amadscientist and logged back into Mark Miller, and you would've been Mark Miller again.
  • Ok, I tried to log into Commons as Mark Miller but it wouldn't let me: "Login error There is no user by the name "Mark Miller". Usernames are case sensitive. Check your spelling, or create a new account." But this time when I came back to Wikipedia...I was Mark Miller again so...maybe someone, somewhere did something...or the Wiki Gods remembered I am Hawaiian. LOL! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Amadscientist is already a legitimate secondary account. Second accounts aren't really a problem if you haven't been deliberately deceptive about it (i.e. done something that would make it look like Amadscientist is a different person than Mark Miller), and you haven't been deceptive about it at all, so you should be fine as you are. If you want to be triply sure, you can just write a note on your user page that declares Amadscientist is your alternate account, but really, I don't think that's necessary; you shouldn't be in any danger of being blocked. It's not that big a deal, really.
  • You're on your own for that one.
And you're welcome, of course; it's not that big a deal; 'crats see things like this all the time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
OK...I think I forgot not to panic! I will consider what I need to do from here! Thank you so much for your detailed look into this!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a question I will pose to you....as Amadscientist...because its the account that came up after my last visit to commons: Do you think it is my responsibility to remember that every time I upload to commons that I have to log out and log into Wikipedia or should I be able to edit as Amadscientist without trying to remember to do so every single time. To be honest, I think that is asking a lot for me to suddenly remember now. I really think that this sudden change is not something I signed up for...but if that is the case I will abandon Commons completely and give up all image and file contributions since I can make no further changes. This isn't trying to be stubborn...but I just feel I can't be held to such an odd standard. What are your thoughts. be as honest as you feel is justified. Am I just being stupid or do I have a legitmate complaint in that manner. Have you seen this happen with others? Is this a new issue or am I just that ...unique? (Why do I feel I am bth not so special and yet still oddly on my own here?) The thing is....Commons just fixed the multiple upload issue and I have a backlog off images I intended to donate to Wikimedia...but now I think that may not be possible with this weird thing going on. Am I over thinking this? --User:Mark Miller/Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's a big deal to edit as both Amadscientist and Mark Miller, as long as you're not doing stuff like posting in the same discussion on both accounts (because people might think that the accounts belong to different people, which kinda makes it so that your opinion would count twice). Or things like revert someone from one account and then revert them again on the other account, which would circumvent the rules about 3RR and stuff, since it doesn't look like the same person reverting twice. Stuff like that makes having multiple accounts bad, but you're not doing that, so just plain ol' editing from both accounts is not a problem. I wouldn't let it stop you from contributing to both places; it's really not much to worry about.
But I guess my real question is: why don't you just upload things on your Mark Miller account on Commons? Just stop using Amadscientist entirely, and then you don't have to worry about it at all. You should just be able to log in as Mark Miller on Commons the exact same way that you would've on enwiki. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Because that account was just created. As soon as it was created I was automatically switched over. But..not just there, I am globally Mark Miller now. When I was switched over to Mark Miller (I didn't do it...I actually thought maybe you did it. LOL) I abandoned the Amadscientist account at Commons. I won't be uploading with that account or logging in unless there is a very good reason to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Archive top

Hey Writ Keeper, I think you managed to add a colon to the template. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Stefan2 removal of the image on my userpage

Hello Writ keeper,

I would like to thank you for adequately explaining why Stefan2 removed the image from my userpage and in hindsight I should not have been so rude and so brash.

I would like to apologise to you for having to deal with my behaviour and I wilk try to keep a level head.

Cheers, Luxure (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, Luxure; copyright is more than arcane enough to cause these types of misunderstandings. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed

If you want to butt in and lend a hand here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Assistance_needed_2, don't know what happened to Mies)... this is beyond serious, now I am being accused of being a sockpuppet, you'll see further details if need be in User:Tide rolls's talk.

Thanks, all the best as always --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Vasco. I don't know about Mishae, but I trust Tide rolls; I believe they'll come to a reasonable conclusion. Obviously I don't think you were socking in any meaningful sense of the word, but then I might not be considered uninvolved at this point, so, given that, again, I trust Tide rolls, it's probably better for me to stay out of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go right ahead and trust Mr. Rolls. So far, he has shown little more than contempt for my position, and is "all ears" for the guy that has accused me of hounding, harassing and socking. But I apologize for dragging you into this again, just as I am apologizing to the two mentioned users for breaching any rule, to no avail. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I was out of line with my last post (the beginning that is), but am feeling very sad by this unfair treatment (in the realm of WP, in my book it does not get much worse than being called a sock or a troll). Won't happen again, cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Writ Keeper. I already apologized to the above anonym for my misconduct. I however need to mention that his constant complains about various editors (not only me) is in my opinion unacceptable since it borders with our Wikipedia not is a forum policy. My first impression of such behavior was that the user was probably block evader/sock because that's how countless socks usually behave. I have seen one anonymous user who was just using his talkpage as a forum, so I assumed it was a copy cat or similar if not worse. Like, I don't mind anonymous users and not all of them are bad. But the current one showed some disruption when it came to user talkpages. By that I mean he wasn't discussing an article he was discussing an editor (back then it was an anonymous vandal, then it moved to SLBedit), and when I intervened it was my turn to become the victim of hounding (or at least I felt like it). When I see a long post in which an editor, not an article is discussed, I assume that the user is breaching our policies, and have a right to cautiously issue a remark regarding such feeling. I however, never expected that my cautious remark will boil into a much more meaningless post, my misunderstanding, and the whole discussion on my misunderstanding on 5 (yes 5) talkpages! Like seriously is this a normal behavior to go around and complain on countless talkpages? Your view?--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, just in general, you shouldn't assume that anything is an abuse of rules. AGF and all that; you know what they say happens when you assume. I haven't looked up the direct context, so I don't really have any specific input here, but generally speaking, one shouldn't be too quick to dismiss people's posts with a NOTFORUM, nor should one interpret NOTFORUM too strictly. While discussions about a user and their behavior would probably be better placed somewhere other than an article talk page, it's not that unreasonable if the behavior in question is harming the article. There's a tension between NOTFORUM on the one hand, which tries to emphasize the use of talk page articles for content changes, and NOTBURO/IAR on the other, which says that one should do what one thinks is right without having to look up the exact procedure to do so. You should beware of falling too far on one side of the divide. It's not unreasonable to discuss an editor's behavior on an article's talk page if that behavior is affecting the article: while the person could perhaps be given a gentle nudge towards more appropriate venues, they shouldn't be treated as if they're breaking the rules. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Situation resolved. Apologies to all parties involved, happy work to all. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, here is what caught my eye. At first the discussion was article related, all fine. But then, suddenly it extends into a complaint about how he got attacked by some users, blah, blah, blah, which was then concluded with his opinion/POV. My other pet peewee was the other discussion which as you can see starts out O.K. but ends up with unrelated WikiPolice and other irrelevant to the original discussion info. So, its not that I assume bad faith of IP users I just saw those 2 (which were followed by this one where he admits that he complains too much but still does it nevertheless), and assumed it was time for cautious reminder (or as you called it: gentle nudge). Which, as you know the story resolved into this. Because really, can he just ping whomever he wants other then going to various talkpages? Like, I bet that Portuguese Wikipedia is no different in this case. One more thing to mention, maybe my nudge was quite hard although I tried to be soft, but when an editor comes to your talkpage and says so and so, I used to be in a fight with a vandal (like, I am hearing it for the first time, and don't even care). If some similar blah, blah, blah, continues what do you do? Like, you don't tell them sure, post what you want whatever you want, it is Wikipedia after all?--Mishae (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thought the "court case" had already ceased, do not know where this is heading, but I have already conveyed my thoughts in Mishae's page. Thank you. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @84.90.219.128: Gees Louis! I'm just asking an administrational question, and you already worried about something that is not ever gonna happen?! Retire with pride and ease. I want other users to remember you other then just a nuisance (keep in mind, I don't call you that, but considering you past conflicts with others I know what they might think). So, in other words, if you want to be remembered as a good fellow editor don't peak in into every single post that people post about you (sometimes they post it to seek help and better understanding, which in turn will result into a positive outcome for both sides). :) Stay strong AL!--Mishae (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Writ Keeper

Wishing Writ Keeper/Archives/13 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Co-op

Hey Writ. So, I'm developing and will be piloting a new mentorship space here called the Co-op with a small team. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot in December. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching of specific skills based on what an editor wants to do or accomplish, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Obviously, your experience as an admin and at the Teahouse would be valuable to us in terms of providing guidance with regard to editing policies and guidelines. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jethro. I'm not sure I'm going to have much time to devote to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, so I don't think I'll be able to help you out. Sorry; it sounds like a good thing you're doing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, Writ. Thanks for letting me know. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediation committee

Would you be interested in applying for membership on the Mediation Committee? I'm Chairperson there and would nominate you if you are interested. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm flattered by the offer, but I don't think I'd have enough time these days to make a real go of it. Thanks, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for you considering it, nonetheless. Perhaps some time in the future if things slow down. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Miss you

Not being maudlin or anything, just a "You’re gone and I’ve noticed" kind of thing. Hope all's well and you're busy doing other funner, more rewarding things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Floq. All is well. It's a shame that this is theoretically not a social networking site, because y'all are the only part of Wikipedia that I actually miss. C'est la vie, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

triumphs of language
Thank you, dreaming reigner of irony with bureaucrat headaches and a life of your own, for quality articles such as Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh (Triumphs of Torlough), for believing in "rules-as-limits-on-power", for distinguishing "discussion" and discussion, and for enlightening me on "badass", "yelling" and a cultural divide, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 697th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

ho, ho, ho

Happy holidays.
To Writ Keeper, Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and all the best in the New Year. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Writ Keeper, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Mele Kalikimaka

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Still want your name on Teahouse invites?

Hi Writ Keeper! A while back, you agreed to have your name attached to some of the daily Teahouse invites sent by HostBot. Are you still interested in having your name included in some of these invites? If not, I'm happy to remove your name from the list. Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, J-mo, I'm not really around all that much anymore, so maybe it's better to take me off. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Will do, Writ. Be well! Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Block log?

Hi. I'm curious why the block log for the user wasn't moved to their current account.[3] It appears as if they have wiped their block log clean. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's working now. No idea what's going on. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Block defaults script

Hi Writ Keeper, hope you're well. Is it possible to add an option to your default block settings script to set defaults for hardblocking (ie preventing logged in users editing with the IP address)? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yo, Callanecc. This is indeed possible; I've added it. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, there are a couple new block reasons which have been added if/when you get a chance to add them your script's list as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Bonjour mon ami

Hope you are well, WK. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm doin' fine, Doc, hope you and yours are too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey, don't make me put the "gone but not forgotten" template on here. Remember, every day of absence means a kitten is drowned on Wikipediocracy. Also, take care.

Drmies (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, y'all seem to be getting on all right without me. I do still make the odd grammar fix if I come across something that needs fixing, though it's usually from an IP at this point. Still, it's good to hear from you, Doc; hope everyone is well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015


We even write articles on it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Q

Writ, if you're ever around, maybe you can have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_118#Proposal_to_auto-transclude_.2Fdoc_subpages and close it. I see a clear consensus in support but, as you may recall, I am perfectly ignorant of the underlying technicalities. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Warrington-Haffy

Writ, will you take a look at my talk and try to figure out things? Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Haf, I'll take a look. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I THINK - I managed just to unify it ... but it would be rather silly to start calling me Hafspajen~enwiki. Hafspajen (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks fine now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.Whatsisname (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Hey, Writ. It's been a long time since we first spoke to each other on my talk page. Your signature idea really worked, so there's really no need for me to do it in the old-fashioned way. Thanks for giving me such great advice about signatures. If you need me for anything else, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. Skylar3214 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad it helped. Nice to hear from you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but now it's ridiculously small

Hi WK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:FUCKYOUIMBACK

Talk page revocation might be useful on this one, appears there trying to draw ascii art genitalia give someone the ascii art finger... Amortias (T)(C) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that other admins were falling all over themselves to do it. That's nice; I personally am not sure I'd bother revoking TP access for something so childish (though I can't say that it'd be wrong to do so). Out of sight, out of mind, in my opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD Closure

Greetings. You recently closed this MfD and deleted the relevant page. However, the content on said page (which is really what was at issue) was copied over to another userspace page by the creator while the MfD was in progress. What does the deletion mean for this other page? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

JK, this was before I saw the SPI block. I guess it's not very relevant anymore. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it hardly matters. If someone feels strongly enough about it, they can raise it at MfD again. Not sure what the point would be, but whatevs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 13 July. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Those lists

Hi Writ Keeper. You mentioned that it would be best for me to avoid editing the two lists that form part of the Arbcom case against me and Kww ("just for the time being and in the interest of reducing drama."). I note that Kww has noted a few times that I have not subsequently fixed them up. Would it be okay for me to work on the lists to improve them, or should I leave them alone until the case has concluded? It would be relatively easy, now that the list is stable, to address the citation concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. When I said that, I really just meant around the time of the initial ANI thread; I was just hoping that the revert war wouldn't start up again since both of you had been unblocked, since that would've increased drama god even more. It's been more than enough time now for things to settle down, so there should be no issues. I'm sorry for not being clearer about what I meant. (And again, I didn't mean that to be binding, anyway; it really was just meant to be a suggestion.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, once it all kicked off I left off the whole thing so to avoid any further drama (as you noted). I'm happy to get back and start fixing those lists. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback question

Hi, WK - I was reviewing some ARBCOM cases, and noticed the KWW case wherein you stated, "TRM used rollback in this edit war (e.g. [3])." I'm a bit confused over rollback rights because I thought it was something that (1) had to be approved by an admin to acquire the right and (2) was primarily used for vandalism. The confusion arises because TW offers a rollback feature as a tool any editor can use. I've had the TW rollback feature used to revert my edits on more than one occasion and was told it was ok to use it. Is that true? Atsme📞📧 12:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (1) Admins automatically have the rollback right as part of the admin toolset; other editors do need admin approval. (2) The rollback right by default does not include an edit summary, which means it should only be used for reverts that do not require an edit summary, such as for vandalism. If you're reverting a good-faith edit you should be giving a reason for doing so. The TW rollback feature differs from the rollback right in that it has three levels (rollback (AGF), rollback, and rollback (vandalism)) and that the first two levels require you to input an edit-summary, so those first two can be used for reverting any type of edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, what Nikkimaria said (thanks, Nikkimaria). The reason I included it in the Arbcom evidence is basically just for thoroughness's sake; the primary issue in that case is the use of admin tools, and while rollback isn't really an admin tool, it technically is by virtue of being in the admin tool bundle. It's not really an important point, but someone was bound to complain if I didn't include it, so I figured I might as well short-circuit the complaints. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Scripts

Hi Writ Keeper, for the CommonHistory inlineDiff scripts, is there anyway to display the [inspect diff] link at the beginning of the entry rather than at the end? I'd like to avoid accidentally clicking the rollback button next to it. Also, is it possible to add a confirmation prompt to massRollback.js? (along the lines of rollbackConfirm.js) Thank you very much for all the scripts, incredibly useful. NQ (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a bit of a gripe of mine too. If I had a penny for every time I've had the "what's this person said? AAHHROLLBACKGODDAMMITSELFREVERTSELFREVERTSELFREVERT!!!" experience, I'd have... about 4p, I think. Mind you, that'll still buy you a gobstopper in some places. Yunshui 雲水 11:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@NQ:@Yunshui: Both done. Let me know if you see any problems, particularly with the massRollback; it's kinda a tricky thing to test (especially when one can't remember the password to one's test account). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you very much. js/css pages are also working just fine, incase you wish to remove the filter from the script. I'll let you know if I see any bugs with massRollback. - NQ (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, okay. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter 714

Looks like you read something which changed your mind since you retracted the comment, but I had been reviewing example 1 at the bottom of https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Conditions and it looked like it only fell through on edits which passed the first comparison (all edits to that one page), so average conditions would be 1 (is it that page? no). It's 5 for new user on that page, 3 for existing user on that page, if I understand the branching correctly. But, I freely admit I am new to the edit filters so I may not know what I am talking about 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I doubt I know much more about it than you do. Like I said in the comment, parentheses count as a condition. But what I didn't understand at first--and why I later retracted my comment after continuing to read--is that the Boolean operators in the edit filter short-circuit only with parentheses and function calls. So, there will never be less than two conditions used in your filter: the article id check and the parens check. The paren check will prevent anything else from being executed because of the forced short circuit, but it itself counts as one. So a different page will be two conditions, an old user on the right page will be four conditions, and a new user will be five. The inner parens could be removed for a savings of one condition towards the condition limit in the new user case, but at a cost in runtime in the old user case, since the paren is presumably easier for the edit filter to evaluate than what's in it. That's my understanding, anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision

Hi Writ Keeper, in the open Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that I need to be notified as the filing party, so thanks, but as I'm only mentioned in passing in one of the findings of fact, I'm gonna let it play out on its own. I can lead a horse to water, but no amount of reasoning is going to make him drink. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Kww (talk · contribs)'s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship

  2. Kww (talk · contribs)'s edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

  3. The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

Cratchat

Have you been notified that there's a cratchat that really needs more voices? If you're not too busy. (I see you haven't been around the last few days.) You're still a 'crat, am I right? Bishonen | talk 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, Writ Keeper resigned in September 2014. There is a current list of bureaucrats at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Liz Read! Talk! 10:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeez, is it that bad? I really don't want to have to run through RfB again. I guess technically I don't have to, given that I resigned on my own initiative, but IIRC I promised to not pick up the 'crat bit without another RfB. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Having just gone through an RfA, I imagine an RfB is even more intense! Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
From the ones I've seen, not necessarily more intense in terms of the level of scrutiny—but at times conflicting expectations on the part of different groups of editors made it virtually impossible for anyone to pass RfB regardless of qualifications. (For example, if 20% of all !voters insist that "any RfB candidate must promise to close RfAs strictly by the numbers, without using their subjective judgment except in obvious cases like socking", and another 20% of the !voters insist that "any RfB candidate must pledge to incorporate their subjective judgment as to the validity of the !votes in deciding which RfAs pass or not," and passing RfB requires 85% support, then no one could pass at all.) This is one reason you will see so much time having passed sometimes between successive RfB's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm apparently bland and boring enough, so my RfB was actually smoother than my already-pretty-smooth RfA, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Lucky devil! Imagine, a smooth RfA. Not these days, I think.
But bland and boring, I'm sure you're not. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements

You are receiving this message because you are listed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Former bureaucrats. Writ Keeper pointed out that these users were not directly notified of the community discussion ending August 2015, where consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

As of 1 October 2015, any former bureaucrat who has not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years that wishes their bureaucrat permissions restored will need to request reinstatement at RFB.

If you intend to return to bureaucrat activity, please request restoration of permissions before 1 October 2015 or three years passes since your last bureaucrat activity, whichever is later.


To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xenotalk 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Undoing a large number of edits from blocked user

Hi Writ Keeper,

I'm not sure if you remember an incident with Mishae who you were involved in the blocking process of.[4] Essentially, they starting adding a new (very low member) daughter Wikiproject called Wikiproject Beetles to pages while also deleting the banner for Wikiproject Insects. In this conversation, we had consensus that the Insects tag needed to stay, but Beetles could still remain if people wanted it there. However, Mishae kept mass removing the banner tags after this conversation. I've been plinking away at restoring the tags manually, but there are still about 1000 pages left that need to fixed. Since those edits essentially ended up being something similar to vandalism at that point, are there any admin or other tools that could be useful here, or are there maybe some automated editing tools I should look into instead? Thanks! Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not super familiar with it, but this sounds like a job for AWB. It's not restricted to admins, I don't think, but like I say, I don't really know all that much about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've seen it around, but figured I'd ask since I've never dug into it. I'll see what I can do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You know how people can sometimes tempt you out of retirement temporarily with technical requests?

I want to give it a try. I just installed and used User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, and am very happy. Unfortunately, for some reason it is not removing {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}. I went to leave Z-man a message about this, and see that he hasn't edited since July. Is this something easy to fix? Is it considered impolite by you technically competent types to edit each others' scripts? Is there a reason for it acting this way that I don't understand?

Probably doesn't matter too much, since apparently a bot comes by an hour later and does it. Mostly just an excuse to stop by and say "hi". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Floq. Hmm, it's probably not too hard. As for etiquette, I would just fork his script, put a new version of it into my own userspace. I wouldn't edit it directly; dunno about anyne else, but I'd never want to be responsible for someone else's bugs in my code, so I'm not going to force my bugs into theirs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
A helpful IP has suggested some code on the script's talk page. Your suggestion that I fork it is a good one. I'll do that. Cheers, hope all is well with you and yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Aw, you could've posted that here too, M[rs]. IP185; I (usually) don't bite Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want to get in the way of Floq tempting you out of retirement. And because of that, we now have the latest massRevdel script. Great work. :) - 185.108.128.10 (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You're the same person who posted at Vanjagenije's Talk page in response to a script question I had. Policy prevents me from asking who you are, but policy doesn't prevent me from wondering.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Bbb23: If the IP is editing constructively (and it definitely seems that way), then perhaps it is better not to know if they're secretly a banned user, or some people might clamor for a block despite policy that says rules should never get in the way of improvements. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well this took an unexpectedly sinister turn for no real reason. Hopefully Bbb23's curiosity is just somewhat poorly phrased, and then Salvidrim is reading into it more than was intended. Anyway, 185.xxx, I left a thank you on a talk page that it looks like you're no longer using, so I'll say again: thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not banned (as of yet) and nothing sinister going on. y'know.. you try to help out a lil when you're on a wikibreak and you end up getting one of the few remaining vpn nodes that could actually edit wikipedia blocked for abuse. :) Ah silly me. no more 185.xx. :) - NQ-Alt (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
What! you made a new script without telling me? Bad Writ Keeper! Bad!

Having just installed it, it turns out to be yet another of your scripting wonders that solves a problem I'd often found irksome but never did anything about. In conjunction with your inline diff browsing script, it's going to be fantastically useful. Thank you! Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, is User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/easyBlock.js still working? Since Twinkle got updated to allow blocks, it seems to be defunct. Yunshui 雲水 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what I love about our script writers. Identify a need and you'll likely get a workable solution in short order if technically possible. Identify a need to the WMF and it disappears into a black hole... --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A recent block

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Zachary&oldid=684012008

Will you be posting a detailed response to the user? (I'm suprised they lasted as long as they did).Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No more detailed than this. They're not listening, so I have no intention of continuing to waste my breath. We can afford to pull our punches for a while, and I try to do so when I can, but we cannot afford to either monitor their uploads 24/7 or allow them to freely upload a real-life address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I also deleted File:ChoclateCookies.jpg. It contained latitude and longitude info which, when Googled, came up with the exact address on the envelopes. Kind of freaky. --NeilN talk to me 01:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Writ_Keeper/Archives/13&oldid=1125493774"