User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 24

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Bots Newsletter, December 2021
BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.

Overall

  • Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Green checkmarkY 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (Dark red X symbolN2 3 denied, Blue question mark? 3 withdrawn, and Expired 2 expired).

September 2019

Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!
  • Green checkmarkY Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 · Dark red X symbolN2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 · Blue question mark? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4
  • TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
  • Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request.

October 2019

November 2019

Now you're thinking with portals.

December 2019

In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

  • What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page?
  • What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild?
  • Will reFill ever get fixed?
  • What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway?
  • Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!)

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

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

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

Bots Newsletter, January 2022
BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.

Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.

Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Green checkmarkY 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with Dark red X symbolN2 8 denied, Blue question mark? 2 withdrawn, and Expired 2 expired).

January 2020

A python
A python
A python
0.4 pythons
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.

February 2020

Speaking of WikiProject Molecular Biology, Listeria went wild in February

March 2020

April 2020

Listeria being examined

Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.

May 2020

We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots

June 2020

A partial block averted at the eleventh hour for the robot that makes Legos

Conclusion

  • What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?
  • Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project?
  • What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles?
  • Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki?
  • What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits?

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

21:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

16:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleanup of Ring-related links

Thanks for catching and reverting the promo-y excessive linking to Ring (programming language) and related articles on various pages and templates. There was a pattern of these edits a few years ago, and it looks like the same editor is back at it. I'll try to give them a nudge to remind them about WP:DUE. Colin M (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Not all of them were bad but they were definitely excessive. I tried to give their additions the benefit of the doubt, although I'm not entirely sure I succeded. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
VernoWhitney Thank you very much, It was my mistake. I did that while thinking it's the right thing to do (linking articles together), but I was wrong! Colin M helped me by providing useful guidelines to follow. I am happy that I learned about this. Wikipedia rules are deep which is really very useful and fun. Charmk (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
That's understandable, especially when you start to focus on one subject. Just ask if you have any questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-15

19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"X610Z® existenz" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect X610Z® existenz and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#X610Z® existenz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-16

23:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-17

22:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-18

19:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-19

15:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

APPLICATION FOR MENTORSHIP

I am looking for a mentor. I wanna go through a course under your tutelage for a period of time that you determine for a counter vandalism course and/or a course on proper page creation. After which I will be given rollback and new page reviewer privileges. I'm reaching out to you because I wanna do this the proper way. It will be a honor to learn. Cheers Amaekuma (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but I'll defer to others who are more interested in mentoring as well as vandalism and page creation; I'm afraid none of those are my forte. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Reporting suspect non-neutral and stalking user and his behaviour reverting all my edits with casual or absurd reasons. Request to block said user at least temporarily

There's a user that is following, stalking me (seems a new user for his/her number of edits, but joined 7 years ago in reality), and is using my user name's and IP's chronology's to track and revert all my edits that don't violate rules, with excuses that don't justify their erasures, clearly non-neutral. I please you to block him/her at least temporarily for now, because I don't feel safe. The name of the user is NarkySawtooth. Thanks. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) (This admin has not edited since May) Greener Meaner Green Goblin, your edits have been reverted by more than that one editor. You need to continue to participate in the discussion at Talk:Neo: The World Ends with You until you get consensus to add that content. Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You need to keep talking to them, and not just with edit summaries. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

An administrator accepted my sources as reliable, and NarkySawtooth is the only one who is suspisciously persistent towards me.

And the reasons he/she left after reverting my specific edits (and with what authority I ask) are clearly not true or don't justify their massive erasure, so I just understood they're not the kind of person they are useful to talk or to keep talking with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talkcontribs) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators don't have any special authority to accept sources as reliable or not. The authority (authorities?) that NarkySawtooth should be directing you to are policies and guidelines - specifically those about original sources ("it's just a fact") and reliable sources. At least that's the impression I'm getting at a quick glance at the talk page and edit summaries. Also, please just put something on the talk page once, and don't post it until you're done editing - I keep getting edit conflicts when I try to reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

He/she's saying, for example, that my content are not present in the sources, clearly a lie (and since when is requested and mandatory to cite any and every source with "According to"?). They used "poor grammar" (where?) as excuse to erase entire and massive content, clearly not a justification, and I asked them to limit to correct those grammar errors when they saw them but they did it again, removed entire and massive edits instead (and certainly has no authority or title to say "WE can't accept them"). He/she registered to Wikipedia 7 years ago but did very few edits since then but they're back coincidentally only to persist in removing my specific edits I did just recently since my registration to Wikipedia? Sounds suspicious to me. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For most of your points I'm going to repeat - keep talking to them. For the last part - "suspicious" in what way? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious in the way "They're back only now to erase my specific edits from my specific User name and IP and without any valid non-contradicting reason, authority or justification for all the aforementioned reasons"?

Radical differences in Japanese videogames, manga and anime from original to Western localization is a very important topic that always needs to be covered and written on Wikipedia. Why can't the user be here to confirm or deny what I written above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talkcontribs) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing a single article or a related group of articles because they're the only ones that interest you isn't in and of itself an issue - lots of editors work like that. If they happen to start following you to unrelated pages/topics, then please let me or another administrator know. In the meantime, please read the pages I linked to about original research and reliable sources, and talk to them about it on the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The group of articles they specifically chose to revert with such persistence is still suspect to me. Anyway, I wrote to them in an article's talk page, if they revert all my works again without sending any response and even after what I wrote, I'm not gonna take it "nice" again. And still I'd like them to join this conversation to deny or confirm what's written above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talkcontribs) 20:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please keep that conversation on the talk page specific to the article or articles in question - there's no reason to split it out to here. And please do remember my edit notice, and be nice. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

THAT'S IT! NarkySawtooth needs to be blocked/suspended! He/she didn't only revert my edits and used other weak, untrue and easily debunkable excuses, but he/she didn't even consult me in the talk page (of NEO: The World Ends with You), where I was waiting for a response from them for hours like an idiot, it's utterly disrespectful and I lost patience! Now I have every reason to justifiably ask for their block/suspension! This is the last straw!

So? Will you or anyone else do something and take action about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talkcontribs) 03:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@VernoWhitney, Greener Meaner Green Goblin, and NarkySawtooth: I have warned both users for edit warring as both are close to breaking the 3-revert rule. I advise both users, instead of continuing the pattern of edit warring, to resolve their issues on the respective talk page. Seeing that discussion is ongoing on both Neo: The World Ends with You and 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim I think no blocking is warranted. SunDawntalk 04:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

About 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim, NarkySawtooth continues to lie about it knowing he's/she's lying (all it takes is to compare the two localizations and the sources from 3-4 different sites I posted), why hasn't been suspended yet? All he/she did so far is to persecute me and revert every work of mine and clearly lying about it! I don't feel safe with them still around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talkcontribs) 22:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry about how you feel, but you really need to settle down and stop the personal attacks. If you know why they haven't been "suspended" yet, please read WP:WHYBLOCK. Maybe there are specific quotes from sources that would help support the material you want to be included? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)