Jump to content

User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2020/March

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


Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous



00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

tb

Hello, TheSandDoctor. You have new messages at Tayi Arajakate's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

mail

Hi. I hope you are doing well. I just sent you an email, would you please take a look at it? Also, you can respond here :D —usernamekiran (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Replied. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Just saw your second reply. I have already emailed the suppresser team. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ninja Warrior: Le Parcours des héros

Did I need to add what to submit the draft? --197.253.238.115 (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read the comments on the draft, including this comment I left last October. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this comes under BAG

...but can you take a look at User talk:Hydrargyrum#Please (and the thread just above it) and have a quiet word? EEng 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Automated editing as described would. Thank you for bringing to my attention. I have not raised this angle at the moment, preferring to back up what has been said about fixing scripts (especially when concerns raised) and pointing to WP:ANI for any WP:HOUNDING reports/making it clear that these are serious accusations. I will bring up the WP:BAG aspect if necessary. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: On second thought, I expanded to cover. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Based on his response to your post I see trouble ahead. EEng 19:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

17:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TheSandDoctor,

We typically block for username violations for editors who are actively editing. This editor made one edit 2 and 1/2 years ago and was not an active editor. You don't need to retroactively block inactive editors. If you review Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames, you'll see Also, except in extreme cases, it is probably not worth taking action unless the user has made at least one recent edit. I agree that this is an offensive username but I don't think it necessitated taking action now. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Per the top of the policy, usernames that are "offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, libelous, or disruptive" are examples of "[u]sernames...not allowed on Wikipedia and will be immediately blocked." That does not mention an expiry period. The section that you quoted states that your quoted text only applies "[i]f the name is not unambiguously problematic". While you are definitely correct in some borderline cases/minor violations it is usually useless to block a username, from my viewpoint this particular username is a violation worthy of an immediate block without warning. There is no perceivable positive gain for the encyclopedia in allowing such a username to potentially be used in the future, so I handled it as it should have been done years ago. In addition, even if your quote applied to blatant username violations, it is a suggested practice. It doesn't say they cannot be blocked after a certain length of time has elapsed, if you feel that it should I would be open to starting up a conversation/RfC on the policy talk page. But, as of now, such a measure would seem to contradict the documented community consensus requiring immediate blocks for blatant violations. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
We deal with a lot of these cases at UAA—obviously disruptive usernames that have never edited. The UAA instructions say to not to even report these usernames and {{UAA}} gives us the option to decline these reports as "wait until the user edits". I still block them 100% of the time, because there's no benefit to the project in taking the same amount of time to decline the report without blocking them, and likewise no harm to the project in softblocking them since they are required to change their username if they want to edit anyway, and will at best be blocked if they try to edit and at worst they will start editing and fly under the radar. In saying "it is probably not worth taking action", the intent of the policy guidance is clearly that we need not tie up valuable volunteer time and resources blocking every inactive username violation that will probably never pose a problem; it's not worth it. That's not to say these usernames shouldn't be blocked or that there is any problem in doing so. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Rollback request

I would l like to ask you to give me rollback rights. I have experience with reverting vandalism and I feel this tool will help me. I will not use this ability in ways it should not be used such as edit warring. Jcoolbro (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te) Jcoolbro (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandDoctor,

I have just tried to make my first edits to Wikipedia. Unfortunately I didn't realise that it was a bad idea to edit a BLP that is of myself! Now it seems the BLP is to be deleted which seems wrong for the reasons I have listed on the deletion page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guy_Fixsen

The thing is I can provide good sources if that's what is needed to stop the article being deleted, but I guess I'm not allowed to as it would be a COI?

Any advice much appreciated!

Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyfixsen (talkcontribs) 17:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Guyfixsen: If you can provide good sources, then by all means present them at the deletion discussion. It is just generally discouraged that you edit articles about yourself and generally encouraged that you make suggested changes on the article's talk page. Please let me know if this helps any. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SandDoctor - I have put in a bunch of links to articles about me, books that contain quotes from me, IMDb page, discog page etc. in the deletion discussion - is that the right sort of thing you mean by good sources?
Also, how does the deletion decision get resolved? Is there a time limit for comments or something?
Thanks
Guyfixsen (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Guyfixsen: I just commented on your talk page about the sourcing, actually. Deletion discussions typically last for 7 days, though that may vary. I would encourage you to read about the deletion process here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi there. Thank you for blocking this editor. It's probably just an amazing coincidence but this totally brand-new editor has just redone one of WiredScore's edits, cloned very closely at the molecular level. If we are very lucky I suppose they will turn up with a load of new usernames and redo all the other ones too, because that's a great way to get your promotional stuff into Wikipedia. Or am I excessively cynical? You might want to have a look, though I will quite understand if you can't be bothered! :) Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This was also noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WiredScore and they have been blocked. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)