User talk:Billinghurst/2014

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

See here for more info.

Yep, thanks. I was pointed in that direction and collated data against the account for esWP checkusers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Billinghurst,

I wonder if you could help me to globally lock my account by my own request.

A precedent is here.

Here's the explanation why I am requesting this.

As I learned from vanishing my account on Commons it will not work properly in my situation. That's why a global lock is my only hope.

If you agree to help me, please don't do it just yet. This message is simply to secure your agreement.

Regards.Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Global locks are for spammers, spambots, and xwiki vandals, not for established users. Your example is not a good example as the user is not locked, and there was disagreement about the action at the time.

To vanish from your account, change the email address to something fake, then logout, use the reset the password facility, and it will be dead. Preferably mark yourself as retired before you leave.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for response, but I do not simply want to vanish my account. I am not addicted to editing and have absolutely no problem with staying off Wikipedia without it. I am not sure you had a chance to read AN thread I linked to, but let me please explain you in a few words what is the problem. I was editing under my real name, which was posted on hundreds of images I uploaded to Wikipedia and commons. After I was banned from Wikipedia, I replaced my name with a pseudonym on each and every image I uploaded, but it is no use. When I google my real name and my user name I am getting thousands of hits. No matter what I am doing people know who I am on Wikipedia and what is my real name. On Wikipedia my name is attached to the bunch of lies told about me. It hurts my real life well being. So I am trying to replace my wikipedia ban/block with a global lock. Global lock is not seen in public records. I was told by one of arbitrators that my only chance to achieve removal of my ban is a global lock. That why I am asking to help me with this. My situation is a special situation that requires a special solution by an understanding and kind user.Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mbz1: I have unblocked your account so that the conversation can take place at Meta; this is xwiki business (my stewardry happens here), not Commons business (my local admin happens there)
Your problems at enWP are for that community, not for me @Commons, nor for me as a steward. Any ability to give you a m:global lock outside of the existing criteria would need to be considered by stewards as a collective, not by me alone here. If you wish have this addressed to stewards, please email stewards(_AT_) requesting that the matter be addressed to all stewards, and if I get to it first, then I will forward it for discussion. Alternatively ask the enWP ArbCom to forward a request on your behalf, that would have due consideration of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst, it was very kind of you that you unblocked my account and responded to me so extensively!
English Wikipedia arbitrators probably will not do anything for my behalf. The only thing that I was able to achieve was that the worm that turned told me he would support unblocking my account, if it is globally locked.
But before we proceed any farther, I'd like to ask you please, if my understanding is correct, ans global locks is not seen in any public records? I am sorry I should have asked this first, but I forgot. Thank you.Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Global locks show in the log file at Meta, and in any corresponding data query of an (universal) account, eg. Special:CentralAuth. It is my opinion that WITHOUT the authority of the enWP ArbCom there will be no removal of the global block, no matter who whispers whatever in your ear.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If I may help with examples, this is your CentralAuth page, Mbz1. And this is how the page of a globally locked user looks like. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for being so helpful!
The arbcom promised to let me know by Monday what is their decision. I guess I'd wait until then, and proceed from there.Mbz1 (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Update. I withdraw my request. Even if accepted it isn't going to work. Here's why,if you care to read it but probably doesn't worth loosing your time.
  • Billinghurst, thank you one more time for trying to help me! Sorry I took so much of your time. You may re-block me now. Best wishes, and Happy New Year! Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Happy New Year. Since yesterday I count at least 3 attemps to get my password from es:Wiki through this tool. I'm very worried, but apparently there is nothing to do. It seems vandal use different proxys each time. Is it true? There is nothing to do? I at least warnt about this, because not know what could happend. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that it is an attempt to get your password, rather than an attempt by someone to be annoying. There is nothing that one can do to prevent the reset of the password, with the worst that is happening is the nuisance factor for you. If there is other evidence of your vandal playing up, then your local checkusers may be able to undertake some checking, and see if they can do some preventative measures, though generally it is a matter of waiting out the idiot. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably is the same who let me nasty messages in my TP with disponsable accounts, proxys and dinamic IPs. Thanks, anyway. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Charming, isn't it. <sigh> Best of luck with managing the idiot.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel I broke a rekord: 4th time in less 24hr (this time throught Meta). I've never been such popular!!!! (I feel a wikidiva :P) --Ganímedes (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Andrew. I removed your CU rights @ elwiki; I assumed you forgot to do so. Regards, Trijnsteltalk 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thx, I did, or clearly that should be thought that I had. Must have been one of those times when the page was static too long.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #92


Unblock (Talk) Account

Not done and wouldn't be done from this page. Please use SRG  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #93


Hello, Billinghurst. I have make my admin request at here[1]. Can you have a check please? Thank you very much. Have a nice edit.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


There're two admin flag requests in Steward requests/Permissions.--GZWDer (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No sweat, someone will get to them when they have a moment among other duties.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, Billinghurst. I left two messages [2][3] on the SpeedyGonsales's talkpage, as a comment on Your message. Bye, Kubura (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The expiry of deadline for Speedy's answer is 5 days later

The expiry of deadline for Speedy's answer is 5 days later.
[4] Elfix wrote on 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"Please, give us an answer within 10 days. Past this duration, we will consider you are relinquishing your CheckUser access on "
That means that the deadline expires on 27 January 2014, 5 days later than the deadline You posed him. [5]
Speedy is guiding according to the previously given deadline, so please, don't push him. He has 5 more days. Kubura (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Give him 5 more days. --Argo Navis (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Check your email. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Absolutely able to give required time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki namespace deletions in hy:wp

Hi Billinghurst, today you've deleted 2 MediaWiki namespace pages on hy.wikipedia (hy:MediaWiki:Index and hy:MediaWiki:Browse), mentioning "that this should now be default language specific". Unfortunately didn't work for Armenian. Can you hint where is it supposed to come from? Is it from translatewiki translations, or wikidata? When interface is in Armenian translated "Index", but not "Browse" ("browse" is what we get), with Russian it shows only menu item names ("browse" and "index"), and with English language it shows both Armenian names correctly. Thanks beforehand --Xelgen (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that. I have undeleted the pages. I checked translatewiki that it was present and presumed that it was correct. :-( When it is forced like that, it doesn't autotranslate, so all visitors will see the Armenian, not their local language on the label on Index/Browse.

Wikidata is just going to manage the interwiki links, and some generic data, but for a Mediawiki: ns page, not much else. Translatewiki is the place where all the generic text sits, and I would think that they would appreciate your help in fixing any of those WMF specific labels.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #94

The Beta Wikiversity closure RfC

I just suggested that the RfC be closed, it probably should have been immediately closed on Babel, with reference to Closing projects policy, which was in effect by then. It would have been okay, however, to discuss procedure there, to inform the user. That's what wasn't done. I regret that you essentially created the RfC out of that Babel proposal, because the user had no clue how to properly propose the closure of a project, and the RfC as you set it up was improper and probably misplaced. Proposals for closing projects, the proper and very active place for project closure proposals, has explicit instructions, and points to the policy which wasn't followed.

The last RfC that attempted to shut down a project was a 2010 attempt to shut down Wikiversity: Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity. That was also misplaced as an RfC instead of being a subpage of Proposals for closing projects. Notice that the closing administrator for the 2010 proposal explained that RfC was not the proper meta venue, pointing instead to the correct venue.

Thanks for your support of WMF projects, including Wikiversity. --Abd (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #95

Wikidata weekly summary #96

IP address unblock request

My IP address is, it was blocked by you, could you unblock it? I didn't use any proxy.--Fayhoo (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As it says at the top, requests for removals need to be made at SRG. It was spamming us at the time of the block,  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comment was abused

[6] attempted to again reopen an RfC that was properly closed with 100% consensus two years ago. The edit summary was ( "blanking another's comments on a talk page should be undertaken with the greatest caution" my comment stands here as relevant) quoted your comment from his user talk page. I reverted, his comment had already been moved to the RfC talk page, where I opened discussion of the issue. Would you mind looking at this? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to reinstate the close with my comments at the bottom of the RFC, and I don't appreciate the removal of my comments to the talkpage either. It was not an attempt to overturn a close that had been under discussion. This rampant claim of abuse is levied without justification. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess the big question here is, are RFC pages considered to be talk pages or not? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
RfCs are discussion pages, not Talk pages. They are like other process pages, where excessive or inappropriate comment is often removed to the attached Talk page. Comment after close is a common reason. Yes, caution is still required. This is quite different from what TCNSV had done to earn your comment, he had blanked comment on a User talk page, he did not move it to an archive, for example. Tiptoety, the original closer, has now clarified that he still stands by his close, as I expected. TCNSV, in attempting to reopen the RfC, seems to be trying to make some point, coming out of prior discussion. However, getting into that would be complicated. This is simple, what I wrote: abuse of your advice. --Abd (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oy! My talk page is an unseemingly place to bring your battle. Suggest that you both walk away from it. The heat and the righteousness is building and that is often an indicator that the ego is winning over the task.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Billinghurst. Generally agree. I brought this here because of the link to your comment that was used. I did not intend to debate this here, I should not have responded to TCNSV's comment. Sorry to bother you. --Abd (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did You block me?

Why did You block me? 13:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Due to the wikis being spammed from this IP address. If you have had this IP address for a couple of weeks, then in all likelihood you have a trojan in your computer system that is spamming.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm from Please i would like to accept his requesting زكريا@so.wikipedia, is a good man and a person desirable. He helps technical issues, so please accept his requests. thanks. --Abshirdheere (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abshirdheere. A steward cannot process an administratoor nomination request until it has been through a community discussion's process, and that is what I asked to happen. I don't believe that there will be any issue once the consultation has taken place. I invite you to do the nomination at soWP for زكريا.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi there, I have just created an account in were I saw you as an editor. I'm a Somali native and would like to take part all the activities in Somali Wikitionary, so would you kindly introduce me how this whole thing works and where I'm suppose to start.

Ismail4all (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If I was editing there, it would have been in response to spam, not as a knowledgable contributor, and wiktionary edits are not one of my strengths. Let me see if we can get a wiktionary specialist who can give you advice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|Ismali4all}}, welcome to the so.wiktionary. I recommend you to talk with the administrators their or leave a message at their big discussion place. Cheers, --Goldenburg111 21:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #97

Re: Rights granted

Thanks. Jee 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you really mean new_wikitext = "#babel"? That will only be true if the new wikitext is just the text "#babel". What you mean is "#babel" in new_wikitext or something like that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not make it [...] & !("#babel" in new_wikitext) [...]? Then it will work. :-) I cannot edit either filter. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

IP case

Your dissamination of statments regarding the IP block is damaging me as User:Lenka64 interprets that as a truth. If you think the same, you are not right. I never used the open proxy before December 3, 2013 block.

You blocked a proxy, which might be using thousands of users in this area. I know several wikimedians in this area. You also stated that, by blocking that IP you protected Wikiversity. But I dont think it is truth. If that proxy will use open proxy, the system will not reveal original proxy IP address, so blocked IP may follow editing.

But I understand that the attackes towards Danny B. and his friends, looks like to be done by the opposition party. Thats a very easy equation. But have you considered, it may be not so easy? Have you considered, that you may use other accounts or proxies to push your point of view by hard? In some cases its quite its quit clear:

  1. you make some changes to the page
  2. the other party dont agree and revert it
  3. seemingly, here we have a proxy, which wants the change (surely it would be nice to know, who stays behind to know if something was not oversteped)
  4. so there is not just Juandev, who dont want to change
  5. but yeah, there already two users who wants the change
  6. no it starts to be hot
  7. well, why to revert under realy name if we can use proxy
  8. oh sorry, I dont like anonimity
  9. 3rd user wants a change
  10. well time to lock for a revert war

So this looks also clear. But what about this or that?

And those are not just revert wars, those might be other things like blocked/banned users.--Juandev (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion as the blocking steward of my interpretation of the data. I take no other particular interest, or have no real opinion on other edits at csWV, as they are not pertinent to the role that I take, or should take, as a steward. How the community interprets and manages my opinion is up to them. My personal wish is that you all get along, that people leave their personal enmities aside and edit for the benefit of the project. Unfortunately I am not seeing it, I am just seeing more and more personal attacks. At some point, people need to stop their whining and behave like adults.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So how your opinion is related to that RfC? And what personal attacks do you see? As I dont see many a this time.--Juandev (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It related to the commentary around the placing of blocks on the IP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK. Regarding personal attacks I can see some, because I understand the language, but I guess you dont. So I wonder what takes you to see more and more personal attacks. Maybe you see to the areas I dont see. Unfotunately some people understand commons procedures as personal attacks. It could be seen in this RFC, that some of them tend to comment it is a personal attack. Some may understand the censorship to be a personal attack. But I say, RFC is a valid procedure. Thats why it exists. Also censorship is a valid procedure within Czech community. It comes out from Czech Wikipedia and it developed to hide expressive and offensive coments on other users. This procedure as a mean to stop spreading lies starts to be used also on other Czech projects.--Juandev (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Juandev, the history to your dispute is not my business and sways me not an iota to how I undertake my role as a steward. All it indicates to me as an individual is that parties are behaving badly, putting their own egos in front of the projects. I am not sure why you are continuing this discussion, it isn't my business. Go and do good edits is my advice to you, forget the bickering. It is also the same advice that I give to other parties.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If you dont want to be part of this, why you are still involved? Comenting here, and comenting there and again comenting there. --Juandev (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have responded in detail to Juandev's comments here, on User talk:Juandev (permanent link). I hope my explanations there satisfy Juandev. On examination, his evidence does show certain possible problems on cz.wikiversity, but it is entirely up to that community to resolve these, and I wish the best for all parties, as Billinghurst has expressed. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Juandev. My role is a technical role, and that can extend to an explanation and interpretative role. I can have an opinion about what I see. Whereas you are asking me to take a role to explore or comment upon the details of the battles. I have an opinion about what I see are the consequences of the toxic environment, and what I would like to see as an outcome (a member of the broader WMF community) just like anyone else. All your links above demonstrate to me, is that you are in the heart of a battle to get your way, not listening to anyone else's opinion about the big picture and how all people co-exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, never mind. I am going to explore something to my wiki. Thank you for your replyes and have a good day.--Juandev (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

bug 55491 - mentions

It'll happen automatically during the next deployment, no config change necessary; and it's relying on the assumption that users normally won't be signing in ns0 unless they explicitly want to send a notification. Legoktm (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Good-o, thanks. Worse case is we have to clean up something, and we now know about it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert on wikibook

Sorry, I am new to editing, it's taking me a while to figure out all of the talk format.

Regarding the edit:

The original text said: " anisotropic (non-directional) dry-etching " which is a contradiction. ANisotropic is DIRECTIONAL, whereas isotropic is non-directional. XeF2 is known to be ISOtropic, which is non-directional. It was half-right. I fixed the error.

Does that clear it up?

Actually I was reacting to the continued external linking of non source material, not so much the words. Please see en:Wikipedia:External links and en:Wikipedia:Citing sources. A school website does not count as an authoritative source.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #98

Wikidata weekly summary #99

A request from the polish wikisource

Hello Billinghurst,

I was discussing cloak issues with an admin from the polish wikisource and they asked me if by any chance I could get them the full list of PagesWithoutScans because they've been wanting to tackle that backlog organically. I'll be honest, I understand very little of what that even means, but I figured you would and might be able to point them in the right direction. I assume we'd just need to put forward a toolserver query request (or labs query request), but given I don't understand what PagesWithoutScans even are... :D Snowolf How can I help? 19:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • It was my request... Can you help us? If you have any questions, contact me :-) Wieralee (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    @Wieralee: Let me fix the link first PagesWithoutScans. That page shows works/books that are sitting in the main namespace at Polish Wikisource that are not transcluded from the Page: namespace (apply your local ns name), ie. not directly aligned with page scans. That page is present, there is no need for a toolserver reqeust. Happy to continue the discussion elsewhere if you can direct me to where you would like it undertaken. I would think that pl:User:Ankry would have a good understanding of these matters too. If you wish to start a local discussion where I can participate (only in English for me /-:) then please start that discussion, and invite me to it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Proxy block

Hey there. I'm behind a VPN, and these block lists present a quite a bit of trouble. I remember reading something about exemption from these IP blocks, so I was wondering if that could somehow be possible? My user on Wikipedia is the same one as here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have granted you a local IP block exemption at English Wikipedia with my admin rights there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Steward requests/Permissions is a steward work forum

We're talking about a community that has no volunteers. I waited a week for answers on Wikinews, and then I open the application. Just look at the history.
After that, when the application was at Meta, two guys, who have reportedly have problems with me, go there and say s about me, and more, one of them goes beyond any acceptable limit and he does it in all communities that I try to collaborate, including blocks without a second opinion since he is steward.
That said, the rationale for not approve did not come from the community, but from a Steward, and was a weak and incoherent justification. Plus, conflicted, since he was involved in another episode used as a argument.
So, in that case, which was I expected a response from the community, but had no community, and that the decision was purely based on a decision of the Steward, yes, the discussion would have to be there.
Last point, I did not "complain" because they closed without review, I "complained" because the Steward selected comments that did not please him, and removed, simply because he wanted to. That's censorship, this is not the rationale that you tried to say to me, because if my text was removed, it would be valid, but the text was made a third person...

Steward was to protect the Movement, not as a weapon in personal matters. But here you do not allow a person to collaborate with maintenance, for not simply personal issues.

Thank you for the answer. And let's see if, at least, this request you help the community and do not give excuses of a personal nature. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 10:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you are debating me, and missing the point that I was making. You need to understand that the SRP page is not for debates. If there are to be debates they need to take place other than there. I have no opinion on the validity, or not, of your request, it was dealt with by two stewards both with bureaucrat experience and their proxy bureaucrat hats on their heads, and who both arrived at the same conclusion. A third PoV is not going to help.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #100

Martini Racing article changes

Why have you deleted my contribution? It was according to the wikipedia philosophy.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Not sure which edit was yours, nor at which wiki. Presumably you were adding a link, and it wasn't in line with our philosophy of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia, and not a directory of links. The local policies will explain it, however, I will point you to en:Wikipedia:External links and if that is not the right language, there may be an interwiki link to your language.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #101

Hardblocking of thousands?

Hello! Why the hard block for [7]? --Pxos (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pxos: Xwiki vandalism from a right nuisance at your ISP. About to write and complain to them tonight. It was a short term measure, and was meant to be taken off earlier by those dealing with other components. Quick checks of meta didn't show many active users in the range at the time of the block, so we took our chances. As an admin, you shouldn't have been affected by the block due to the right Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt). Where were you affected by this?  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't affected at all. There was a discussion on Finnish WP about the block, and I discovered that the block was a hard one possibly affecting dozens of registered users. I'm looking forward to hearing whether you will get a response from the ISP. If we are talking about the same persistent and industrious fellow as on fi-wiki, I understand the reasons for blocking him. --Pxos (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@Pxos: Compiling data as we speak. Re the user, as can be expected, I can neither deny nor confirm your perceptiveness. There were three range blocks placed last night, and I will review them as I work through this data collection, and either remove or convert to soft blocks. It was 2.30am for me at the time, and had to leave the remaining cleanup then, for those who were more awake than me. FWIW I had an email to another fi provider about ten days ago and have heard nothing in response, though to note that I can be dogged in my attempts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Was this accidental? If not, please explain what I did wrong. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic redrawing of watchlist MEH!  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Tq. Yosri (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #102

Wikidata weekly summary #103


If you unblocked this user at Wikisource, this means he should be able to edit there. What gives stewards the legitimacy to prevent him from doing so? ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Really DanielTom. Mind your own business.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't you answer my question? ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Choice and ability are different capabilities. You should learn to choose better. Again ... mind your own business.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #104


Can my acoount Ismael755 be unlocked now please? 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty much out of action for at least the next few days, and maybe a week, so cannot progress anything like this at this time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
So can my account be unlocked when possible? 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello Billinghurst, my name is Erjanik, i am user from Armenian Wikipedia, at first sorry for my not better English, may be you can help us with one question, in all Wiki projects font changed, example in Armenian wikipedia we want change font? is it possible ?, one of Armenian wikipedia user Xelgen changed somethings, may be he can also change now: --ERJANIK (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@ERJANIK: There has been a global change and the information is at mw:Typography Refresh. The page has information about where to discuss the matter. Note that if you want a quick change, change to the monobook skin.

This was announced at Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2014/14 and in the previous edition. It would be worthwhile getting the newsletter delivered to you, Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, thank you, and one question also, can user upload her photograph and use it in her account page in wikipedia? if yes which license must has this picture free or not free ? : Thanks before hand, best regards` --ERJANIK (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the rules for Armenian WP for uploads, you will need to check there. Wikimedia Commons does allow users to upload an image for their user pages, and you can get information about uploads and other help information at Commons:FAQ. Please make sure that you identify it as a user image for your user page, and to use it. It will need to have some level of free license, that later link will have information available for Commons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thank you: --ERJANIK (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #105


Why you Blocking to me in Wikipedia? I'm Not Cross-wiki (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC) As you haven't included any information, I can only hazard a guess that your underlying IP address is blocked, as I haven't blocked your account. The place for review is SRG.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My ip i'm not spammer,it's error. See- You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Billinghurst ( The reason given is Cross-wiki spam: (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in my last message, and is stated in the edit pane, all requests should be taken to SRG. I do not take them on this page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Further, you clearly did not check the given url. Your request will be denied due to issues with that IP address, which is spamming. You may need to fix your security.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #106

Steward requests/Global

Hello Billinghurst;

Will you please take a look at my request in here? You did not answered my request, so, I have uploaded a shot for the message with all IP address shot

Thank you

--جافيد (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Done

Please login to edit?!

At least read the message in your talk page, sir. I put a shot (Shot means photo), but you did not take one a look at it. If I made edits at arwiki & commons, thats because a free vpn I had used which I will not use any more. Thanks & next time read well before making an answer.

--جافيد (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Have you seen my first message?!

Wikidata weekly summary #107

Wikidata weekly summary #108

IP Block Exemption

I am requesting IP block exemption on the English Wikipedia. I am asking here because of my IP block on that wiki. I am not involved in the disruption. I want to contribute in good faith despite the unrelated block. Please respond to my message. Sefcik (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not one that I can do. Either contact @JamesBWatson: or follow the instructions at w:en:Wikipedia:IPBE as it is a checkuser block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


Why delete??? Pannage.

This is problem? -
Wikipedias are encyclopaedias, not sites for links or self reference. Please stop adding your url everywhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Only question!!!!!!!! No spam!!!! Now ok???? [8]
Next time, please remove only the link, not the whole editing!! And please answer the question!!

It was intended that this is just a sample, not spam. It comes from my HTML code. To not an infringement of copyright.

The wikipedias are encyclopaedias, not pages for your branding, please stop it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I know!! You read what I wrote!!

Why the blacklisting of ereticopedia is different

[9]. This blacklisting is very different, because there is no identified abuse prior to blacklisting, the only link additions were after blacklisting, using an alternate URL, and all of these few were completely appropriate for the articles. is an international collaboration, with an editorial panel of academics from many countries, and an academic supervisory board, and is published by an academic press. This site would probably be considered reliable source, this is far, far from ordinary spam.

I did not request delisting from a personal desire to use the site, though that desire has arisen since. I requested it because there appears to be no legitimate basis for the undiscussed blacklisting.

It appears that the blacklisting steward incorrectly believes the site is operated by a user that he has long considered banned. The user in question, kurt4, is possibly associated with the site, he could be one of the 14 members of the editorial board [], all young academics.

That is not the person who added the only links I found, the IP evidence is clear, and, as you pointed out, that would be irrelevant even if it were the allegedly banned user. It would be grounds for removing the links, to allow editorial review, but not for blacklisting the site.

Massive addition of links by a COI editor has been a basis for blacklisting in the past. This is not the situation here.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. --Abd (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You have expressed your point of view, and others have expressed theirs. There is a means through a blacklist, and I provided that to you. That is the purpose of the page where the discussion took place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
That is correct, Billinghurst. I will follow that procedure. (You meant "whitelist.") I had some hope that this might be resolved with less fuss; I intend to address the policy issues with RfC, given that the steward community seems disinterested. --Abd (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean whitelist. You jump to assumptions, and make false assertions. Is your understanding that poor? I would recommend that you review what you say, and where you say it. It does not come across as trying to be helpful, or useful, it just comes across as troublemaking with a swag of "look at me!"  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, if you didn't mean "whitelist," then I have no idea what you meant by "a means through a blacklist, and I provided that to you." Apparently my "understanding must be that poor." I thought you were referring to [10], where you advised seeking whitelisting. What did you mean? Where did you "provide" it? --Abd (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #109

you mind checking (I don't have enough time to check, sorry).

User:COIBot/LinkReports/ .. seems to contain an old test edit with a lot of redirect sites (one of them you just blacklisted, The others should, even pre-emptively, be blacklisted as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There will be a plethora of them, and last time I did a search I found large lists, and we will never get them all, so I would rather just deal with them as they crop up.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I tend to just not care - if I see them used on a social network, I blacklist them - prevent the abuse (what do you think of these three hits:
  • 21:06, 9 May 2014 Ppie223 (talk | contribs | block) caused a spam blacklist hit on The Hidden Wiki by attempting to add
  • 21:04, 9 May 2014 Ppie223 (talk | contribs | block) caused a spam blacklist hit on The Hidden Wiki by attempting to add
  • 21:02, 9 May 2014 Ppie223 (talk | contribs | block) caused a spam blacklist hit on The Hidden Wiki by attempting to add http://zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion.
)? Exactly what we try to avoid I would say. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(also note the real edits by this account, I think they did use one in the past:

People seem to be constantly trying .. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, as I see them used I block them. Re the pasted log file, someone needs a clip across the back of the head.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Billinghurst! Where is the complaint that has been lodged at meta with regard to my friend Asmên's use of a block function? We couldn't find it. Can you give us the link? The blocked person (Marmase) is a hopeless case. He isn't interested in a conversation and he doesn't respond accordingly. He has several different user names everywhere in the wiki. He always acts by copy and paste principle and upsets all the stuff. From the blocked names here, go most of them on his account. With kind regards! -- Mirzali (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not that hard to find Special:Contributions/Marmase. That the user isn't interested in a conversation isn't the point, as an admin with the power you are expected to have the conversation. Admins set the standard and the example and are not expected to drop their standards to the level of the pissants.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Block ip

Not cool.

Follow the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Ping from Ningauble

I replied to your inquiry at q:en:User talk:Ningauble#Spam filters. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Message posted on your user page

Help! I am still blocked! I need to make urgent edits, have no time, everything must be done by the end of the day for one festival! Help! Can you at least unblock my i p for the 10 minutes! 10 minutes only! It won-t take more! please help — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) Message moved here by Mathonius (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism documentation page

Hey there,

thanks for fulfilling my block request despite the insatisfactory info provided. Would a page (as a subpage of a userpage) documenting a cross-wiki vandal and in particular his IP adresses be in the scope/allowed of meta.wikipedia? I guess it qould be more useful here then on one of the language versions. Thanks, --Controlling (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the referencing material is put, it is just a matter of having it and by the name that is commonly being used, especially on newer cases or cases where someone starts going xwiki. It can even be a quick summary in the initial post at SRG as long as it is enough to describe the behaviour sufficiently. If it is a link, then we could use COIBot pages. Whichever suits your methodology of collection. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If you're interested, the page is user:Controlling/Twin City Vandal. --Controlling (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #111

csWikiversity: How should I proceed?

Several days ago, you stopped the discussion about the admin rights of Danny B. on the czech Wikiversity. You stated it should be discussed on the czech Wikiversity itself. But how? Who should discuss? For a long time, I hoped I could cooperate with Danny B., but recently, I am losing my hope (see my posting in that talk). In many discussions, I argued against the users who thought Danny B. shlould be desysoped. Now, I start to agree with them. The communication with Danny B. grows more and more difficult, he is blocking development steps the other users agreed to go, but not willing to formulate his own proposals (other than "this is bad"). How should I proceed? --Mmh (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You were discussing it at SRP which is stewards' workspace, not a discussion place. The place for the discussion is csWV, where the community discuss it (primarily in Czech) and then the result brought to stewards. Are you saying that you are physically blocked from having that discussion?  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mmh, maybe, that collegue billinghurst feels some more sympaty to Danny B. than to his (Danny B.'s) opposers, so maybe he could be slightly biased. How about to ask another steward (I appologize Mr. billinghurst for so saying, I only try to find better way to solve mentioned problem, please don't be angry, if my english sounds not so politely, as I wish, as I'm not so good in it)... --Kusurija (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You will see that my approach on this matter is consistent with the role that stewards are to play, and how similar discussions are directed when brought to stewards. Making an assertion that I am biased is unfair and not supported by the evidence. I will more fully address this when I am home.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. This is a csWV community issue, and can only be determined by that community. I was not stopping your conversation, I was directing what was obviously an ongoing discussion to be held away from a stewards' work page (not a discussion page) . The only place that a community's consensus can be determined to have occurred is on the wiki itself, which is why the discussion needs to be there as you are determining what you are asking stewards to do.

I favour no-one and as I have said on wiki there appears to have been poor behaviour on both sides. Re Danny B, he has privately had my advice on how I believe that he should act, and he has declined to follow my suggestion. Influence is the only authority that a single steward can have at a self-managing wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not be so sure, it was a continuation of a conservation. I would call it a different way. Look at cs.wv. Why the conservation doesnt continue there? I belive, when well move another requesto to you, the same people, who doest edit main ns at wikiversity will rise again on Meta and start the conservation to block the process.--Juandev (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Juandev, you are being argumentative and how you call it with your subjective PoV is irrelevant. Deal with the reality, not the hypothetical.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So anyone who will discuss at SRP can block the decission?--Juandev (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your question doesn't make sense to me. SRP is where a community decision is placed for steward's action. The continuing discussion had me return it to the community until it reached its conclusion. Nothing more, nothing less.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Billinghurst, your statement the discussion should be returned to the community until it reaches its conclusion means, you cannot (or don't want to) help us. As I tried to explain, there will be no conclusion in the discussion in csWV: there are two "parties" there, the first admin (and several inactive users) on the one side, the second admin (and severeal active users) on the other side. We can discuss the problems more and more and ever on csWV, but we are only wasting the time we could better use for working on the contents.

But, if you aren't able or willing to help us for yourself, you could still give me an advice, how I should proceed, or to whom I should talk. --Mmh (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You are presuming about what is a hypothetical outcome; which may or may not end up there. However, until the discussion is concluded, stewards cannot do anything. If there is a consensus, we can act on the proposal; if there is not a consensus, then stewards cannot act. I have previously pointed to what is stewards role in WMF wikis, however, maybe it is worth pasting it here …

… [stewards] are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, and dealing with emergencies such as cross-wiki vandalism. Stewards are empowered to act as members of any permissions group on any project with no active member of that permissions group. For example: wikis without administrators may call upon stewards to fulfill that role; stewards will act as bureaucrats as needed on wikis without bureaucrats.

If you are looking for magic wand solutions, they don't exist. If you are looking for a person with a sweeping authoritative action, they don't exist. [Community consensus is it.

A steward cannot tell you how to progress a removal of an admin, outside of community discussion and the outcome of consensus. Once they do, they are being interventionist, and therefore part of the community, and would have to recuse from further actions of stewardry in that area. Outside of that the only means that stewards can act is by collective decision where a community is completely dysfunctional, and on the last occasion we basically removed all advanced rights from the community members.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems, that we have problem understanding You and/or You have a problem with understanding us. As to my opinion, You answered to other question, than Mmh (and me too) is interested in. Maybe there is some language barriere so that happens so. Maybe there are some words we understand in different way: 1. consensus: can "aliens" make (by my understanding false) consensus? 2. community: who can be counted as part of community (cf. Ukraine.)? Who can be excluded from number of part of community, as working residue of community wishes it? May that be an IP adress with only one redaction case (a vote)? May that be some permanently blocked user via his puppet? May that be someone else? May community decide, who can vote? Must someone superwise such decision? According to Your answer, one could understand, that there is NO consensus in cs.wikiversity on case of Danny B.'s desysoping. DO You think, that he has much more support, than needed for sysoping? Do You mean, that this voting procedure says something other? Maybe it would be by Your opinion repeated? Maybe is needed something else? But this is the question, which asked Mmh. Why You couldn't simply answer directly to that question? Or - do You think, that You really answered directly to our questions? And thank You, You really answered about problems, which are closely related. What (concretely) shall we do? How proceed it? --Kusurija (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it is nuance. A conversation was still continuing with csWV participants [there on a stewards' workspace] such that the inference is that the community had not finished the conversation. Therefore I sent it back to your community to continue [not at a stewards' workspace] until it was complete, then the community can bring the result back to stewards [without checking my exact words at the time, that is what I believe that I said]. I was making no (zero) judgement on the case brought on counts or anything, and it is not one in which I will be the decision-maker, as I have had an involvement, and I do not wish for any decision made by stewards to have any consideration of bias.

With regard to consensus, there is no exact definition, it is part art, part science judged by experience. I would believe that a steward would see what standard the community had set previously, what may have been declared for the discussion, and what passes for consensus in their experience. Some communities have set procedures on what a vote should be, and my home community of English Wikisource uses a simple vote to confirm its admins (on an annual basis). To an interpretation of community voice(s), to me the opinion of known community contributors (active users will always be predominant whether they are an account or an IP address), but only one opinion, so socks don't get another counting opinion.

I was asked directly what I believed that you should do. It is not my place to say who, or how, it is your community, not mine, you know that community better than me already. I definitely cannot, and will not, take sides, so I provide neutral commentary and neutral suggestions. In the end it is only the community that can decide, and that is by participating in discussion, and working things out like mature adults. There may need to be compromise, seek mediation from a neutral party, or just sweep away all administrative participant, and start again; yours to work out. Sure, I have an opinion, but my opinion counts for nothing, it isn't my community, I know nothing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You say you have to stay neutral in this conflict. But you cannot stay neutral if there are two different statements about the consensus of the community. You have to decide which statement you believe, or that you do not believe any. You can see the voting procedure Kusurija has linked — you can see the statistics below. This was the consensus — but how do you interprete it? I am not asking you to be a judge, I am asking you to be an advisor. --Mmh (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mmh: 1) I won't be making the decision, and I have said that previously. 2) Determining what is a consensus is remaining neutral (it an assessment only). Giving advice on what and where a steward would need to see to make a decision is remaining neutral. Giving advice on what specific steps users should undertake to remove an admin is not neutral. I also don't feel comfortable coming in and providing a preliminary count, such a statement can be used to influence the determinator. 3) When all the conversation is believed to be undertaken, and you believe that the community has reached a consensus that can be brought to stewards, then provide an interim summary at the page at csWV of what you believe is consensus, and if that is going to stewards, then wait a few days, then take it to stewards. Stewards will make a determination based on what they see. [If the community continues discussion at meta, that may again be an indicator that it should be returned to csWV as incomplete]  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #112


Hi Andrew! Congrats with the oversight rights on meta. Don't forget to subscribe to mail:meta-oversight if you haven't done that already. Trijnsteltalk 19:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I had done nothing as iut all happened while I slept and fulfilling obligations under the terms of the "she-who-must-be-obeyed/happy life" contract. I have invited myself and await their response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #113


why you blocked me? Ive been working for hours and you simply blocked me! that's so embarrassing please unblock, thanks in favour -- 17:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This block has been in place for quite an extended period, and my change, last October, actually softened the block.
11:36, 6 October 2013: Billinghurst ( globally blocked (expires on 21 February 2018 at 21:08, anonymous only) (edits · IP check · whois) (Open proxy:, converted to softblock)
The block requires you to login to a Wikimedia account to edit, and that appears to be due to spambots in the range. If you need to create an account, please create one at Special:CreateAccount.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Wikidata weekly summary #115


I note that you have added to the blacklist per my request. However, I discover that it can still be added as a reference to the English Wikipedia. What have I missed? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"I cannot add it here or at enWP. Are you trying to add it to a page where it is a new link? Or is it a page where the link currently exists? If the latter, there is some sort of internal whitelist for existing links, or something like that. I have never been able to work out the arcane logic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I have tried adding it as a new link (diff). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@DieSwartzPunkt: SBL doesn't work that way. It only works for hyperlinks. It will work if you entered but not for --Glaisher (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it had just dawned on me as well. I omitted the 'http://' Doh! Thanks for your help anyway. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@DieSwartzPunkt: if you are concerned that the 'link' is being added as text, then you will need to get a local administrator to write an abuse filter to tag, or block the addition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Not at present. the problem was entirely down to sheer incompetence on my part. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@DieSwartzPunkt: Ahem, that is my ™ … hands off!  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #116

Abuse filter: new user youtube, &c.

I was attempting to create a page on in order to test some changes that went into 1.24wmf12 with respect to how references are handled in the absence of a references tag or template. In addition to testing what the entire page would look like without a references section, I also wanted to test section edits which require that I have a copy that is saved from which I can edit a section. Given that I was wanting to test real world conditions, I attempted to clone en:Kepler (spacecraft) into User:Makyen/sandbox/test references section/test01 (appropriately attributed in the edit summary, and with the categories removed). As it turned out, I ran into the global abuse filter "new user youtube, &c." which you recently edited.

I found it very frustrating to still be running into this filter even after removing all youtube references from the cloned text. I then went to try to view the filter to see what was still being detected and found that it is private. With this filter being private it is impossible to determine what needs to be removed from the text in order not to be detected. I would appreciate it if you could either make it public, or provide a title/description that provides enough information to know what to remove to not be matching this filter.

Obviously, I can find another real world article to test against. However, I have used this article previously for other testing and am familiar with it. I may, or may not get back to this testing after some sleep. Makyen (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Makyen: make a few ordinary edits anywhere on the wiki, and then you should be okay to go.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #117

sysop rights

Hi, billinghurst, it's one day after now. Please remove my rights. Thanks. --Pagony (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry, it will be done. We have a process, built around case history, to wait a day, so we do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #118


I need your assistance to unblock my IP

It is a soft block, which means that to edit from that IP address you need to be logged into your WMF account. If you don't have a WMF account, then you can create one at special:CreateAccount  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Maithili Wikipedia

Dear Billinghurst, the Maithili Wikipedia project, although still in Incubator, has reached the strength of about 450 pages. Could you provide guidelines about getting it out as a full fledged Wiki - possibly --Muzammil (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, let us ping @MF-Warburg and SPQRobin: who are far more knowledgeable in this area.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


You're a retard for blocking me i did nothing wrong i use this to make the world a better place thank you. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Oh dear, really? You have such manners, I so just want to help you more now. When you come back in a polite and mature way, I am happy to explain the easy way for you to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

crat/sysop on various wikis

Hey, may you just wait for few months... I am back, but I am doing mostly off-wiki tasks. However, it's possible that I will need Wiktionary and Wikinews permissions (though, not Wikibooks, definitely). I will have precise clue in few months, after I realize how much time I have, counting a number of (off-wiki) projects which I am starting now. --Millosh (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Millosh: Knew that you were back and around at some wikis, though presumed that for all wikis it wouldn't be the case. I dropped you the note so we didn't start to ping all those wikis, and you could resign those that you didn't want, and edit somewhere on each, so I could tick them off, and get them off the counter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #119

Admin at et.wikipedia

Hi Billinghurst, I saw your message in my talk and I have to say you that I have never been a sysop on et.wikipedia. In 2005, the year of my supposed election on that wiki, my account was not yet created. After that I have read your message I tried to log into et.wikipedia but without success. I think that this misunderstanding has been caused by the unification in a global account and the my probably acquisition of a nickname of a precedent user. Nice to meet you, --KS (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@KS: Thanks for making contact, I appreciate that. I see that the etWP account of the same name is not joined to your SUL. One of the other available tools that I was using has concatenated the data, and I didn't even think to check the truthfulness of the output. I will make a note against that account that it is not you, so we don't bother you again later.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! --KS (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your reply on SUL request

Hi Billinghurst, I did not want to overwrite your "nothing stewards can do" message but I added another question to the Doncsecz section after your reply. Can you please check it? Cheers Csigabi (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to talk at Wikimania?

Hi Billinghurst,

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller and video producer for the Wikimedia Foundation. I'll be looking to capture stories about Wikimedians at Wikimania in London in a week. Here is an example of the kind of thing that I'm aiming to do. I saw that you're attending Wikimania and I was wondering if you might have some time to talk about what do you on Wikimedia projects. I see that you are mainly interested in getting public domain material onto Wikisource - Awesome! I'd be happy to chat about that. Anyway let me know if you are interested, I'll be at Wikimania from the 6th-10th of August and would need maybe 30 minutes of your time. I can answer any questions you may have. Thanks!

Vgrigas (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vgrigas: Sure, I will have time, and will be there the same period. Not sure that I would consider myself photogenic. What do I do? I mop. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Great! Would you like to chat earlier, maybe on the 6th or the 7th? I'm reaching out to so many people, it's best if we can continue the conversation by email: vgrigas(at) :) Vgrigas (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Vgrigas: Emailed, days are fine  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Users with not very serious names created at the same time

Hello SDrewth, do you think these users on fr.wikisource ought to be checked, and if you think so could you check them? Thanks a lot! --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zyephyrus: Moved this in a modified form to SRCU and answered it there. Blocked the accounts following discussion with Phe, and Yannf. While there I have added some spambot filters after askikng Yannf whether they would be of use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #120

Good to meet you at Wikimania

It was good to meet you at Wikimania in London. Thanks for unblocking the IP range where my server is hosted. The tool I'm working on is called 'find link', given an article it will suggest other articles that could link to it. The tool is linked to from the Orphan box template on English Wikipedia. Saving is currently handled by returning Javascript that bounces uses to the diff previous save page on Wikipedia, but in future I hope to switch to saving using the API and OAuth. Thanks again for the unblock. edward (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #121

Help needed to overcome Wiki-mail sending limit

Dear Billinghurst, I often write for Wikimedia Foundation blog about various language Wikipedia communities, e.g. Punjabi Wikipedia, Sanskrit Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia, Urdu Wikipedia, etc. In this connection, I need to send Wiki-mails to a number of respondents. As expected, I get only a handful of responses from the total number of recipients. While I respect the right of individual Wikipedians to respond or not to do so, and I do not complain about non-responding persons, I request you to kindly help me in overcoming the daily mail-sending limit as I AM NOT SENDING ANY SPAM. I only conduct surveys which showcase Wikipedia communities. Please help me. My Username: Hindustanilanguage. --Muzammil (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You should get a group with "noratelimit" rights on the wikis you're sending mail from. --MF-W 14:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: How should I proceed with that? Besides, I generally choose Meta or English Wikipedia to send such emails. The reason being the fact that, for example, I know nothing of Punjabi. But I need to contact Punjabi Wikipedians for responses. Can you help me on Meta, please? --Muzammil (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hindustanilanguage: At each village pump for the wikis of concern, state that you are applying for that right, and ask for any comment. After a week, if the community is not against the granting of the right, then you can ask at SRP for a steward to grant that right for that community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply and hope you've had a great time at Wikimania. Wonder if you met my ex-colleague P Subhashish from India during the event.
I don't find a village pump on Meta. How do I apply here? I am asking this because take the case of my writeups on Esperanto or Punjabi Wikipedia. Whatever I've done is a onetime activity. I need not be requiring send emails to the members UNLESS I'VE GOT A GOOD REASON FOR IT. So work extends research across many Wikis and repetition, as of now, is unforeseeable. Please help me in getting this right on Meta. --Muzammil (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to use meta for sending such mail, rather than the specific wikis, then you need to place your request at WM:RFH  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your custom version of StewardScript

Hi Billinghurst. I noticed you have a custom version of StewardScript at User:Billinghurst/pathoschild.stewardscript.js. Would you be interested in becoming a maintainer on the new Tool Labs version of the scripts? Either way, I'll incorporate your changes into the official version. Thanks! —Pathoschild 15:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Pathoschild:. That would be great if you would do that. As you know, I am not a real hacker, though I am reasonably comfortable adding snippets when I can steal copy and replicate someone else's efforts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I added you to the Git repository and the Tool Labs project. I usually make my changes & test in a local copy of the Git repository, then push them live on Tool Labs (become meta; cd git/wikimedia-contrib; git pull). Feel free to merge in the changes you already made! :) —Pathoschild 20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment, etc

I was bothered and offended by comming across a racial slur name that should be visibly kicked off of any project it's on, not just as a username violation, but to show that no WMF community accepts racism, even when it's been overlooked or missed for a while. I was simply doing what I felt was right, and now you tell me I'm the asshole on this one? Fuck you Andrew, you arrogant shitbag. You leave me alone elsewhere, and I'll do the same with you. Feel free to block my account. INeverCry 21:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@INeverCry: So you are upset about an insulting username, and you come here and leave a comment insulting a user in the process. This seems a bit off to me... reacting to incivility with incivility. --Rschen7754 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
What caused that rant? Nothing that I said should bring such a reaction. You came to stewards and you got a response, and now you don't like it. What you are proposing to do puts that word out there in full display, and sets up further conversation and may upset multiple people ... It is not incivil to point that out to you, or to put an emphasis that what you are doing may have negative consequences, despite your good intentions.
Old inactive accounts are virtually done and dusted, whereas new accounts would invoke a different response. It is a less than perfect world, learn to accept that it is a balance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #122

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Poor revision from you

Dear user Billinghurst,

I have noticed that you reverted 3 pages that I have altered to the previous version they had.

The only issue is that probably by the fact that you are not able to speak Portuguese you removed relevant content from Wikipedia. Please indicate the reason why you reverted and removed relevant content that other users will no longer be able to access.

My revisions included gramatical and orthographic corrections that you reverted. I just don't understand it...

I am not trying to challenge your status, however, I think you went way beyond your knowledge/skills this time.

Regards, Ellen

@Pabst.ell: Feel free to redo the grammatical changes. Please omit the links to which as a blog is not an encyclopaedic quality link that is required for WPs, and to which you had a tendency to add and would have been the target of the reversions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed page move closure

Although the discussion sort of [d]evolved into an RfD there was no consensus to move the page either. So I think the closing reason should be clarified. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

about suggestion on ULS talk page

Hi, I read and took note of your suggestion on ULS talk page at Mediawiki. I am waiting for some stats from ULS team to come after August end and after studying those stats I shall implement your suggestion.

Thanks for your suggestions and warm regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Thanks for the note. English Wikisource now has full webfonts reactivated, so as time permits, I intend to look to house some adjunct help pages, and we will have the ability to fully represent fonts. And we will host these until they are able to be moved to a more suitable site once whichever site that is has webfonts back.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #123

TemplateScript and StewardScript updates

Hello Billinghurst. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of...

If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 00:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pathoschild: thanks for the migration and the update. Thanks for all that you do to maintain these tools, and to support the community; your work is invaluable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of message on Small Wiki Monitoring Team

Why did you remove my message - is there something wrong in posting it here in order to find intersted editors who like to work on small Wikis, or is the Small Wiki Monitoring team against expanding content on those Wikis? CFCF (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is completely wrong place to put it. That page is for those who monitor the small wikis for spam.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? How is providing content to small Wikis irrelevant to that project?
Do you personally know that noone there has so much as a fleeting interest in actually working to curate content on small Wikis? Just today we have released the following to "small" Wikis:
Most other project-pages allow messages to invite editors to help out on other projects with similar goals. Is The Small Wiki Monitoring Team unique in that it doesn't? CFCF (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you even read the first line at SWMT? Apart from that I told you above, and still you come here and telling me that I don't know what I am talking about after years working in the area. When you don't know what you are talking about, then it is probably worthwhile stopping talking. Now please go, and read, and stop berating me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand, it is my profound belief that anyone working on small Wikis in whatever way may also be interested in seeing them grow and potentially prosper. The demands of our project are not limited to translation itself, as I tried to make clear. In order to provide content it is necessary to run many maintenance tasks, such as building and installing templates–and at the same time assuring that content on the Wikis is left in a decent state. Seeing as the scope of SWMT is similarly maintenance-focused, I thought it possible that individuals working on SWMT could be interested in building the framework needed for actual content. If you feel I am berating you, maybe you should have taken the time to explain your motives before simply reverting ad lib.CFCF (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone coïncidentally noticing this small discussion, I need to agree with CFCF in this case. Though the post does not fit 1:1 to the SWMT's scope, it might be something SWMT members are interested in. And speaking as a SWMT member, I can surely confirm the SWMT consists of a few users willing to work on small wiki's infrastructure and helping them to develop. Regards, Vogone (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #124

Section move

Thank you for moving the section to my own talk, please feel free to comment or to act as you prefer. --M/ (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you contact me on email? --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kolega2357: I tend not to do business by email. I have found it preferable to act openly, and to be seen to do so, though that doesn't preclude me receiving information if that is necessary. If it is stewards' business, then you can email stewards(_AT_)  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Billinghurst. Do you know the mail for permissions in sr and who can handle it if a user would send one? Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz talk 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@WizardOfOz: The mail queue is permissions-sr(_AT_), though I know not if anyone is tending the queue. @Tiptoety and Rjd0060: ???  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but answer will be on bosnian, so i will ask dungo or someone other who understand it for ticket. Thanks once again. --WizardOfOz talk 13:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@WizardOfOz: There is no specific Bosnian language queue that I can see. So the choice is as above, or to send it to the generic queue -sr, and again, I know not who pokes that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I know, therefore I´m using sr. Did it already once with dungo so it will be ok. Thanks anyway --WizardOfOz talk 13:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It does appear that permissions-sr is monitored, but that response times are not great. The queue currently only has two tickets in it one of which has been open for 33 days. Tiptoety talk 02:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Dear billinghurst, thank You very much for this edit. --Kusurija (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It is one of two to the administrators on site.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #125

Vandalism report for Beleiutz

Hello, Billinghurst.

I don't think we've crossed paths too often before—I'm primarily active on copyright cleanup on English Wikipedia and on Commons. You may recall that in response to various requests from myself and User:Callanecc, you applied global locks [11] [12] to sockpuppets operated by Beleiutz, a user who has been engaging in years-long disruption across various Wikimedia projects through promotion and copyright violations. (Beleiutz also has a history of claiming to be or to represent celebrities and company directors; User:Mdennis (WMF) recently acted on a case where Beleiutz was impersonating a WMF official.)

I recently filed a global lock request for the latest cross-wiki sockpuppet [13], and was surprised to find an uninvolved user, User:Abd, immediately leap to Beleiutz's defence, starting a cross-wiki campaign to rehabilitate him and to obstruct or reverse his blocks. This would be of little concern to me, except that most of Abd's efforts seem to be aimed at discrediting me personally. This is strange as I'm far from the only person tagging and reverting Beleiutz's socks, and Beleiutz is not the only long-term spammer/copyright violator currently handled this way by myself and others. I don't recall having had any prior interactions with Abd.

Nonetheless, Abd moved an abuse report on Beleiutz which I'd been maintaining at Vandalism reports to a dedicated project-space page, refactored and edited my own comments while leaving my original signature in place, and filled it with annotations highlighting my involvement (but not anyone else's) [14]. Within a day he dumped nearly 20 kilobytes of text into the report and its talk page which, among other things, speculate that I am myself a perpetrator of long-term abuse, belittle my edit count, imply that I'm impersonating an administrator, speculate about my ethnicity, and label me as "hostile, vengeful, punitive" [15]. Meanwhile, on Commons, he called my competence and impartiality into question in an effort to overturn the block of the latest Beleiutz sockpuppet [16] and continued his complaints even after a checkuser confirmed the identification [17].

In some of his shorter posts (such as [18]) I can see that literally every single statement he makes is false—I hesitate to say "a lie", since I have no idea whether he's being wilfully deceptive or just carelessly neglecting to research his claims. However, most of his contributions are just giant walls of text containing all sorts of bizarre inferences and half-baked speculations about me, Beleiutz, and project policies, which I couldn't hope to read carefully enough to rebut point by point. I regret to say I already responded to a couple of his shorter posts before I realized who I was dealing with [19] [20]. Having read through the complaints from his community ban discussion I see a lot of similarities to what's going on now ("placing huge walls of text", "maintaining unacceptable pages" to gather "evidence", "support for other site-banned editors", "participation at… sister-project sites where they pursue the same agenda", "massive timesink", "massive communication issues", "blatant ignorance of anti-socking policy", etc.).

I've already completely disengaged from him, and would have left things as they are, except that I noticed you and User:M7 recently intervened in a similar problem with Abd [21]. If the present incident with myself is a continuation of the same or similar behaviour, then I suggest it's time to do something to curb his disruption here on Meta. Otherwise, I'm happy to migrate my report on Beleiutz to en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse where it can be communally maintained without further interference. (In which case, would it be OK if we moved Abd's version to his own userspace?) —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gday @Psychonaut:. To let you know that abd watches this page, as we have had (umm) disagreements previously and discussions about actions and their appropriateness. I am not in disagreement with your assessments, though I will admit to standing up for due process, not necessarily the person, with some of the proposals surrounding our most significant of sanctions. This user has a specific and some may say unique approach, though while may be okay for an ideal world with ideal people, may not be considered particularly reasonable and practical in the dynamic environment of a wiki, and you have (umm) encountered some of the well-intended earnest advice and opinion. While I have my more personal opinions, and I may share them over a beer, it would be unfair to express them on a talk page. Your opinion and your approach will have been noticed, so hopefully a head will be pulled in somewhat; creating more enemies is not good for a performance review if there are no benefits.
To the specific issue of placement, I would suggest that it can stay where it is, it is now just a subpage of the main, I have added it to my watchlist, it doesn't make a large difference in the end, though amazing how annoying such 'assistance' can be. There is a collapsed section listing subpages, so the page is readily available, and I have added the link for respective checkusers to find it for information. All opinions expressed are noted and evaluated, credibility of approach, knowledge of subject matter, and practicality of desired outcomes are all part of a decision-making process. [What I call the 'Animal Farm' evaluation process]. My suggestion is to continue on offering your advice on the LTA/vandal, and stewards will support actions that have high value preventative actions, and low impacts on other users.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your insightful and reassuring comments, which I have taken under advisement. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no "campaign to reverse [Beleiuz's] blocks." I had reviewed the evidence and the most recent sock report was perhaps premature, and so I requested that the block of Adi Vancica be lifted at Commons. However, Trijnstel then confirmed sock ID, so I dropped that immediately. The Vandalism report Psychonaut had filed long ago was largely unusable, with broken links, and old reports are routinely archived on Vandalism reports, so I created the subpage to collect data and fixed the broken links, and I've been gathering substantially more data, I now see the patterns. From those patterns, Adi Vancica was likely but not certain, that's all. I hadn't seen that collapsed section.... Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Global CSS/JS migration

Hello Billinghurst. I noticed you load User:Mike.lifeguard/removeSpam.js on many wikis (see example). Since your global.js is now loaded automatically on all wikis, do you want me to delete the local scripts with synchbot? —Pathoschild 23:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure @Pathoschild:, if you want. As the Erwin tool is now dead, and seems beyond hope of resurrection, they can be removed. If we get a replacement I will add it then.  — billinghurst sDrewth
Done. You can see the full log on your archive page. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Possibility of adding a Babel tag

Of course, actually I thought I had it since I added it to all wikis by using a bot, but I forgot I had already an user page here so it did not change. Thanks for advising. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(-: thanks for whatever you can do in this space. It is not a requirement, though obviously it is useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #126

Wikidata weekly summary #127

User rights account creator on fr.wikisource

Hi Billinghurst,

Please can you either give me the right to give rights of account creator, or give this right yourself, to User:Ernest-Mtl. Thanks for your help! --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done via SRP. @Zyephyrus: If you wish for the grant rights for "account creator" to be held by frwikisource bureaucrats (s:fr:Spécial:Liste des droits de groupe), then have a local discussion, to reach consensus (and submit a bugzilla request). If you need a hand, then give me a shove and I can explain the technical detail, but to start the conversation, that is the pertinent detail. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #128


Hello Billinghurst. I think that you forgot to remove your checkuser right on fawiki. Regards.--Calak (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

COIBot xwiki review

Hi billinghurst, can you examine my action on User:COIBot/XWiki/ and other COIBot userspace edits (mostly clousures)? I'm newbie to antispam world (especially COIBot), so I want to get second opinion on it, and I saw you have done lots of effors in this area :) — revi 16:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. I usually just place commentary to explain either to myself or to others what I sort of did. More explanation if I think that it needs more, or less if it is obvious.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, one question: Can COIBot configured to stalk a domain addtion on local wiki?(not xwiki) — revi 07:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There are local reports Category:COIBot Local Reports‎, though generally it isn't designed to limit its focus, per wiki as COI and spam are just that, and it doesn't matter whether it is a local wiki or xwiki it is still spam, or CoI.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Then, how can I command to watch addition of some domain? — revi 09:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Available commands at Small Wiki Monitoring Team/IRC  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Tps(Edit conflict.) - User:-revi, do you mean that you want a report for a specific domain? For that, on wiki, there is User:COIBot/Poke - you poke the domain in a LinkSummary template there, and COIBot should save a report for that domain 'shortly' (though it seems to have saving hickups at the moment, I hope to have time in the end of next month to look at those problems). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Billinghurst: Thanks, but seems the commands need some permissions, but I don't have it :(
Beetstra: Thanks, that's what I was looking for! — revi 12:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New Mail

Eurodyne (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no specific opinion about your block on species. My comment was more generic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Re your question on IRC: What did you mean by aligning namespaces? I'm guessing it'll probably require filing a shell bug detailing what needs to be done? Legoktm (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Bugs exist. Talking about aligning/standardising NSs for the WSes, initially defining/declaring a standardised set(s) of NSs that the WSes will use, then working on migrating the WSes to the defined sets. Primary interest is declaring Index: and Page: so components can be set in the governing extension. All stuff that is discussive, such why a name, and managing expectations, so looking for a pointer of the direction (technical or community relationship within WMF)  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #129

Colton Cosmic

Although I appreciate your limiting Coltons block to a year rather than infinite I still think he should have been unblocked. I do not think their intention was to "spam" and it seems to me they simply misunderstood the purpose of this wiki. If someone would have simply asked him to stop sending messages I am sure they would have done that. However, no one did, Snowolf just blocked them indefinitly because she didn't want to hear about a user who is banned from the English WP. A common problem BTW of many editors including myself due to the devolving nature of that Wiki and why they are losing editors and admins faster than they can recruit new ones. Given that Colton had a lot of other good contributions to this Wiki outside the talk page message incident and an apparent misunderstanding of the use of this Wiki, I would encourage you to unblock or at least reduce the duration of his block. I see a potentially useful contributor that is blocked simply as a misunderstanding. That is not why we should be using blocks, especially lengthy duration ones. IMO the problem has been resolved and the user understands what they did wrong, they just do not agree with the block and frankly neither do I. Reguyla (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reguyla, I don't fully concur with your synopsis. I started a polite and helpful response, however, I have reflected on the user's approach on my talk page at enWP subsequent to my shortening the block. I have simply had enough of their overly righteous approach. This is a community, we are volunteers, so when someone is not listening, not evidently modifying behaviour, then becomes insulting, these are not components of misunderstanding. I am choosing not to have any further action, or interaction with this user.

To catch butterflies, one uses something sweet, if one puts down shit, one just get flies. Sometimes life's lessons reflect our own approach.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have read their comments both here and on ENWP and as someone who was in a similar situation (and continue to be) on ENWP I can tell you that its frustrating when you get screwed and no one cares. I am not saying that I agree with everything Colton said or did, but being blocked indefinitely without having so much as a warning first seems extraordinarily stupid. As far as I can see, Colton stated they misunderstood the policy here and that they would not do it again and then others including yourself insisted that they beg forgiveness before they could return. It makes absolutely no sense why you all think that would make the user just go away and giveup. If anything, that sort of conduct and backing editors into corners turns them into vandals, sockmasters and the like. As far as I can tell Colton is simply the latest in a series of editors who were banned from ENWP who feel they were treated unfairly and want to participate but are given no avenue to due so. Reguyla (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If you review my approach, I think that you will find that I am not an obdurate blocker of users of good faith, even those with whom I am in abject disagreement. That said, where a user is blocked, I am wanting to see some change in approach to undo a block of another. This is a community and we need to try to get along, and we all need to give a little. Anyway, as I said, with this case I am finished, and I have expressed why. I would suggest that the user email Teles (as Teles suggested) when they are willing to stop pinging people, and maybe the talk page can be reopened. Either way, a talk page to which I am not returning.

Re enWP, sure it is less than perfect, expectations of perfection are unrealistic as there are these contrary and variable beasts called people involved. The WM2014 talk by Raph Koster may be of interest to you. It is a bunfight to which I wander only a little these days. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't have a dog in this fight and I don't have any ties to Colton so its not that big of a deal to me, I have just been in the same dead end and frustrating situation and I understand where he is coming from. Further I see where he has already said he wouldn't do it anymore if unblocked and I have a problem with admins blocking, especially for long durations without a warning first and especially with editors who had done other goo edits first. That is what causes vandals and the like and that conduct is a poor reflection on admins as a whole. Anyway, I'm not going to keep fighting this because its clear that no one wants him to participate in this project and there clearly isn't anything I can do to change your mind. Reguyla (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Renamers' mailing list

Hi, when you allocated me global renamer rights, you advised me to subscribe to the mailing list (I'm guessing this one). I did that a few days ago, but haven't received a response, possibly because I entered my full name which the list admin didn't recognize. Could you point me to someone who can resolve this? Thank you, — Yerpo Eh? 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that one, and noting the email addresses at the bottom of the page. @Yerpo, Savh, and Trijnstel: If you use IRC, also note that there is a invite channel too.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Yerpo, that is indeed the mailing list. We have received various subscribtions, but to be able to confirm yours, please reply to the e-mail I just send you. Once that is received, I will approve it. Savhñ 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on mediawikiwiki

As a note, in reply to Special:Diff/10376044, sockpuppetry is prohibited on mediawikiwiki per mw:Project:Sock puppetry. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: mediawikiwiki needs to some work there to make their policies accessible.
  • No links to policies from sidebar or mainpage
  • Links to document from Project namespace [22], and ZERO from main ns.
  • Links to project policy [23]
No user could honestly be expected to find that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
And I have been bold and added a link to mw:Special:MyLanguage/Project:Policy from mw:Template:Welcome  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Help request about template at mr-wikibooks

Hi, Seasons Greetings

At this page I am using template b:mr:Template:अविशिष्ट उपपान (equivalent to Template:Random Subpage) b:mr:Template:अविशिष्ट उपपान is imported from mr wikipedia works well on mr-wikipedia and en-wikibooks but is showing some how error at this page on mr-wikibooks. I do not know how comfortable you are with template technicalities. Amongst stuwards earlier I used to communicate with Quentinv57 but currently he seems to be in active so your name came to my mind for requesting the help.

Thank you and warm regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar:Hmm, I find it hard to tell, and the typography makes it hard for me to determine namespaces. This shows pages missing (expand "Templates used on this page:" section). All that said, I am not sure why, and there are so many nested templates there, it is butt ugly to diagnose. Can I ask why you are not trying something using mw:Extension:Random or seeing if that can be made useful for subpages, rather than this complexity? You also speak about a template equilavency, and I don't see that it looks like Template:Random subpage, so maybe you need to find which is the cleanest version.
As a general comment, always wrapping templates inside of <includeonly> means that they don't display well in that section and you miss important information. While it may make a template page display more nicely, you miss things, so I recommend that you don't wrap them to be pretty, unless there is a really good reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Where can I ask for help against these spammers on French WS?

Hello Billinghurst,

Is there any thing we can do with this to-day's attack? Thanks very much! --Zyephyrus (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zyephyrus: quickest is to write a filter that prevents IP addresses adding external urls. There is external url filters at enWS that you can copy, and to limit to IP addresses, utilise user_age = 0 (I think that it is user_age).  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! But it doesn't seem to work. Have I made some error in the frws abuse filter? --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus: I have been and played, and it should be good now. There were posts around upon which to test it, which was successful. I am however, having issues there with the syntax checking button, which is weird as it only is problematic for me at frWS. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #131

Ban at #wikimedia and #wikimedia-stewards

Hello, hope you're right person. Today I tried to login at the said channels and I saw that I've been banned. I wonder, why? I haven't been there for week. My nickname is registered so I suppose it hasn't been used by someone alse. Einsbor (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No idea. Nothing that I have done, nor that I can see that you are banned. @Barras:?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
We've fairly recently globally banned a trouble maker. It might be possible that you are being caught by that due to a similarity you share with the problem user. Please join #wikimedia-ops if you can't join a channel you want to join. Usually someone is around who can then help or fix the problem. Sorry for the inconvenience. -Barras talk 23:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This was due to the recent gban on a specific client. I informed Einsbor about this yesterday on IRC and the problem was solved by using another client. --Glaisher (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #132


<redacted statement>

There is a process to which you have been directed, please utilise it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me even 1 public example where the suggested process has worked? Why is the administrative "WP:OFFICE" process not available to coordinate between me and legal for such disputes ?
WMF Legal deals with legal issues to which you have been provided with their email address, not volunteers, not user talk pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)