Open main menu

User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2017

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

unblock 167.114.102.230 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I put the global block in place, I am no longer a steward, so I cannot assist directly. Unblock requests should be made at SRG. Looking at the global block itself, I doubt that it would be one that we would reduce further. I suggest that you create an account with which to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ribolov.co.rs link spam

Hey there. Yeah, I noticed this, but I don't think it's a big deal, at least in Serbian context. I don't think they've spammed too much, or that the links are totally irrelevant. It really looks just like a topic portal website, which might be useful. Of course, if the links are in the order of hundreds, then it might be considered spam, but for now I don't think it's a problem. And also, if the links were added in a non-sr project, that would be a problem. Cheers --FiliP ██ 20:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Dear Billinghurst/Archives, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights to Wikispecies.(verify) Thank you for your many good contributions to the different Wikimedia projects. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

Thank you

I appreciate giving me autopatrolled user group. Im not sure if this will help alot, but I am honored that I am trusted. MechQuester (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #243

Wikidata weekly summary #244

Affordable

Hi Billinghurst. I hope you don't mind me asking you directly. We've seen a some reports on enwiki about not being able to create pages about the en:Affordable Care Act and affordable housing. I'm not sure what problems gave rise to this blacklisting[1] but I wonder if you could consider whether it might still be a meta issue. Otherwise I'll probably whitelist it on enwiki where new page patrol is likely to pick up any spam. zzuuzz (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:   Done Absolutely no issue. And "ugh" I am surprised that I even did that one, that way, where I was looking for just spoofing of the word. As a general note, we have a (long-standing) phabricator ticket requesting access to title blacklist logs, the current situation is just problematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please consider returning

Dear Billinghurst. As I think you're very aware the panorama of this year is totally desertical. You did a fine and massive job and you're missed everyday. Could you please at least consider to think to return? Kind regards, —MarcoAurelio 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 Savhñ 10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
+1 so you'll solve by yourself your own mess :p --Vituzzu (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #245

Learning Quarterly: February 2017

L&E Newsletter / Volume 4 / Issue 11 / February 2017
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

Leave your mark on Meta!
Inspiring ideas and learning patterns you can contribute to.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #246

Labs project 'wikisource-dev'

As part of routine security cleanups, we need to delete the instance 'wikisource-dev' in the 'wikisource-dev' project. I have records of you being associated with that project as of a year or so ago... can you comment on the usefulness (or uselessness) of that instance, or direct me to someone who can? Thank you! Andrewbogott (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tpt, Samwilson, Micru, Yann, and Aubrey: can you help here? I cannot remember a thing, and I know that I don't use it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't use it. Was it for testing proofreadpage stuff? Sam Wilson 06:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't use it either, and I had never heard of it before...--Micru (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewbogott: I can see mention at Wikisource roadmap#Metadata management system, and that suggests to me that it is predominantly Tpt. I also see wikitech:Nova Resource:Wikisource-dev about its purpose.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was use to test the ProofreadPage extension. Feel free to delete it. Tpt (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone, for your quick responses! I will shutdown the instance for now and, if no commotion results, it will be deleted as part of standard cleanup at the end of March. Please contact me (email or my talk page) if you have any regrets. Andrewbogott (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #247

wm-bot needs your attention

wm-bot is still running on a Precise host, and will be shut down at the end of the month. Please migrate the hosts as soon as possible. For more details, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T143349#2946792 . Valhallasw (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Valhallasw: I am just a restarter of services (of last resort), and someone trusted with a few keys. It will need to be updated by others. If @Petrb: is unable to do it, then we may need to get some assistance from further afield, and would seek your advice on may be able to assist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Valhallasw: did you get a response to the issue? If not, then as it is a widely used IRC tool, do I need to escalate the matter?  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Steward

Good evening/ Why do not you have applied for a steward flag? English for you is the native and you could well understand the problems in all projects. I would support your candidacy. Thanks!--AryanSogd (t) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi AryanSogd. Thanks for your confidence in me. I have been there, done that (bought the t-shirt and worn it out). For numbers of reasons, I cannot commit to the role, and, in my opinion, to do it, it needs that commitment — some stewards did ask me earlier here, though I did reply to them privately. Stewardry is quite consuming of time, effort, patience, etc. and I do like to continue my normal editing at places like Wikisource.

Anyway, I still do other bits around the place that support the global community, and reduce some aspects of the workloads of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a pity. Sincerely, --AryanSogd (t) 14:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I doubt many people would be willing to come back to serve as steward after their "first" time. MechQuester (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #248

Cannot remember

... which filter number we used to deter spammers like Special:DeletedContributions/LiamW494893 and Special:DeletedContributions/SelmaKemper15. A memory refresh would be helpful. Also, "quickcreate" isn't working <sigh/>. —MarcoAurelio 11:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #249

Global sysop

Welcome :-). Matiia (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The drama queen

@Tegel: I would suggest that you look at the complete range and block sections systematically maybe in /19s, as that is only 8 IP ranges as the user pops up. I don't find it reasonable that a blocked user is able to come and taunt other users after being given reasonable opportunity to alter their approach. That the user has no contrition, no evident sincerity in their apologies about changing their approach, continues to insult others, and basically assigns the blame all being to others. It looks like they are here to harangue, not to contribute to the Wikimedia growth and process without drama.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Global sysops mailing list

Hi Billinghurst. I've send you an email. Please take a look & reply. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 14:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I replied to your previous email at the time, and this one just now. Not that address, I have one that I use for mailing lists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #250

Wikidata weekly summary #251

Weekly Summary #252

__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?

seeing a several examples of this component of url used in spam. Aim to do searches to see if we need to abusefilter for it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #253

46.137.24.132

you might want to match the global block in place. MechQuester (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@MechQuester: I never double guess stewards' actions. The tools for global block easily allow for them to locally block, so if they chose to leave it open, then until I see local abuse, I won't proactively hunt out IPs. Thanks for the thoughts though.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

vague memory

I thought use of bonzie atlas on wp en might have been black listed at some point, it is all vague as to whether over-use by an ed or unbelievable components to its contetns, is my memory wrong on that ? cheers :JarrahTree (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Not sure what url you are meaning. Asking COIBot about "bonzie" COIBot> the term 'bonzie' is not in any regexes on black, white or revertlists.. From {{LinkSummary}} you can check directly or add it to your page to check blacklisted sites locally and around the traps.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, your answer clarifies (its my memory, and it must have been a subjective analysis of locations found on the atlas in south australia and western australia some years ago) - appreciate the speedy response - thanks and cheers :JarrahTree (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #254

Wikidata weekly summary #255

Ways to stop spambots

Hello, since you are more expert in spam issues, I would like to know if there is any effective way to stop this kind of situations, considering that they change IP, they use proxies and they have more than 1 week in the project with no way to stop them (these are all the accounts you have created). A steward implemented an abuse filter there but it has not worked either. Are there any more alternatives to stop this? Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 06:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Abuse filters and title blacklist. I have updated Title blacklist to the shown examples. When we have people doing the spam rather than spambots they are unfortunately dynamically adapting. Always feel welcome to add alerts to Talk:Title blacklist for new variations, just like you have here, and that also means that it is global protection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #256

Problems of pre

You have used the "pre" command in citations. It seems to push the text overboard because there is no functioning line break in the "pre-text". Could you consider using some other way to do that? --Pxos (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was a quick and dirty comment late at night.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

An another thing altogether: the previous message titled "Wikidata weekly summary #256" seems to ruin the balance of the section system. This section is now subservient to the weekly summary, which is not nice. --Pxos (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, looks that WD screwed up their sections. It will archive away in four weeks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it. --Pxos (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #257

Curious

Just a curious question. Just how many userrights can you grant on meta? MechQuester (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To see what rights/capabilities any group has at any wiki check Special:ListGroupRights at the wiki. It is all expressed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #258

Wikidata weekly summary #259

AF139

We need to make a copy of it and activate it globally since it's expanded to other wikis, most of them covered by GAF. If you could take care of the syntax then I can take care of switching it on globally. Gratias tibi ago, —MarcoAurelio 10:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Just activate it globally. If I need to to update I will just copy it as required. Obviously don't make it block, but we can manage locally or adapt locally if they are continuing. Not a big issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Duplicating and making it log-only for now. —MarcoAurelio 10:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, all your call. I implemented stepwise here, and there were no false positives, and it is pretty tight, though noting the issue raised in phabricator which had me rule out that single component.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: May 2017

L&E Newsletter / Volume 4 / Issue 12 / May 2017
Learning Quarterly

Frontpage:
#LearningDays
#CCD

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

Leave your mark on Meta!
Inspiring ideas and learning patterns you can contribute to.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Avoid creating anonymous user pages

Hello, I would like to ask you about a topic that is affecting this wiki. It turns out that currently there is a case of creations of anonymous user pages with the aim of spamming multiple associated wikis there, which has not been able to stop until now. The Title blacklist is this, I would like you to check if there is an error or something. I would appreciate your help. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 08:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Regex looks okay. I am presuming that you have had a look at mw:Extension:TitleBlacklist and the settings via https://noc.wikimedia.org/ if you have a config issue, I am not your support-base. You haven't said whether the IP user pages are created by IP addresses as first party accounts, or by named accounts as third party userpages. The auto-confirmed is useful if it is IP addresses.
To note that I would have been lazy and done user:\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}.* and while it is excessive, who cares! I would have also looked at utilising abusefilters if you are having problems in a namespace as there is more fine control that way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
User pages are created by IPs (example: 123.456.789.123 creates in X wikis "User:123.456.789.123" with spam). I have read the documentation and configuration (the settings they are here, however, the configuration of that wiki is somewhat different. I'm going to consult with a staff there. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 11:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that the problem isn't with the regex itself, it's with the config but I'm not sure where we went wrong. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Reception123 and AlvaroMolina: I am just a user, not a developer nor systems dude, so any advice I give could be way off-track. The mediwiki-l mailing list is probably the best place to ask such configuration questions. They are a really helpful list, and the list is also set up through portals so you don't just have to use the list itself. See mail:mediawiki-l and mailarchive:mediawiki-l for local info.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I think the issue has been resolved. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #260

Wikidata weekly summary #261

Busy; please ask elsewhere for most global admin tasks

At this point in time, I will not be pro-actively undertaking much in the way of global administrative functions such as crosswiki spam, blacklists (title or spam), or interwiki maps, etc. You may leave a message if you need something done, though it will need to be managed in my available time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #262

Wikidata weekly summary #263

Wikidata weekly summary #264

COIbot revers

Hi Billinghurst. It would be great if you could link to the COIbot report you're using as basis for reverts at least in the first edit from a list. I've noticed your edits on ro.wp based on User:COIBot/XWiki/14888.md and if your username hadn't been familiar to me, I would have reverted them, as it was not immediately obvious what was wrong with them.--Strainu (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Strainu: Sure I can attempt that. Shame that we don't have one of the original tools available any longer which used to do it. Generally I am only seeing and doing xwiki stuff (unless it is overtly trash) so usually it is only one at multiple wikis, and I will generally leave single wiki stuff.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough

:JarrahTree (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #265

Wikidata weekly summary #266

Wikidata weekly summary #267

Wikidata weekly summary #268

the permission

pleasse give me the permission to upload new file in this https://meta.wikimedia.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cxvcxv122 (talk)

  Not done  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #269

Wikidata weekly summary #270

Wikidata weekly summary #271

Wikidata weekly summary #272

Wikidata weekly summary #273

Wikidata weekly summary #274

Learning Quarterly: August 2017

L&E Newsletter / Volume 4 / Issue 13 / August 2017
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

Leave your mark on Meta!
Inspiring ideas and learning patterns you can contribute to.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #275

Locking, and Commons.

@Billinghurst: Several unsupported claims were thrown at me at the noticeboard and I couldn't respond to any.

The claim that I’m not an established user.

Well, as you can see [[w:nl:Gebruiker:Donald Trung|here] I wrote 10 articles in the span of 1 month (the same amount of time that my account has been globally locked), of which w:en:Qing dynasty coinage is the largest at 80.000 bytes and 115 references and sources of which I am currently the sole content author and created it in merely 2 weeks, and w:nl:Chinese kèpèngs at Dutch Wikipedia (again, currently the sole content author) and I have finished several other Dutch articles since my lock that I could've published but can’t. I also greatly expanded several articles during that same period of time.

Note that I’ve edited on-again, off-again for 10 years but prefer not to share my old IPs or accounts because they would certainly be listed as “sockpuppets” (even though I only sockpuppeteered in July 2017), and they would all be immediately locked despite the fact that I have the passwords or access to none of them. And yes, I’ve even written a FA article years ago but I’m afraid that it would be eligible for deletion because I created it (as per g5).

The claim that I had “abused” the UTRS .

The first time it was an appeal where I said that I won't repeat the sockpuppetry, use one account, and want to edit articles again, I got a copy-pasted version of the 6 months rule, the second time I went into absolute detail explaining what I did wrong, how I now know that It’s wrong and what I would like to improve to various articles, the reply was “what the other guy said” and a copy-pasted version of the 6 months rule, and the third time I only asked for talk page access to apologise to the person I had insulted after I saw that he contacted me and tried to rationally speak through the issue, I said that I prefer to apologise now over 6 months in the future as an apology wouldn't be sincere then, I got no response, when I tried the UTRS a few weeks later after pressing submit I wasn't allowed until February 2018 because “Sockmaster doesn't get the point”, I only added a sock account name because I detailed more how I had learned from my mistakes, and I only evaded my block once on English Wikipedia in order to apologise to the user (which I thought he deserved).

Other unfounded claims.

Well, what got me locked was the claim that I made XWiki “attack pages”, I simply copied and pasted this message across various user pages:

“When my previous account was made I was banned before making even a single edit on Wikipedia and they never told me why other than me simply being on Wikipedia substitutes abuse no reason was given I never vandalized any article but I got blocked with no way of appeal my email was blocked and I could not edit my own talk page. When I asked on my school ip why that account was blocked they blocked that ip too and blanked my user and talk pages no vandalizing on either but apparently me being on Wikipedia means abuse. I will keep making accounts until someone explains to me why I got blocked I see accounts blanking pages every day and never get warned they add actual abuse or hoax and only get citations needed while I get blocked before I can even save my first edit. Admins abuse their power and never get held accountable while real vandals go unharmed.”

(Note that 95% of the socks only pasted this or a similar message to their user page and never edited anywhere, nor were they ever locally blocked on Tagalog Wikipedia, Tamil Wikipedia, Etc.)

Also note that at no time did any local administrator or new page patroller find these problematic, I’m not saying that the above message isn't disruptive, but no local admin other than on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons blocked me for that message, and by the time the lock was requested that was already two weeks prior so the whole nature of the lock wasn't to prevent further disruptions but to punish for writing the above. And the most horrible claim made against my person was that I was a COI paid-editor who added “spamlinks” to 6 Wikipedia’s, in reality I sourced every bit of content I added and had a preference for one website because the website simply hosts more content regarding those subjects, anyhow I will fight those claims after I get unlocked though it’s sad to see that Wikipedia content itself has become collateral damage.

Note: I only added it (as references) to 2 Wiki’s, but it was just assumed that I was every editor on the list.

The worst part about the whole “spammer” accusation is that 1) I actually spent my own money on books and to get behind paywalls to expand articles (so I paid to edit Wikipedia and now get accused of being paid to edit Wikipedia), 2) it's completely unrelated to my sockpuppetry and having so much content unsourced now makes it liable for deletion, and 3) the whole reason I keep appealing this lock is because I want an opportunity to fight this libelous COI/”Spamlinks” claim.

No right to appeal.

Well, at the time my lock was requested I attempted to contact the stewards, as I wasn't aware of the noticeboard I simply messaged every individual steward (bad idea, I know) and the only response to that was to immediately revert it and block me, note that at no time was the admin willing to direct me to either the stewards' noticeboard or the global requests, and the lock happened near instantly so I wasn't allowed to appeal it anyhow. A recent attempt at trying to get information on how to get my local block at Wikimedia Commons lifted at the IRC was met with arious OTRS members saying “get out” and one of them saying that I should go to the stewards, that person waited for me at the steward IRC and immediately said that I was trolling them, later that OTRS member programmed a bot to alert him of whatever IRC I would go in to immediately ban me, even if I simply asked if it were allowed for my wife to upload images I took and that I would then send permission (I still don't have an answer to that question nor am I allowed to ask it, apparently).

Now if I were to compare this to the way other lock requests are treated Classiccardinal who can literally only speak in insults wasn't locked because a global ban seemed more appropriate, while during his lock request he continued insulting the Commonswiki admins and got blocked on Meta, comparing this with my situation I only insulted a user a total of 7 times (this is including the 2 account names), Classiccardinal insulted Yann, Hedwig in Washington, and someone else more often exclusively in his lock request. Yahahzida (or whatever) who is one of the 5 globally banned people by the community was blocked on 8 wiki's and repeatedly kept spamming copyrighted images yet still was ineligible for a global lock, INeverCry socked for 2 years then originally only got blocked for 2 weeks, deleted over thousands of important pages on Wikimedia Commons and still was considered ineligible for a global lock. With me it only seems that “block, revert, and ignore” is the only option even if I stayed 100% civil and cooperative during the entire process, Classiccardinal got blocked for 3 days for insulting Hedwig in Washington on Meta, I got blocked for 3 months for wanting to remove an insult I made, both by the same steward so all I can tell is a large number of double standards being applied.

The main difference between myself and any other request is that the others at least had a fair chance to defend themselves, Yahazidja (or whatever) was properly warned for years, and in my case I get kicked out after 2 weeks of malicious sockpuppetry of which only 2 contained insults and the rest never insulted anyone and yes the problem is the sockpuppetry and not the insults. I am not here to excuse my actions but it seems a bit excessive the way my case was handled, I could've published 10 articles to Dutch Wikipedia and Low-Saxon Wikipedia but now I’m stuck outside with no way to prove that I have no further disruptive intentions. I can’t even defend myself on the noticeboard as I suspect getting on any steward’s radar will immediately get me reverted and blocked.

So what are my options?

If I were to get unblocked at one of the two wiki’s where I'm blocked would that automatically make me ineligible for a global lock? Could I appeal my local block on Commonswiki to you then? I honestly miss Wikimedia Commons the most of all Wiki’s, and would appeal to you if you would let me.

Aren't locks supposed to be preventive? Or is that only for local blocks? I can’t make my case to any steward, and contacting any of them is only met with immediate reversions and blocks, can't you discuss this with my locking steward? I would be patient but again the fact that so many references were deleted from articles could mean that I would find myself looking at stubs if I return “too late” to some of those articles.

If you really don’t want to then please ignore the steward stuff but I really wish to be unblocked at Wikimedia Commons, I haven't socked or evaded there for all of August, and I have never deliberately uploaded any copyright violations. And if you don’t want to hear about my case anymore then I won't ever bring it up to you anymore.

More Commons things, I actually uploaded a sizable amount of images I used in the articles I wrote anf/or expanded, even if I would get unlocked a block on English Wikipedia wouldn't bother me as much as a block on Commons, and my issues were never related to the uploads.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --125.212.228.11 07:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (Donald Trung)

Can I appeal outside of Commons? --125.212.228.11 07:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I cannot help you further, you can only work with stewards on this matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I appeal my block on Commons to you? That's not steward-related, and even if I were to get unlocked I would still be blocked locally so I wonder where and how I could appeal a block on Commonswiki as there is no UTRS. --125.212.228.11 10:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Question asked, question answered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #276

Wikidata weekly summary #277

New creations at nds-nlwiki

Hi Billinghurst! Similar to the situation on mgwiki a couple weeks ago, there's another large creation of year pages on nds-nlwiki. A few different IP addresses are involved and if you could help clean this up, that would be much appreciated. --Eurodyne (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eurodyne: I have temporarily blocked the four IP addresses acting in the space as they are unauthorised bots. nds-nlWP has an active administrator (uuser:Woolters) so ideally this would be managed at a local level. I am happy to explain and assist if requested.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've left a message on their talk page. --Eurodyne (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #278

I am not a spammer and have been falsely accused of being such.

@Billinghurst: According to this report from the COIBot I have added Primal Trek a total of 35 times to various articles in 2 wiki’s, I added it to various Chinese coin- and Korean coin-related articles, and prior to me the link was added to German Wikipedia by another user, and to Serbian Wikipedia by 2 other users. Beetstra heard from another user that I’m a spammer and without looking at the situation globally blacklisted Primal Trek and removed links mostly placed by other users such as here (this is also the only Primal Trek reference I added that he removed), here (not placed by me, this was placed years prior), and here (also not placed by me). You might note that most of those links were inline citations. And in this case the link was placed in French Wikipedia back in 2014 while the first time I added the link was in 2017 (also note that again this is a reference), Beetstra just called it “xwiki spam” without objectively looking at it and assumed that every addition was made by one my sockpuppets.

Beetstra claims that if anyone else wishes to use this link that they’re allowed but that I'm not allowed to because of a supposed “conflict of interest”, I have no conflict of interest with Primal Trek, I do not get paid by them, and I am not associated with them in any way, the only form of communication I have had with Gary Ashkenazy is in the form of this e-mail (sent in either June or July of 2017):

“Dear Mr. Ashkenazy,
I am here to request something of you if you’re interested, I want to write more about Chinese coins, and charms on Wikipedia and have already started referencing your work, unfortunately there aren’t that many images available so I would kindly like to ask if you are willing to upload pictures of all of your Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Ryukyuan coins and charms to Wikimedia Commons so the Wikipedian community could share your work and knowledge with the world.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Mr. Trung
Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.”

Other than that I did not engage with the website (or its community), now if one would look where I added the links such one would notice that I added them several times to articles I had created such as w:en:Yuan dynasty coinage and w:en:Qing dynasty coinage and never in numbers disproportionate to other links, however the content (especially the “history” sections) of those articles are disproportionately from Primal Trek, and now if you would look objectively at these additions, am I... 1) expanding content and simply add the source of the content additions in a way that is expected of Wikipedia editors?, or 2) adding “spamlinks” that are just coincidentally accompanies by re-worded texts from the “spam-site”? I have tried reasoning with Beetra but he seems very happy with the fact that I am not allowed to use a source (which if you’re building an encyclopedia should be your opposite reaction), and he didn't seem willing to objectively look at the situation at all.

My constant problem is that only bad faith is assumed of me and instead of taking the time to actually look how I added these references Beetstra just assumed that the checkuser was right and even blatantly asked “then why were you adding spamlinks then, altruism?” while completely ignoring that the additions were not simply link additions but content additions sourced by the same website, in fact if I were a spammer I would've been spamming the link until my block but as you can see I stopped adding it to the English Wikipedia half a month before my block; and on Dutch Wikipedia I added it only twice among around probably 20 links.

Other links I could be accused of “spamming”.

Art-Hanoi.com, now originally this link was excessively placed by the owner of the website to basically any Vietnamese or French Indo-Chinese money-related article’s external links section, and admittedly I only found out about his website by going to the external links section of Wikipedia, however since he stopped contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons years ago I began adding links to his website (in the form of inline citations and references) to the article w:en:Vietnamese cash and a few others based on various information from his website, I also inserted the link around 20+ times on Wikimedia Commons to request a batch upload, now I want to write about the subjects covered by this website on Dutch Wikipedia but honestly I’m not sure how often I am ALLOWED to use this as a reference before Beetstra will accuse me of having “an obvious COI” after the COIBot will report me as “a spammer” for using this as a reference too much.

The University of California at Berkeley, as far as I know I am the only person to use the Japanese coins-related sections created by Dr. Luke Roberts. I have created 3 Japanese coin-related articles on English Wikipedia of which 2 use this website, I have also referenced content additions to this website on various other Chinese and Vietnamese numismatic articles and I only refrained from using it for Korean coin articles because this website doesn't offer any “real” information other than pitures on those, as I am planning on using this link around 10 times on Dutch Wikipedia in 4 or 5 articles, how big is the chance that the COIBot will blacklist this globally too simply because I have used this link “too much”, I never added in to an “external links” section and as usual my only attempt at contacting the owner was if he were to upload his images to Wikimedia Commons.

Cast Chinese coins by David Hartill, it’s not a website it’s actually a book I spent $ 25,- on specifically to help improve and create new Wikipedia articles, now I have had several conversations with its author here and even applauded him for creating the Wikipedia article that inspired me to collect Asian coins, do I have a Conflict of Interest with the book because of it and shouldn't be allowed to use it as a source? The rules of what seems “a conflict of interest” seems unclear to me as what Beetstra claimed makes me “a spammer” doesn't seem to be covered by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Is “Bookspam” even a thing? Or does the COIBot only count URL’s?

Here's how it happened.

Some Checkuser told Beetstra that I'm a spammer and a sockpuppeteer, Beetstra without looking how or why the links were added just believed him on his word, then he called it “XWiki spam” and removed the links on every wiki even where I haven't added the link (as he assumes that all users on the list were my sockpuppets).

Instead of objectively looking at the situation he just assumed bad faith of me, then when I confronted him on his talk page instead of actually looking how or even why I added the links (content expansion) he just ignored it and kept saying that all I did was add “spamlinks”, to this end it largely reflects all the bad faith that is assumed of a user after they’re blocked and the treatment we receive which can best be described as bullying, but that’s another story. Simply we should all be here to build an encyclopedia, and we must objectively review any actions before someone decides to just remove references from articles.

The numbers.

I added the link 35 times, 2 times to Dutch Wikipedia, and 32 to English Wikipedia of which only 1 time to the “External Links” section, which leaves us with 31 references to the English Wikipedia as content additions, I wrote a total of 6 Chinese coin related articles to English Wikipedia in which Primal Trek was added as a link only once to 2 of them, and 2 links to 1 of them sourcing separate things, I added the links to 2 Korean coin articles, and the rest were to established Chinese coin articles all in major expansions. Referencing unsourced content should never be seen as “spamming”.

The problem really lies with how inefficient the COIBot is designed.

The COIBot only shows who added the link where, it doesn't show Diff’s, I think that the human checking where the links were added should see the full edit to know if it were just a link being added, a link replacing another link (a common form of spamming), or a link being added with content, the COIBot simply doesn't discriminate and if you add a whole paragraph of educational content and properly source it someone reviewing the bot might delete the reference you used, this is the antithesis of verifiability.

“Spamophobia” in action.

Now please look at these 2 (two) drafts, this is how this article will look if I am allowed to use “spamlinks” (also note that I deliberately left the URL out while keeping the rest of the reference intact) and this is how that same article would look like “spam-free” (in other words if I'm not allowed to use that link). I have no special affiliation with that website in any way, I just want to write and expand articles but the COIBot just looks at the links. 😫 Or do I misunderstand what COI means? I am really not sure if I have one now... 😕

For reference please see: User talk:Beetstra

And I would like to continue this conversation at Talk:Spam blacklist as I think that the above post (for context only) is wholly too long to be discussed there.

Drafted on my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱 on September 3rd with minor additions on September 9th, both in 2017. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. Those reports are collection and analysis reports only, they are not accusations of spam. So stop panicking. Good faith editing will show through if it is there. I would also say that overlinking might also show through.
  2. Stop making accusations about people, it is unbecoming and in your case it is simply wrong, and shows a level of ignorance. Beetstra is the bot operator; the bot operates; numbers of us can control its operations and focus.
  3. Please learn to be concise, I don't need essays.
 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Help add title blacklist on OneLittleMouse

Help add Title blacklist in global created account.

.*OneLittleMouse.* <newaccountonly> 

what add code blacklist in ip. Focity7777 (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Focity7777: The place to request additions to the title blacklist is its talk page. You will need to justify why you are making the request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: title blacklist in talk page without autoconfirmed not work all users you are autoconfirmed working title blacklist in talk page, Help me moving Talk:Title blacklist, Focity7777 (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I will not take the request on my user page. Please place your request on Talk:Title blacklist stating your request and why the addition should be made. I see that you have caught the abuse filter, so maybe try rewording your request. You will also need to add more detail as that detail is not sufficient for us to even start reviewing that request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #279

188.229.2.193

you're an admin right? This ip created some nonsense translation pages. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #280

78.129.128.0/17

Hi Billinghurst--a range block you placed is about to expire, and I ran into 78.129.138.253, used by User:Krajoyn who is a pain in the neck. Would you like for me to just block that one for a year, or is it worth extending the block, and maybe upgrading it? I noticed the log said "downgrading to anon only" which I mean assumes registered accounts can still use it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Seems like something I did ages ago when a steward/local CU. I have no information to assist in either way. Act on what you know, or seek local CU assistance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your service

I had not noticed this. No wonder, you made no fuss, and I was away from following my meta watchlist for what seemed like a few days.... So I'm taking the opportunity now to thank you for your incredible service, which I had occasion once to actually document. I wish for you full health and success in whatever you have moved on to. You are missed. --Abd (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Deleteme

That one is not for meta. Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

btw, is there a way to quickly undo things? Think its the rollback function but it seems meta doesnt have it. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
there is a rollback function at meta it is part of Meta:Patrollers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
ah ok. Where do I ask for it? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Umm, it is all explained on the link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you help, please

Good evening I live in turkey, and as you know Wikipedia is blocked here, so whenever I enter Wikipedia I must use a proxy, can you help, please

I received this message when I tried to use my account on ar.wikipedia.org

Your IP address is in a restricted domain of modification to all wikis. He blocked the Billinghurst (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason for blocking is Open proxy : 178.62.50.197, soften block Ticket # 2015070510010377 . Beginning of Prevention: 22:54, 5 July 2015 End of Prevention Period: 15:15, 2 April 2020 You can email Billinghurst to discuss this blocking process. You will not be able to use the "email user" feature until you have specified a valid email address in your account preferences and are not barred from using it. Your current IP address is 178.62.102.23, and the blocked domain is 178.62.0.0/17. Please include all the above details in any query you are doing. Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. --AhrimanAmmaneh (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@AhrimanAmmaneh: [Noting that I am commenting from a previous time when I was a steward, not from any control that I have now.] That is a soft block that should not stop you editing if you are logged into your account. Here is what I can see
If you are logged in you should not be seeing that error message, so please try logging in there first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #281

Meta:Translate extension

Hi. Honestly the page seems to contain a lot of text but little useful information at the moment :( --Base (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:InternetArchiveBot

Would you mind indefinitely semi-protecting that page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd stalking

Abd a perm blocked Wikipedia editor and sock-puppeteer has created two page hit pieces on another Wikipedia user he does not like here [2] (also see the talk-page), he attacks this user Anglo and attempts to link this user to hundreds of un-related accounts to damage his reputation, problem he has no check-user evidence to link most of those accounts and socks. Anglo was indeed a sockpuppeteer but Abd has blamed loads of unrelated accounts to this user. Abd is not a check-user but is presenting his allegations as factual. He claims specific users have 'impersonated' people but has no technical evidence. Why is metawiki hosting this guys grudges and stalking of Wikipedia editors? He has a grudge against certain Wikipedia user he blames for his own ban and now he is using this website to attack people. His list includes about 200 accounts, many of which are unrelated. Can you remove Abd's hit-piece and stalking project? Thank you. Bruce Canada (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Issues about problems at Meta should be addressed to Meta:RFH or pages for deletion should follow the process at Meta:Deletion policy/Meta:RfD. I would agree with you that Abd should not be keeping such pages, however, the people socking should expect that their disliked behaviour has people respond in multiple ways.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Ping

I didn't got notified by your ping in your RfB, and I'm not sure if you got notified by mine some hours ago. In any case, I left you a question there for when you have a moment. I'm trying to reach out MF-W so she can voice her opinion. I've sent her an email. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MA, I did notice it late last night. Will try to get to it tonight.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi there again. I've sent you a couple of emails. Apparently some of them are being sent to 'spam'. Could you please confirm you got them? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Got them; apologies for a tardy response, it has been a busy end of week.

Being at two 'crats is the problem that I am addressing. So, I have to wait until MF-W responds, or you determine what is the alternative that allows you to act. At a point in time, I see that you have scope within Meta:Bureaucrats dot point three to find an alternate bureaucrat through stewards, but with me having a vested interest I am loathe to put forward my solutions. There has been no person complaining that I can see.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Flag vandal

Is there a way to automatically detect him? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 15:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to detect different things, though not always means to detect things above the background noise. I am unaware of the specific issues, so depending on where the vandalism is taking place, how the vandalism is being undertaken and from the types of accounts, will all be feedback. Best I can suggest is to build a case/history at Vandalism reports and that allows us to 1) track it, 2) trial things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

RfB

Sorry Billinghurst, but I have closed your RfB as unsuccessful given the objections raised and the imposibility now to achieve at least two bureaucrat endorsements. Notwithstanding should you wish to still become a bureaucrat, you can now open a new RfB, which at this time will run for one week and will be governed by the same rules we use for RfAs, with no need for bureaucrat endorsements, etc. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Billinghurst, I just saw this and was stunned by the statements regarding your use of the English language, i.e. “just a very sophisticated way of writing English”, and by the statements regarding your attempts to raise general concerns regarding the application of global locks without picking a particular case. I am not a native speaker of English but it never occured to me that your writings are hard to understand. And I have often seen the problem that the citation of a concrete case tends to derail a discussion which was meant to focus on a general problem. It never came to my mind that such an approach is considered to be “grandstanding/passive-aggressive” or “condescending”. I do not know what you make of this. But if you would decide to have a regular RfB run I would be more than happy to support that. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: Nah, don't fuss it. We were down to two bureaucrats, and it seems that we will be back to three. That the new nomination is another steward, and that all our 'crats are stewards is just plain weird. The stewards complain about being busy then appoint or get themselves appointed to more roles, but that is their business and if the community approves, let it be. That we have noisy people who will fight you on the beaches for every perceived sleight, or action is just the politics of prolonged activity on wikis and in communities. <shrug> I am well-past playing people's games, I try not to take that stuff personally, even when they play the person, not the ball. Always plenty to do front and back of house. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello again Billinghurst. Apparently my reading of the policy is not right, as evidenced in the last thread of my talk page (Meta:Bureaucrat reading). It seems that the endorsement of two current bureaucrats is always needed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I personally find it disappointing to have my opinions dismissed as those of "noisy people". If I was a banned troll or even a known troublemaker, then fine, but I'm not. FWIW, while I think that your RFB failure was "fair" according to the rules, and while I would likely have raised concerns anyway, I don't particularly like that the nomination from a long-term respected community member wasn't given full consideration by the community (and that's not a slight on MF-Warburg; I think he was in a difficult position). In this case I had no concerns with your opinion (I had even considered it myself, and I think the policy is poorly written and ambiguous), but I wish it had not come off as dismissive and presuming to speak for the community. Perhaps my reply was too caustic, but perhaps it was a knee-jerk reaction from several repeated dismissive replies on stewards-l.
I am of the opinion that there have been concerns about your communication from several community members, and I wish you would consider their concerns. But if you don't, well, then it's none of my business either way. --Rschen7754 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I find it personally disappointing that you feel able to apply your feelings and judgements in to discussions as a truth. Comfortable for you to link to a discussion that I had, however, applying "your truth and judgement" is not okay. Your perceptions are yours, leave people to draw their conclusions. Similarly, I find it disappointing when you state that you are expressing the opinions of others, esp. stewards, please don't do it; they can express their own opinions, that is why we have these forums. You are not nominated/elected their spokesperson, please don't try to be; if you are then state their names, such whispers are poison.
I have not dismissed your opinions. I fully heard them.
I have no concerns about my RfB, point me to any statement where I expressed disappointment? In that discussion on that user talk page I was indicating that a qualified administrator would have the right to put their nomination to the community, if they so chose, and conditions preventing that by existing bureaucrats are not in this community's spirit of appointment. If the "policy" was being read in the manner of veto, then IMO that would be a misreading of the policy.
On a user talk page discussion where I was mentioned, I am freer to express my opinion more informally, especially able to express points of view based upon my history and experience. Conversation is conversation. If you want a more formal and guarded discussion, then take it to an RfC, or to the relevant forum, and I will be more formal and guarded.
Re email on stewards-l, if you felt that I was dismissive of you, then it wasn't my intent and you have my apologies. Often trying to communicate in real time when you are half a world away from everyone (distance and time-clock), or at 2am in the morning was always difficult. Often whole conversation were had and finished while I slept. It definitely wore me out, well that and other circumstance of the time. However, if that is what drives you now, while that might be my problem, that is only within your control. Where have you seen me act maliciously to people, subvert people, or try hide away my activities? I may be blunt, I try not to be nasty. Anyway, I hope that clears the air for both of us, and we can both reflect on the other's position.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"I feel offended by that statement" and "I got the impression that some stewards believe X" are completely different statements from "That statement was offensive" and "Stewards believe X". I have only done the former, not the latter. If you believe the former is wrong, well, then we will have to agree to disagree. --Rschen7754 16:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Come off it. Splitting hairs, and arguing whether you have 40-60, or 60-40 is a redeeming argument. You can speak for yourself, great, you are entitled to your opinion. Others can speak for themselves, that is their opinion. Having to try and rebut your suspicions on other peopele's thoughts is just truly crap, and you shouldn't put people in a place to have to do that. Think about how you would feel if that was done to you. It is a position akin to rebutting gossip, one cannot win either way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #283

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Hello

Hello and thanks for the message on da.wikiquote. Where is it that you say I can apply her? The link you have posted in my user page on Wikiquote does not work :) --Sorenhk (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the link there, oops. Apologies for that. SRCU  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How can I prove that I don't have any COI?

Today I launched the article w:nl:Ban Liang which included a link 🔗 I was previously accused of “spamming”, and the accusation was made that I have an “obvious COI”. I don’t know how to explain that I am in no way affiliated with the website and I have never received any form of benefits for any of my edits (in fact the opposite is true, only insults and ad hominems), previously I had used it for w:nl:Koreaanse yang because the website states in which year and from which country Korea acquired the machines necessary to produce struck coinage, on the other hand I didn't use the link for w:nl:Koreaanse yen because there’s no useful information 🛈 on that website, I only use the link when it’s absolutely necessary and the w:nl:Ban Liang article’s contents are more than half based on Primaltrek, I wouldn't use the source if there was a realistic alternative but the truth is that the subjects what I write about are very obscure and only a handful of English language online sources write about them, much like how I use Charm.ru and Zeno.ru in the same manner, or the University of California at Santa Barbara for Japanese coins, there simply aren’t that much available online English language sources I could use and calling them “spamlinks” would basically mean that I wouldn't be able to add most if not all of the content of those articles. I don’t have a COI with any of the sources I use, in fact I paid € 20,- of my own money to buy David Hartill’s Cast Chinese Coinage to use for quite a lot of the articles I write on Dutch Wikipedia, I wouldn't use those references if they weren’t necessary and simply adding unsourced content without proper attribution is something I morally oppose (and is also something Wikipedia was originally based on before all of this Spamphobia), when the COIBot keeps reporting the links I add all I ask of you is to look objectively at how it is used, I rarely use “external links” sections and they’re almost all inline citations, the coming months I plan on writing several articles that use several of the sites and book 📚 I just named, and I don't want all the references to be removed and then globally blacklisted out of bad faith and a lack of objectivity. Please actually look at how and why a link 🔗 is added before removing it again.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You will need to work through your issues at the wiki in question, surely they have a forum to support editors. I am unable to assist you with Dutch Wikipedia.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

213.129.33.80

Block please cross-wiki issues Special:Contributions/213.129.33.80. Wolf in Rabbits (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not done Stewards can manage that page and those actions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #284

Learning Quarterly: October 2017

L&E Newsletter / Volume 4 / Issue 13 / August 2017
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Luca Bestetti listed for deletion, at Simple English Wikipedia.

Hello Billinghurst,

I just wanted to let you know that following your notice on AuntOf6's talk page, I have opened a request for deletion for Luca Bestetti at Simple English Wikipedia.

Which means that we can probably also delete the page, a week from now. --Eptalon (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Thanks. That sort of page always become a little awkward when noticed months after creation, and then trying to remember each sites' local policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #285

Proposals in multiple categories

Indeed you can't transclude in multiple categories :( Right now the bot syncs everything when it rotates proposals, so that's why your edit was lost. I do like the idea of a "See also" section though, and we could make the bot ignore such a section. I will bring it up with the team and see what they think! Thanks for your participation, and for the fine idea :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal (WMF): Yep, worked that out. It was a nicety only, and we can do what we can do. People can find it, and we can make local notes at our wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #286

About the Phabricator ticket T172596

Hello,
During one of my request about the spam blacklist, you created (here) the Phabricator ticket phab:T172596.
Today, I have noticed 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Miscellaneous#Multiple protocol support in Special:Linksearch, containing a link to phab:T14810, about the same topic.
So, I suppose that phab:T172596 should be marked as a duplicate of T14810?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the id. Merged them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #287

Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata

Wikidata weekly summary #288

Blacklist removal request

I request removal of the names Giovanni Prinzi and Giuseppe Prinzi from the blacklist here, there is no reason that these names are blocked, please remove them, the inclusion of these names was certainly an error.

This is the blacklist, please, removeGiovanni Prinzi and Giuseppe Prinzi --> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist --Alice pasquini80 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alice pasquini80: Please place your request on talk:Title blacklist, I do not take personal requests. You will also need to use better reasoning than you have done here, as blacklisting is never accidental. You will need to demonstrate proposed usage case, and why blacklisting was likely to be wrong.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Please also {{ping}} user:Vituzzu when you are placing that request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been going on for years, so I hardly believe my reply would be understood. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Heraldik

Hi. I'm moving forward Talk:Interwiki_map#Heraldik-Wiki. Any objections? Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

None. Just haven't got there, real life trumps the non-urgent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #289

email from user:Alex shulz re tradingview.com

@Alex shulz: I act at spam blacklist as an elected repreentative of the community, not in a private capacity, so communication about global issues should be undertaken in a public space wherever possible. Your email demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Wikimedia sites, and more sees to be focused on what is best for your site, not the requirements of the Wikimedia wikis. I care not for the size of your community, nor their activity, nor their desire to represent their linking at our encyclopaedic sites unless it is within the scope of linking for our respective sites.

All discussions for removal from blacklist should be undertaken at Talk:spam blacklist.

Please also note the requirements about paid editing as explained in foundation:Terms of use#Paid contributions without disclosure.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #290

Wikidata weekly summary #291