Meta:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7

__NOINDEX__

Candidates for deletion
Hi, if an sysop can look into Category:Candidates_for_deletion when they have time as there are some pages to review. Thanks you, HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 11:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * HeartsDo, thank you. This has been ✅ now. As an aside, you may wish to install DannyS712's EasyLink user script into either of your  (this wiki) or   (all wikis). It's a small script that allows you to easily generate a wikilink for the current page title without page-stretching underscores by replacing them with spaces. I personally find it quite useful. Dmehus (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext
Can one of the admins copy this text:

into MediaWiki:Blockedtext on Meta. Silicona (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide reasoning for your request? — Arcversin (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, assuming it's for an improved overall aesthetic and consistency with the Meta Wiki look & feel, this is reasonable; however, your identified code does not take into account all of the required variables in the existing interface message. Please amend your code above. Dmehus (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The $8 in existing interface message is not necessary. Silicona (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And also $7. Silicona (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? They provide information ("blocked user" and "start time of block") to the blocked user. Also, this message should mention contacting an administrator in a similar fashion to the current one. Apart from that, this seems pretty reasonable as an aesthetic improvement. — Arcversin (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Silicona, per Arcversin's stated reason, I'm definitely willing to implement this, but not without those variables added. So until that's done, I'm marking this as ❌. Dmehus (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the new code:


 * Silicona (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Silicona, ✅, with this ✅ and some minor tweaks to your provided code. Thank you for this suggestion. :) Dmehus (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the new code for MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial:


 * Silicona (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Silicona, what's different here? I note that you're not using the  parser function. Any reason why not? Dmehus (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse MediaWiki:Blockedtext with MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial. Silicona (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Resignation from Patroller
Due to personal issues I will be requesting my resignation from patroller. Hypercane (  talk ) 09:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hypercane, ✅, with regrets. Thank you for your service to Miraheze, as a Meta patroller, a long-time wiki creator who took great care and caution with wikis approved and declined, and to your roles on TestWiki. Dmehus (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please delete
Will any meta administrator, please delete my common.js and global.js.Thanks Synoman Barris (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am not an Administrator, but you can blank the page by deleting the contents in there. -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 00:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested administrator removal of NDKilla
It is with deep regret having to make this request, as I very much miss NDKilla as a Steward. I miss his guidance, his counsel, his patience, and his incredibly good humour. Nevertheless, as it's quite clear from his last edit and log action, I believe he intended to resign from all permissions. If not, the policy does allow for removal after three (3) calendar months of no activity as a Meta administrator. Could any Meta bureaucrat please kindly process were very likely NDKilla's wishes with one of the following two log summaries:  or, alternatively,. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have actioned this request. Thank you for NDKilla for all his work over the years and hopefully he will return in the future when he has more time available to commit. John (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Echoing Doug and John, thanks for the long service! ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  10:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for interface administrator
Hi there, I am formally requesting the interface administrator flag to allow me to further assist the community and to allow me to continue my regular Meta Wiki WikiGnoming. I wish to help in maintaining scripts such as Twinkle and perhaps may also publish some potentially useful de-Wikipedified scripts for usage by Meta users too. Additionally, as a contributor of Meta, it often times is very useful to be able to tweak the interface in order to tweak certain system messages (such as edit notices) in order to make them easier to read or more intuitive for our newer users. As for eligibility for this role, I presently hold various advanced permissions on Meta (rollbacker and wiki creator being some of them), I have never been issued a sanction or block and I have a very strong password on my account (on top of 2FA too). Thank you. Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agent Isai is generally very active on Meta, clearly has knowledge of JS and CSS and has presented a clear purpose for requesting the right as well as being a trusted member of the community. With the eligibility for this role being met, this is now ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Move for Requests for Comment/Endorsement of Meta conventions
This proposal, which was in draft state for a long time, underwent a major change by one user including the addition of an out of scope proposal, then was moved to mainspace two minutes later. Obviously this is a problem, as this major change required time to be discussed. Their edit summary was moving out of draft space because no new comments and suggestions have been made recently but of course, ironically exactly what they have done is evaded discussion. I went to revert the page move when I saw that the page had been move-protected because one user edited while logged out. How does everyone else feel about this situation? In my opinion, RfCs were designed to be started by one person, however, the consensus for the draft phase is obviously undermined by the changes two minutes before launch. Naleksuh (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing in policy explicitly prohibits not discussing prior to RfC in the draft stage. If you don't like it, oppose the RfC and we'll do our job to make sure a fair discussion happens. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing as This should be  [closed] as ❌ and unnecessary as the proposer's thesis is simply not true. Moreover, and equally crucially, the initiating RfC openly invited changes, which several users, including Reception123 and myself, undertook. The changes with accepted, on- and off-wiki, by all participants. Dmehus (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have conerted your close into a comment. You haven't explained why you believe it is simply not true, in fact, the Requests for Comment/Endorsement of Meta conventions seems to say it is entirely true. It's not cool to declare the opposite without any evidence for doing so, and much less, try to prevent any users from replying to it. Naleksuh (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While it could've been discussed before, removing an active Proposal from an RfC shouldn't be done. As RhinosF1 says, if you don't like it you can oppose it or even open an alternative one. Even if I am not the one who removed it, I disagree that it is out of scope. Regarding your comment of 'either changes to the harassment policy or changes to the way in which Miraheze cites Wikipedia policies', by supporting Proposal 1 the community is (in my opinion) impliedly disagreeing that it constitutes harassment and also impliedly rejecting any Wikipedia policies that say so. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove Patroller for Naleksuh
Given their edit-warring and repeating the edit-warring after being warned, as well as being partially blocked, I am requesting that the user Naleksuh has their patroller bit removed. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 21:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be dreadfully honest about this guy. He's been verbally abusive to not only me, but other users like and even RhinosF1 to such a degree. Examples would be him trying to silence users from speaking out against him, attempted hounding of another fellow administrator, possibly resorting to meatpuppetry, especially from his own admission in the edit summary, attempted to cause damage-control by entirely removing a section (while that's not always a problem, it's just that Naleksuh is a special case here). There were even times where he annoyed me about some certain aspects of some certain situations that occurred. The first diff where he annoyed me was about some ping fixes. That time, he talked down to me like I was a stupid person. I'm just so sick of him always verbally abusing other admins, along with the volunteers that come here everyday (aside from me of course). But, if you are somehow reading this, please stop with this ridiculous behavior. It's not only affecting me, but everybody else you ever came in contact with. And for record time, please stop making aggressively false accusations against other users. This will not help you in the long run. I'm just fed up with how you treat these hardworking administrators around here. They are only doing their jobs, and you are only making the situation worse from here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I am posting a review shortly, but to sanction Naleksuh for serious failings of administrators today, is not appropriate. John (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Understandable. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ok -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Review of Naleksuh's Sanctions
Hi, I am posting this here in the interests of transparency and to centralise discussion. This is being reviewed following an emailed complaint to the Trust and Safety team, which was referred back down to community-level users. Given my lack of involvement in this, I was asked by Owen to review it - also given my role as a Bureaucrat, I feel this would be appropriate.


 * Timeline
 * Naleksuh reverts a contribution he previously made, which was reverted without an explanation at the time.
 * RhinosF1 reverts the above contribution citing it is an on-going discussion and should be discussed instead.
 * Naleksuh makes a request for a current RfC to be moved back to draft following concerns raised.
 * Dmehus closed the above request as not valid.
 * Naleksuh proceeds to oppose the proposal.
 * Naleksuh proceeds to revert the closure by Dmehus, explaining that the close is factually incorrect.
 * Having read the original comment, and looking at the RfC history, I do agree that the close is factually incorrect. The removal of Proposal 1 should have been discussed originally, by Naleksuh, but the immediate re-addition of it in the act of open an RfC would be correct grounds to request potentially moving it back to the draft status, therefore I disagree with Doug that this is an incorrect claim and worthy of closing the thread immediately.
 * Block is placed by RhinosF1 following discussion with "4" other admins.
 * This is a two-fold problem, 1) Rhinos is heavily involved for me, as he cites the CoC as a reason for his block, I question whether "Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling)." can be construed here as the block seems to be placed to prevent Naleksuh engaging in a community discussion, rather than focusing on allowing it to occur for the wider community. 2) Why did no other admin decide to place the block before? Either based on their own ideas, or as a result of this discussion(s) that took place?
 * Naleksuh in response to the block, identifies that they are actively involved and have been involved in numerous disputes [both on Miraheze and off.]
 * Agent explains that the block being agreed by numerous administrators makes it valid., [ Similar by Dmehus, and Reception123]
 * A comment by Reception123 providing a little insight on why the block was deemed necessary by the group of administrators.
 * This is interesting actually and forms the basis of why I am going to conclude with an unblock of Naleksuh. There is some examples of where Naleksuh has made reverts with comments in edit summaries, however, they have actually discussed all of them in the body of comments posted on both AN and the RfC. Therefore, I do not agree past behaviour is evidenced here and therefore I do not agree this block is preventative in these circumstances.
 * Comments by Naleksuh back up by above note.
 * A comment saying let's not be too bureaucratic, makes a request of Naleksuh to be overly bureaucratic by requesting him ask another administrator if he can continue to discuss something closed early without any opportunity of discussion to take place initially.
 * For the record, I review this, and I agree the closure was wrong - so I will be re-opening the discussion to allow the discussion to occur.
 * This revert, is concerning from Naleksuh. At this point, I would have issued a final warning before blocking.
 * MacFan reverts Naleksuh's closure of the discussion on his own talk page.
 * As much as I would like to ignore this, this is actually the root of the problem. We keep saying in this incident "You can't revert a closure without asking the person who closed it if you can revert it", but here we have an administrator doing exactly the thing that Naleksuh got blocked for - this makes the grounds for the block extremely thin to me and untenable.
 * Dmehus protects the talk page to sysops only.
 * This is where things continue to not sit right. At this point, I would have blocked Naleksuh. But why are we using protection to gain an advantage in an editing dispute, rather than use of blocks in a preventative manner? This to me, is the final nail in the coffin that this block was punitive and not preventative.


 * Comments and Summary
 * The block is clearly punitive and not preventative. I have commented on this point throughout the timeline and feel it is evidenced appropriately. During my review, Dmehus has reverted the block. I hope this message will go across to the other administrators who supported the block and they review it as well to reconsider if it was appropriate in the first place.
 * There is clearly an on-going history between Naleksuh and RhinosF1. As an administrator, I feel it is appropriate to put a message across to Naleksuh that they should not interact with RhinosF1 in any way where possible - except in the course of community discussions where they should retain neutrality and keep points factual. If this is not accepted by Naleksuh, or he breaches it once agreed - he should be blocked for a period of 1 week initially, then a doubling period after that for any subsequent breaches.
 * Given it is unfair to only place a sanction on Naleksuh, given the continued evidence that RhinosF1 is bordering on a breach of the CoC and administrator neutrality - I am making a similar recommendation in my capacity as a bureaucrat. RhinosF1 should refrain from engaging with Naleksuh in any way where possible - except in the course of community discussions where they should retain neutrality and keep points factual. This extends to their use of sysop tools against Naleksuh unless they can clearly justify on wiki why the action was an emergency at that time. They should also not proxy other administrators or users to make administrative actions against Naleksuh. If this is not accepted by RhinosF1, or he breaches it once agreed - he should be blocked for a period of 1 week initially, then a doubling period after that for any subsequent breaches.
 * This is a semi interaction ban to support stability and health of the community - if users disagree, they should immediately seek a community discussion and abide by the interaction ban in the meantime.

and can you both please accept/reject (and open the appropriate discussion if rejecting) the proposed interaction ban so it can be recorded that will is in place and fully agreed to. Thank you, John (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge this request and will review shortly. It looks like only comments from myself and one other user are being asked for so this should be simple enough. Naleksuh (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Having discussed this matter with John and come in to see the mess just as it entered review stage, I am in full support of both the assessment and summary. --Raidarr (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the timeline and I agree with it. Specifically, that the thread was valid and was prematurely closed. In my view, closes of threads should be completely uncontroversial especially when closed minutes after they are made, and that requesting reopening is wrong, or as John puts it, "overly bureaucratic".
 * Yes, I also agree that there was some misuse of reverts by MacFan4000, however I note that John refers to "an administrator" (or as I say sysop)-- MacFan4000 is not a Meta sysop.
 * There was also use of blocking to prevent discussion on issues, and false comments (like claiming I was assuming bad faith when I was not).
 * Yes, RhinosF1 has repeatedly unwantedly contacted me several times, including both the placing of this block and after being reminded not to post on my talk page, decided to revert an edit there.
 * Given all of this, I support the two-way interaction-ban, but without exceptions on community discussions and support a full two-way ban, and agree to the sanctions on enforcement. I also look forward to it being enforced on both ends instead of only on me.
 * I'm also going to ask that we remove the "Edit warring" and "May 2022" sections from the talk page, not only because of the ongoing, non-retroactive discussion on removing sysop threads, but because of the conclusion that edit warring has not taken place and that RhinosF1 is subject to an interaction-ban, and therefore should not have messages on my talk page, especially not those made with an attempted sysop capacity. Naleksuh (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not support removal of the prior "Edit warring" warning, as that is unrelated to this specific incident. As to the May 2022 warning, I would also not favour outright removal and would favour archival (in some form), given recent events, but will defer to the community here. Dmehus (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit warring thread is related, because it is a matter of whether or not edits in your own user space constitute edit warring. Currently they do not, but even if proposal 4 was successful, it would not be far to apply that retroactively. Also, in this thread John points out how MacFan4000 was allowed to revert a close but I was not-- the same thing goes for removing warnings, and for the same user. MacFan4000 removed a warning for abusing rollback on their talk page, and I didn't reinstate it because I believe users should be allowed to remove warnings. As for archiving "in some form", they can be archived to the page history. I do not use traditional archive subpages and do not have an intent on starting. Naleksuh (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, this is simply not accurate. If that were true, one could vandalize or spam their own user talk page with impunity and without regard to edit warring. Dmehus (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored your thread at User talk:MacFan4000. That being said, I also feel that you should not be giving messages that may be construed as warnings without the requisite permissions to revoke the  permission. Rather, you should have opened a thread at Administrators' noticeboard if you felt it was inappropriate. As to your comment about messages being available in the page history, that is easily lost, due to Miraheze not having added tools that allow for easily searching, by keyword, edit summaries. That is the impetus behind the current Meta convention, that recent warnings should be archived, but not removed. Note that you can use the permalink-diff method, which you yourself even ✅ to use. Dmehus (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that comparison is accurate. The warning issued to you was by an administrator while the warning issued by you was not and was based on a misunderstanding that the “Usage” section on Rollbackers was policy. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am giving you permission to archive both threads to your talk page history. May 2022 as shown above isn’t relevant anymore. With regards to the edit warring one, convention isn’t policy and until it’s written in policy, I personally don’t see an issue with archiving this way. At this point, with how much it’s been discussed and rehashed, the warning is pretty much imprinted on every administrators head here, so I wouldn’t say the argument of ‘it’s hiding it from others’ is valid as pretty much everyone has seen it by now. John (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that is appropriate here, given that Naleksuh has already previously agreed to use the permalink-diff archive method, but perhaps equally importantly, there was already a general consensus by participants in that discussion that they favoured archiving in that case, with raidarr noting he "strongly agreed" with that solution, and other users including Reception123, Agent Isai, and DeeM28 noting similarly favourable results. It's worth noting that not every administrator action needs to be grounded in policy, so long as it is consistently applied and, ideally, documented in a Administrators handbook. Where there's a dispute as to an administrator devised rule, or convention, that can, and should, be opened up for community discussion. Dmehus (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that at all. It's been archived to the page history, where you can find it any time you like. There's no need for anything more than that, nor is there a need to do anything differently. It would not make sense to revoke the right to OWNTALK for one user only based on feelings of certain sysops and not based on policy, this turns Miraheze into a dictatorship. Thank you, John, for the permission to remove those threads, I have done so now and they should not be restored. Naleksuh (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many things have been already said here but I wish to enter my opinion that I do not agree with the assertion that "convention isn’t policy and until it’s written in policy". Meta is a project with very little written rules and functions by a sort of common law system where the rules are made by convention and are often not written except in some rare circumstances. If a convention is the subject of controversy or unclear it should be subjected to a vote (and that is exactly what I have done) but I do not see any valid reason for why conventions should simply be ignored unless written and I think that creates a dangerous precedent. I disagree with Naleksuh being allowed to remove the thread and think it is ignoring the rule that has been applied before and also the current support of the rule which is taking place at the RfC. To qualify my opinion I believe that this small matter has become very contentious and I would accept this particular warning being put aside for the reasons given by John. That being said in the future (and especially if the RfC is successful) it would be unacceptable to not respect this rule. DeeM28 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for block
A user called User:This running in hallway identifier! Funny identifier! Keep laughing! is vandalizing by creating project pages with some nonsense content. Please block this user accordingly. --Matttest (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please also mass delete the pages he created. --Matttest (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This was ✅ by Raidarr. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With local support from John in removing pages. This was an incident involving multiple accounts which has been quelled. --Raidarr (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for autoparolled rights (Silicona) #2
I am active for over 2 months and made 1,407 edits, 540 of which are on Meta. Therefore will the admins grant me the autoparolled rights? Silicona (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Silicona, one shouldn't need to ask for the  permission, as it's more about making patrollers' and administrators' lives easier. Because you asked and because I'm not seeing a lot of edits on Meta Wiki, I'm inclined to mark this as ❌, again, for now, but I'll take a closer look at your edits, qualitatively, over the next month, with a view to granting barring anything that gives me pause. Dmehus (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)