Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

News section
Can admins add:

to the News section of the main page, and archive
 * March 2022: Miraheze now has 6,000 wikis!

Silicona (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * December 2019: Miraheze upgraded to MediaWiki 1.34!


 * That number will likely drop back down to 5,000 once closed wikis are deleted and once all inactive wikis which were affected by the Recent Changes/inadvertent closure bug are finally closed. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think for number of wikis it's a bit complicated due to the deletion issue but either way we could probably stick to larger numbers for news, like 5000-7500-10000 (hopefully). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is very minor and not worthy of a mention in the news section. We've added a continuously updating (may require an  to the page) counter showing our total number of wikis, so marking this as ❌. Dmehus (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for autopatrolled (Silicona)
At the time of writing, I made 840 edits, 396 of which are on Meta. I am an admin in 3 wikis and bureaucrat in Test wiki and Numberpedia, so I would like to request autopatrolled right for myself on Meta. Silicona (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A huge number of your edits are edits which "translate" pages into British English, why did you do that? These pages are already in English so there's no need for that. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Silicona, as I explained that I didn't this block was not needed and a bit BITEy to newcomers, the fact that you created many British English translations of source pages, which, arguably, should use British/Canadian English is a bit of a problem. This demonstrates a bit of a competence is required issue in that it would've been preferred you reach out to us through our official communication channel, IRC, or our secondary communication channel, Discord, and engage with us on ways to volunteer on Meta Wiki. As well, you should also note that there's no set edit count for  to be granted. Each administrator will have slightly different criteria, but generally speaking, users must typically demonstrate at least two and, ideally, all three things. Firstly, they must be active, but active in a constructive way. Secondly, they should know Meta Wiki's purpose and scope. Thirdly, they should, and ideally, must, understand talk page guidelines and conventions. Some level of editing is required to demonstrate these things, and I don't want to quantify it, as there's no set number. Admittedly, for unilingual users, they are not able to demonstrate activity through translations of pages, but there are other ways, such as assisting users on community noticeboard, fixing lint errors and other things, etc., competently. Accordingly, this is ❌, but I would reconsider a request for this permission after at least thirty (30) calendar days in terms of re-assessment, or perhaps even a bit sooner, but again, it will be up to you to demonstrate the above. Dmehus (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup unused rights from the moderation extension
There are a number of unused user rights (plus a group) left over from when the moderation extension was briefly enabled, which should be cleaned up eventually. — Arcversin (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Arcversin, I have been wanting to clean this up. Having spoken to John in his dual Meta bureaucrat and steward capacities, he had no objections to this, as it is essentially cleanup from a reversion of an added extension that ended up being solved using more conventional CVT methods. Dmehus (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dmehus (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Reception123 and edit warring
There is an issue on User_talk:Naleksuh. The talk page owner has removed a thread that they do not want on the talk page per OWNTALK and not wanting the content on the talk page, but the person who posted it is continuously reinstating it, twice, citing fact that OWNTALK is technically not a policy, but without any indication of any policy that prohibits removal.

Since removal of messages is permitted both by Miraheze and by common sense, with no policy prohibiting removal, and the user demanding that they be archived in the way they prefer on someone else's talk page just because they are a sysop, their continuous reinstatement of the removed material is edit warring (ironically, the message they are trying to reinstate complains about alleged edit warring for someone else, so why are they themselves edit warring?) and may get close to 3RR territory as they have already reinstated it twice with no grounds to do so. Naleksuh (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous with what I am seeing here. If I can recall correctly, you also did the same thing too, which is unexpected behavior coming from a patroller with 2 additional advanced permissions. This is certainly getting to a certain point where it's nauseating, and the fact that you suddenly wrote this out of the blue makes this extremely childish, and it needs to stop. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I've never done any such thing. If someone removes a comment of mine from their talk page I do not reinstate it. Naleksuh (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why revert back-and-forth with another user, and with Reception123? I'm sorry, but this whole thing about you and this edit-warring crap you have makes me look like a saint by comparison, except it also makes me look like the better person when comparing the edit-wars that have occurred. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of transparency, I think it's okay that Reception123 restored the warning he gave you so that administrators can refer back to it easily in case of any future discussions which may require that this warning be pulled up. If anything, I would stress the importance of clear communication here. I haven't seen any attempts, whether on IRC or on-wiki to remediate this long-standing issue. I would urge you and the administrators to come to an agreement to prevent this needless back and forth that's going on. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) First of all, while I will admit some people have cited Wikipedia policies in the past, Meta is not Wikipedia and as such it does not make sense for us to follow all of their policies. Some Wikipedia policies are rather common sense and uncontroversial, but this one in my view is not. Therefore, I do not believe that citing Wikipedia policies is a solution to the problem here. Now, to the actual issue. I'd first like to point out that in my view not allowing users to remove threads without archiving is a convention here on Meta and I have consistently prevented users from doing so without any comments from any user saying they had an issue with it. There are two main rationales behind this. The first one is that especially when a warning is concerned, the user being warned should not be allowed to completely remove such warnings in an attempt to 'hide' them from users or administrators by forcing them to look through all the revisions. Second, it's not fair to the people participating in the conversation to have their comments completely removed from the talk page and only accessible through revisions. I see no good reason for why users should be allowed to dispose of talk page messages. To finish however, if you wish to challenge this I would propose a Meta RfC to settle this matter more clearly, otherwise I think the convention should stand as it has been applied to users in the past without issue or comment. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Meta is not Wikipedia and as such it does not make sense for us to follow all of their policies It is policy on Wikipedia, but is common sense just about anywhere. Plus, "it's not a policy, it's a guideline" goes against what you are saying, because there is neither a policy nor a guideline to support what you are doing. In fact, the opposite. If you want to read an essay, you can look at w:Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. In particular, this part : "The comment is still in the page history, so it is not necessary to keep it visible just to show that the user received the message. It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of 'badge of shame'. "
 * Second, it's not fair to the people participating in the conversation to have their comments completely removed from the talk page and only accessible through revisions. It's not fair to users to tell them how they can and cannot archive their talk page. I've always archived by removing from the page for 2+ years and longer, and you are basically trying to tell me that I will have to stop on this wiki only.
 * Reception123's entire case basically hinges on them being a sysop, which is absolutely unacceptable. Sysops are accountable to the community, and the sysop toolkit is not a way for users to make threads more important or to exhert some authority over other users and how they manage their talk pages.
 * Also, none of this refutes the central point: While users can remove comments from their own talk page, and reverting pages in your own user space is generally exempt from edit warring, continuing to restore them is edit warring. Reception123 is encouraged to stop edit warring and not apply weak conventions to other talk pages, especially not when dealing with their own messages. To quote Thomas Hobbes, No man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause. Naleksuh (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the policy argument, it has clearly been recognised that Meta lacks a lot of written policies and instead functions by what we refer to as 'conventions'. You keep quoting Wikipedia essays but as I have said, the convention on Meta has always been to insist that users archive talk page messages rather than remove them. I don't see why this convention shouldn't apply to you, and as I say, if you wish to 'denounce' it it can be done via RfC.
 * Regarding archiving, I don't see why it shouldn't be fair to ask users to archive their talk page messages. How do you justify that against the two reasons why they shouldn't that I have given?
 * Regarding being a sysop, that is not true. Any given user could have fairly reverted your removals for the same reason as myself. Just because it is your talk page, that does not give you a right to edit war, regardless of what the Wikipedia policies you quote. Because I do not wish to continue this edit war, I will personally refrain from reverting your edits if you try to remove the thread again, but if you do so I will not only hope that another administrator reverts that edit but I will be forced to open a local RfC to determine what the rule should be, if you do not wish to accept that this is the current convention which as far as I am aware no one has been against when it was applied in the past. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not aware of any such convention, and I don't believe it is the case. Even if it is, conventions are conventions and not policies, and not a reason to go around policing people especially in their user space.
 * to ask users to archive their talk page messages To ask, sure. But you are not trying to ask, you insist it be required for users to archive it in the way that you want. Your "reasons" were one that "it's a warning". One, the validity of that "warning" was questioned, second, insisting that users keep warnings on their talk page is even worse as it is essentially trying to use it as a mark of shame or insist that users keep it there for a "log" of their alleged wrongdoings. Sure, you say that w:Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments is only an essay and is on Wikipedia and doesn't apply here, but you should read it as it completely counters everything you are saying. The other "reason" was that it's not fair to the other people. There is no case to be made that the method I choose to archive with is unfair to people posting. In fact, the opposite is true: trying to force one specific method is unfair; so Reception123 is the one being "unfair" in their own words. Even if I did put it in an archive subpage you still would have to make a new thread as posting to archives isn't allowed. The only difference is it's been archived to Special:PermanentLink/239802 instead of User talk:Naleksuh/Archive 1, which will remain a red link for life. Naleksuh (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Archiving" it through Special:PermanentLink makes it impossible to search and find the warning through the on-wiki search engine and requires that an administrator or user manually dig up the warning in your talk page's history which may prove inconvenient at a future date if your user talk page recieves more edits which further digs that down the history page while archiving it moves it out of your main talk page while still maintaining the original thread in an easy to find page. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My god Nale, the biggest elephant in the room is the driven edit-warring you yourself have initiated with Reception123. The latter on the other hand barely did anything, other than cautioning you in this scenario to stop, but now we're here. Can we please let it go before this thread gets out of control? Badgering and/or sealioning other users will get you nowhere fast, as you have already made your point around a few weeks ago, and I thought this topic was dropped by now. The points you have made here are slowly losing all of its meaning because you keep bludgeoning with the process, which I may add, is disruptive behavior, and should not continue any further. I don't even know why you chose to bring this matter that should've been resolved elsewhere back up. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous beyond repair. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really want to, then why continuously create things that have no purpose other than to arbitrarily restrict users? Especially something I've been doing for years and would be a convention change to me to stop. Since Reception123 agreed to stop edit warring, I re-moved it which was all I ever wanted to do, and  you  (I can use formatted text too) can drop the stick by not insisting anything more: be the one to stop what I never started in the first place. You can also stop calling me "Nale" at the same time, I've asked you to stop multiple times before but you never have. Naleksuh (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per what I said above, I have created this RfC. Please also note that I agreed to stop edit warring because that is not a thing to be done, but I did mention that I hope another administrator would intervene and I clearly completely disagree with your position still. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Reception123, you most certainly were not edit warring. You were following the long held Meta Wiki and, indeed, Miraheze, convention that recent warnings must not be removed user talk pages. Naleksuh's claim that edit warring does not apply to own user talk page is, frankly, laughable if not ludicrous, as that would mean socks, as that would effectively provide vandals an exemption and free pass to do whatever they want on their own user talk pages. Frankly, given the number of warnings you provided Naleksuh, and I'm not certain why you didn't block  for edit warring for a short time (say 1-3 days) despite your, my and even Agent's recent warnings? There is, frankly, consensus here that this thread is spurious, frivolous, nonsense, and vexatious, and if a community were to propose a boomerang block, that's something I think any Meta administrator would entertain. Dmehus (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After reconsideration, I have retracted my RfC so it can be worked on further and drafted, rather than opened in the spur of the moment. As for the thread, it seems clear that at least two other Meta administrators agree with me that warnings/notices should not be removed from your talk page, so I must once again ask you to stop doing so. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have liked to have seen this RfC. You already gave the two rather weak reasons for preventing removal of commments above, which have been addressed both by myself and by the essay. Your point seems to be to use users talk pages a list of warnings against them. Let me know once this RfC has been reopened (also be sure to list qualifiers for warnings, who is qualified to warn, and how recent is recent). Naleksuh (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to comments above, and to a potential RfC, which may still be helpful, to the notion articulated by Naleksuh that administrators must somehow justify every action based on a nuanced rule or policy, the community has, time and again, in successive RfC after RfC and discussion opposed as rule creep, preferring that administrators exercise common sense together with good governance formed from internal administrator discussions. Dmehus (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Naleksuh, since you identified the  method, which I also happen to prefer, I would think all concerned here would be satisfied if you simply added a bulleted list of permalinks at either (a) the top of your your user talk page or (b) at User talk:Naleksuh/Archives. Dmehus (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea, but I'm sure people will come up with some reason to object to that too. It doesn't change the focal point though : just because Reception123 was reinstating a "warning" does not make what they did not edit warring, and there's nothing to suggest any such exemption. If you refuse to believe user space is an exemption, why create new exemptions that don't exist? Naleksuh (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I think users thought you just wanted to have the permalinks buried in the  view for your user talk page, which can make specific revisions hard to find, especially on users with higher numbers of revisions on their user talk pages. As to why Reception123 didn't just BOLDly do that, as an alternative to simply reverting subsequent times, though I wouldn't characterize it as edit warring as it was restoration of very recent administrator warnings, I'm not sure. Perhaps he'll see this and might comment. Dmehus (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * it was restoration of very recent administrator [warnings] That doesn't make it not edit warring. Reception123 posted on my page, I reverted it, and they reinstated it. Also, it wasn't even "very recent", it was 3 weeks ago, so relatively recent but not "very recent". Naleksuh (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is intentionally not codified, but, generally speaking, my "rule of thumb" is minimum thirty (30) days and usually more like ninety (90) days, but if you acknowledge the warning was nearly three weeks ago, then that nullifies your claim of "edit warring" by Reception123, particularly given that edit warring is typically more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, no? Dmehus (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it does not nullify that. More than three reverts in 24 hours breaks the three-revert rule, but you can still be edit warring without breaking it. Naleksuh (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not really making much sense here, especially in terms of how recent it was. In any case, I would consider any recent action within a 90-day period. It's excruciatingly nauseating having to see this pointless nonsense being thrown at each other. Within this thread, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids arguing with each other on the playground over who gets to go down the slide first. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the permalink method is perfectly acceptable and would serve the same intended purpose of making conduct or platform messages accessible, which is a well precedented convention here which has only been opposed the first time by this thread. Feel free to put it into practice, or even just add it to the top and say something on the lines of 'here, is this agreeable' so some agreement can be made here rather than a slightly amusing but ultimately tiring battle.
 * I've also been thinking of simply assembling permalinks to relevant messages through central means, ie, a place on the internal cvt wiki or even public to achieve this purpose, but it does have a bit of a 1984 feel to it. --Raidarr (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the editing issue, I would say it is quite arguably an edit war and an issue that should have come out and been advanced to a discussion for clarification after the first reversion and a disagreement appeared. It's an issue and it's time to move to the next stage for the confusion that caused it. I do believe Reception is now aware of the issue with the reverting back and forth after having conferred on Discord. Seeing that much reversion going on in a page's history is obviously an issue and needs to be stopped one way or another. --Raidarr (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this will be my last comment before I stop posting here on this: I think I'm going to be sick after reading all of this stuff from Naleksuh, as it pretty much poisons the original point of this thread, especially if it's leaning towards ad nauseum, and only gets boring from here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with regarding that you selectively choose which Wikipedia policies you will accept and use. There are more options - either accept all, none, or create local policies. And regarding the conventions, let yourself be laughed... Personal note about restricting users - Miraheze has changed a lot, for the worse regarding these bullying measures. I would love Miraheze's atmosphere to return to the time I joined, but it won't happen... I would like to see the opinion of ,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all ignoring the convention and Wikipedia policy argument in terms of principles in my view it is absolutely ludicrous for the suggestion to be made that a person is to be allowed to remove warnings from administrators on from his or her talk page. That can mean several different things. First it can mean that there is clear contempt on the part of the user who perceives the warning as unjust or undeserved and belives that that means it is fine for them to just remove it. Second it can mean that they are embarassed by the warning and wish to hide it from the public view. Most importantly as it was pointed out above it means that the warning will almost have the effect of disappearing and if another administrator wishes to send the user a warning for another matter they will not have the benefit of being able to consult it. While an extreme comparison it can be compared to a criminal record; how would things work if criminals would be able to remove parts of their criminal record because they felt they were unfair? It makes no sense to allow someone to remove warnings from their talk page because they do not like them and I completely disagree with that and would be more than willing to support any proposals making it a written policy if that is what is neceessary
 * In terms of the Wikipedia policy arguments and the aggressive arguments made by MrJaroslavik and Naleksuh here is my view. First of all I agree that it is not fair for some Wikipedia policies to be cited and adopted as ours and others to be selectively categorised as bad. That being said I do think that conventions are an important part of the way that Meta works because it is simply not possible for relatively new (or  underdeveloped projects) to have a policy for each thing. In this case it seems that there has been a long (and very reasonable as argued above) practice of not allowing people to remove warnings from their talk pages...why should this be abandoned just because someone is quoting a Wikipedia policy to the contrary effect? If there is an argument regarding whether a convention is indeed a convention I believe the way that this should be resolved is via a Request for Comment or discussion so that the community can decide whether to codify this convention if it is a controversial one. I once again feel that things are getting too personal as usual when instead they should be viewed from a more objective standard. I do not see how this can be considered 'bullying'. In any case I repeat that I would be more than willing to support an RfC to clarify this rule into policy. DeeM28 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally I wish to add that I can see how there can be a perception that some administrators are selectively choosing which Wikipedia policies they follow but I think what is more relevant and important than any Wikipedia policies are our practices. If something has been done for months and has not been questioned by anyone it is arguably a convention. If people believe that this convention is an inappropriate one then that should be dealt with by an RfC which asks the community to decide whether to keep the convention or not. It is especially relevant if multiple administrators follow a convention (or agree with it). If only one administrator was creating conventions then I would agree that it could be more problematic in certain situations. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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)