Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (9 August 2015 - 21 December 2015)
 * Archive 2 (21 December 2015 - 26 June 2019)
 * Archive 3 (26 June 2019 -

Continued Issues With Inappropriate Wiki
Thank you for removing the bulk of the libelous content, but unfortunately I was made aware of similar content on the same wiki (https://truecapitalist.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page) making allegations that are untrue:

https://truecapitalist.miraheze.org/wiki/Jackler on the bottom paragraph it refers to myself as a "pedophile" an extremely false statement. This is abusive behavior, and defamation toward myself made by this wiki, which seems to be premised on articles meant to insult and harass individuals they've targeted.

PlavorSeol
This user is well-known on Meta and should get. 13:25 11-Feb-2020
 * I’m going to leave this open for comment but I’d say ❌ due to a few instances of impolite behaviours in the past. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On hold, I’ve messaged 2 admins specifically for comment. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with RhinosF1's assessment at this time. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I too agree. However, I've been assuming that the job of a Patroller is to verify that edits aren't vandalism.  If Admins are using the patrol flag as a reminder to review each of his edits for "impolite behaviors," then I should stop manually patrolling him.   04:09 12-Feb-2020

❌ Considering that he is likely to be banned.-- 09:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete Userpage

 * User:HispanoBOT, use on LoginWiki userpage Hispano76 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  06:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sourav Halder
After adding to Meta templates Meta didn't need, this user has taken to welcoming newbies, including some without contributions whose names are typical for spambots. If you support this effort, he should get. If not, you should do something. 11:45 8-Mar-2020

Yesterday, RhinosF1 blocked Sourav for one month. A discussion continued at User talk:Sourav Halder. The block concerned ballot-stuffing at RfIA. What happened is one of the following:
 * 1) User created sockpuppets to vote himself additional authority multiple times
 * 2) User induced playground pals to come to Miraheze to all vote him additional authority
 * 3) User is just a popular guy and a bunch of people arrived with nothing better to do than vote for him.

Ballot-stuffing is misbehavior. We cannot have government, plus our presumption that we will all be anonymous to one another, without guarding against ballot stuffing. However, RhinosF1 told Sourav that he could appeal for a Checkuser; if Sourav was really banned for creating sockpuppets, I think the Checkuser should precede the ban. And Checkuser is not always conclusive, and does not preclude the unlikely third option I present above.

In my opinion, a better outcome is this:
 * Void the votes of the new users
 * Possibly ban the new users if Admins are certain they have no legitimate purpose for joining Miraheze except to win a vote
 * Possibly void the entire ballot
 * Monitor Sourav, as he has repeatedly shown the impulse to be, or put himself forward as, Miraheze government, rather than do actual creative work.

However, the whole affair strikes me as failing to Assume Good Faith, much like the PlavorSeol affair. 01:22 11-Mar-2020
 * For me, the behavourial evidence was pretty obvious. A CheckUser returned supoorting technical evidence when it was done. The votes of the puppets are struck and they have been blocked. Aa you point out, this is not the first issue woth Sourav. Taking their reaction to deny it and past behaviour, I believe a short block was appropaite. They are welcome back as Sourav after the block expires if they positively contribute. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  05:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that due to the lack of urgency in this case (since it wasn't direct vandalism), a block could've waited until a confirmation from a CheckUser, even though I agree that the behavioral evidence was clear in this case. Perhaps it is time to think about requirements for account age when it comes to voting (a few days before the vote perhaps) to fix this issue. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I like that proposal. (Then again, I am a dinosaur who likes the real-world requirement to register to vote — rather than just show up — so that all parties can know exactly who the voters are.)  Surely votes on policy, and on treatment of misbehaving users, should "freeze the voter list" at the risk of "disenfranchising" newbies.  So votes from users whose registration timestamp is after the creation of the RfC are thrown out.  (If you really care about the issue, you can see it being drafted in someone's userspace before creation of the RfC, register then, and get around this rule, and that's fine.)


 * Young voters especially hope to be activists (and maybe President) the moment they join a new club (which was part of the problem with PlavorSeol and Sourav!). Those with experience look around and learn first.   09:39 11-Mar-2020

Interwiki requests
Hi, all! I have two interwiki requests. You can complete this request on Special:Interwiki.

Add:

Prefix: "ja"

URL: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/$1

Reason: Useful to link Japanese Wikipedia.

Remove:

Prefix: "krebswiki"

URL: https://krebs.miraheze.org/wiki/$1

Reason: The wiki "krebswiki" has been closed.

Thanks, --そらたこ (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)