User talk:Xeno/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 33

Question

Hey, Xeno! I saw that you were a bureaucrat/administrator here, so I was just wondering if you might be able to answer a question I had. The thing is, I'm an admin on a different wiki, and another admin on the same wiki posted a question to the rest of the admins asking if there was a URL that can be used to show any user their current number of edits on the wiki. On our wiki, there's a page called Special:Editcount that conveys that information (I don't think Wikipedia has a page like this though), so another admin advised him to use this URL: http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/Username. That URL would achieve the desired result, but one would have to constantly put the username of the specific user at the end of the URL when posting it on that user's talk page, so my goal was to come up with a way to avoid that; almost to create something you could post on any user's talk page without changing any part of it and still get the desired result. I came up with this: {{fullurl:Special:Editcount/{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}, this way, one could just post the coding on the talk page of the desired user and the returned URL would automatically direct the user to their respective edit count. This worked successfully for every other user whose talk page I tested the coding on (without saving the page, of course); the only problem is that the user he wanted to do this for has an "*" both at the beginning and the end of their username (the second asterisk isn't a problem, just the first), meaning that instead of being returned as:

http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*

it gets returned as:

{{fullurl:Special:Editcount/

• User*}}

and doesn't take anyone anywhere, because it's just the raw coding. So I was just wondering if you knew of any way to circumvent this problem (aside from just telling him to post "http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*" on the user's talk page, which isn't the end of the world, but is, of course, what I was trying to get around in the first place), maybe by putting some other form of coding that I'm not aware of somewhere in the existing coding or something. Any light you may be able to shed on this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

69.204.38.3 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if you posted your query to WP:VPT, rather than having it examined on a dozen different user talk pages. –xeno^talk 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tfd: Facepalm

• See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Template:Facepalm
• Facepalm... Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:

• 144 Featured Articles
• 48 Featured Lists
• 6 Featured Topics

• 36 A-Class Articles
• 507 Good Articles
• 10 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Final Fantasy postmortem
• Featured editor: Jinnai

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Xeno. I've sent you an email, if you wouldn't mind checking. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well-spotted. Think it's sorted now. –xeno^talk 17:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yo

Dropped ya an email Kwsn (Ni!) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied =) –xeno^talk 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Usurp request Rik007

Hi Xeno,

I just saw that you're handled my usurp request of Rik007, but I still can't use the name Rik007 because my account (Rik008) has not been renamed to Rik007.

Hoping for an quick answer, best regards, Rik008 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure ([1]) ? Try logging in to Rik007. –xeno^talk 17:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the help, I think the problem was in the different between the passwords. The problem is solved. Rik007 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Usurp request of HLogic

Greetings Xeno,

A few months back I requested and you provided a usurpation of the user HLogic. All is well with usurpation except when logged in my user page links to the deleted user page which indicates it is deleted with no redirect. Should I create a new User Page? TIA, HLogic (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm - yes, probably creating the page is the best way to suppress the log action relating to HLogic (usurped). If you can like, you can create the page as such:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:HLogic]]

and it will simply redirect to your talk page. –xeno^talk 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Usurp request

Hello Xeno,

I just wanted to know if the account User:Kamina could be usurped here. Don't perform the renaming, that's just to know if that is in or out the local rules. I guess that the english account, which is the older, should have the priority on the SUL account ? I don't know if I can do this request... Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a borderline request... Requesting user owns SUL... Target user dormant since 2009 but fair number of edits. They have email enabled, so it's probably best to ping them to see if they will voluntarily give up the name. Then, requester can file at WP:USURP if no response and bureaucrats will evaluate request (see also: Wikipedia:Handling SUL conflicts). –xeno^talk 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering. You will find the request here. I will usurp on projects without local bureaucrats if this local account is usurped. Anyway, sending a mail to the user may be the best solution. Thanks ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

CHU for an ACC account

Hey, hoping your around I just need to know if it's ok if I post a request for a simple name change for a request I have in ACC ? I would like to get the ball rolling for the user then they can just step in with the username they want. The request I have is for Oliver W. Broadus the user created an account with a " , " and they want a " . " I'm just not sure if it's ok for me to request the name change for another user. Thanx Mlpearc powwow 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is ok for you to submit it on their behalf. –xeno^talk 00:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 00:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BCD

Template:BCD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with stalled rename

As you are aware you renamed my user name from User:Warburton1368 to my new one. You advised me to report to bugzilla to get my remaining edits moved over. I just cant understand how to do it. Do i create a new file or add to existing. Im totally confused by it. Any advise would be welcome. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'ved posted to and re-opened bugzilla:17313. –xeno^talk 12:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Xeno! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity) was completed successfully (see contributions). Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Why are you removing bare link tags

Those are not bot templates, they're for editors too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the linked discussion. An unapproved bot task added these templates, and mostly in the wrong location. Two and a half months later, I am rolling back the addition of the tag to those articles which have not been edited since. If some editor(s) wants to fix these thousands of bare links, they can harvest the list of articles with barelinks from my contributions or ask for a dump report to find barelinks. The tags should not have been added by an unapproved automated process, as it has overloaded the category. –xeno^talk 17:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity) was completed successfully (see contributions). Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, I think it actually did deliver two messages to the same user :0 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep... I've reported the error @ user talk:EdoDodo. Thanks, –xeno^talk 12:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing adminship

Xeno,

I received your e-mail. Please do not remove my adminship rights. I can assure you my account has not been compromised.

PedanticallySpeaking (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted - thanks, and welcome back. –xeno^talk 13:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious activity, possible sock?

A few days ago, I noticed the IP 125.160.164.18 had edited the talk page of the MP, adding {{clear}} and the edit summary "fmt.", which I assume means "format". Now, just a few minutes ago, I found the userpage of an editor, Jack Merridew while browsing the archives of ANI. It appears that he was previously accused of socking; and apparently he has used an IP close to the given one, according to the sock puppet investigation. In addition, the above IP added an inter link to the Indonesian Wikipedia, and Jack edited there a good amount, according to the CentralAuth. Should any action be taken? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that innocuous edits like these don't really compel me to get out my sock hunting gear. –xeno^talk 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Xeno, I realize it's strictly procedural to remove it for inactive admins, but if possible, I'd prefer to keep it. I'm currently not an active editor, but I'm still a frequent Wikipedia user. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

With this very edit, you have prevented the removal. Cheers, –xeno^talk 17:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please advise

sulutil:Icarus

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could tell me what you think the chances are of me getting a usurpation request granted for the username Icarus on this wiki. SUL account is impossible, since it's active on 17 projects (many of which are mine). The home wiki is svwiki (which isn't me). On enwiki, total contributions 206, two most recent of which were in 2003 and 2005. The 2005 edit is the account holder offering the username to another user (who has also since retired). I posted on user talk page in April. I don't want to lodge an official request if me not holding the home wiki account automatically disqualifies it. What do you think? Icarus^talk 20:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If the name was not used on other projects, then we could probably usurp it based on the en.wiki Icarus' 2005 edit, but Wikipedia:Handling SUL conflicts suggests that such a request would be denied as it would create a new SUL conflict for the current claimholder, which is sv.wiki Icarus. –xeno^talk 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thought as much. So, given that sv.wiki is averaging about 4 edits per month, if I eventually surpassed him in edit count...lodging a request then wouldn't likely be a problem? Icarus^talk 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It would not be granted unless local handling guidelines change: "bureaucrats will typically decline to process requests by local users that would create new SUL conflicts or have the effect of allowing a local user to take over the claim from an active user on another project, even if the SUL account has not yet been created." –xeno^talk 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant me as in the Icarus on ms.wiki (forgot to mention that). Icarus^talk 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Yes - whatever user has the highest edit count can use special:MergeAccount to create the SUL. Then we can probably process the request locally based on Icarus' ages-old offer. –xeno^talk 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for talking that through with me! :) Icarus^talk 20:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, glad to be of service. –xeno^talk 20:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Previous edits being rolled back during reversal of unapproved bot task

Thread retitled from "You need to be more careful".

Bot task yourself? It seems that you're undoing a "bot task" with a bot task and in the process undoing at least some constructive edits for which you have no authorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking further I found this and this as well. Are you going to review all of these edits? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The former was not a problem--the interwiki link was still there, just on another line. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to run unapproved bot tasks, you will have to assume the risk that some of your concurrent edits previous to the unapproved task will be rolled back. –xeno^talk 12:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? You have consensus to remove the barelinks tag, not roll back all of my edits, and unless I misunderstand, you don't have bot approval to do this. Are you going to manually review your edits from now on or not? If not, I can. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free... FYI I have told Walter that I will pause my reverts until the end of the month to see if decent headway is made in the overloaded category. –xeno^talk 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification But just to be clear here, do you have or think you have bot approval to undo all of my edits from this period of time? Also, you're saying that you will not be reviewing your previous reverts, nor are you monitoring future ones as well--is that correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Approval to reverse an unapproved bot task is not required. You can review the reverts, since you created the problem. –xeno^talk 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Well, that's my point: you have approval to revert simply the addition of {{Barelinks}} and nothing else. You don't have approval to revert every addition that I've made. If you're doing that, then you're running an unapproved bot task yourself. I admit my ignorance regarding Wikipedia:Bot_policy, but looking over it, I see nothing about how undoing a bot task itself doesn't require oversight. I do see where it says that "All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing a page, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved before they may operate." By your own tacit admission (you refuse to explicitly state it), you are not going to review your own edits and you are not concerned with ensuring that said edits conform to the scope of what you are allowed to do with a bot account. Is there something that I'm missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are missing is that you ran this task without approval (and further, in violation of your assurance to me that you would seek approval for mass tagging), and thus, you must assume the risk that other editors may use rollback to reverse the edits. This means that if there happened to be an article you have edited before your unapproved edit, and there were no intervening edits, those changes may be rolled back. You will have to assume this risk whenever you make unapproved edits on a mass scale. –xeno^talk 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so I don't see anywhere on WP:BOT that says anything like this and I see something that directly contradicts what you're doing. Again, I am not being sarcastic when I defer to your advanced knowledge here: what policy or guideline states that you may run a bot to reverse bot edits? If you don't actually have approval to run a bot or if you do have said approval, but are unwilling to run it in such a way as to not roll back other editors, then I don't know what I'm supposed to do here other than ask another admin to intervene. It would be simple to run a bot that simply replaces "{{cleanup-linkrot|date=August 2011}}" with a blank line or removes it from a page, but you are refusing to do that for some reason and deleting an indeterminate amount of inarguably good edits without approval. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I do not plan to resume this until the end of the month. At that time, I will consider using a bot rather than rollback - even though it means a lot more work to reverse what you've done. Perhaps you would like to seek approval for such a change and clean up the mess you've made yourself? (Even better, create a bot to fix the barelinks that you feel are so problematic that require an unsightly tag to be placed on all the articles?) –xeno^talk 13:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks This will probably come across as sarcastic or rude, but I am honestly surprised and confounded by you even suggesting that. I did not create a mess at all and in spite of your attempts to characterize it as such, I certainly don't see it that way and there were several editors who agreed. Furthermore, I've explained several times that I'm not interested in resolving all of these link rot problems myself. Nothing has changed about my attitude toward either of these issues and I don't know why you think it would. If I wanted to do either of those things, I would have already done them.

You claim that using a bot rather than rollback is somehow more effort, but it would be simple to create a list of my edits in AWB and then just use find and replace. This would have the added bonus of not removing all of the inarguably constructive changes that I made and even introducing some more yourself. This is coming from someone who doesn't know a whit about programming and can't actually make a proper bot himself anyway—this would not be difficult for someone who really knows about these sorts of things and I'm sure that you could request some simple script that will do exactly what you want.

The real problem here (from my perspective) is that you refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of your actions. Again, I am willing to admit that there is something that I'm missing here about how exactly one goes about getting a bot approved or operating one, but considering how you refuse to answer my straight-forward questions, I'm left to assume that you see the blatant contradiction here: you are using a sloppy bot means of reverting what you perceive to be sloppy bot editing (again, I don't think so myself and several editors agreed.) For that matter, you have taken my tacit approval—which was merely me saying that I wouldn't stop someone else from reverting me en masse because I was tired of fighting—as actual bot approval. If I'm not mistaken, those aren't the same thing. It seems implicit in your answers and your obfuscation that you recognize this and are unwilling to address it. I hope you don't think me out of line for pointing this out—I'm honestly just trying to understand your rationale here and I can't. If I've overlooked some crucial reasoning here (which is entirely possible) please point it out to me. Otherwise, I am left with you apparently contradicting yourself and then telling me to clean up your mess (bearing in mind that the "messy" edits here constitute a small minority but still require me to do the oversight that you should have been doing in the first place.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Running AWB is a lot more work and takes far longer and more system resources than using mass rollback. You ran an unapproved task; if you refuse to reverse the edits yourself, you will have to accept that other edits may use rollback to reverse your edits. Please note that I am not saying that I will not use AWB as you suggest, just that I am not required to do so.
Have you initiated a section at WP:BOTREQ seeking a more capable operator to actually solve the barelink issue you feel is so troublesome (as I suggested several times)? –xeno^talk 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this section pop up on my watchlist. When someone uses rollback to reverse an unapproved bot or AWB job, we do not expect them to review each edit manually. They can simply use 'rollback' on the edits that have the edit summary appropriate to the job. In this case, the problem seems to be that there are consecutive edits by the same person, and so rollback is untintentionally reversing more than one edit at a time. I think this is unfortunate, but at the same time if the bot/AWB operator cares about it I think they should be the one responsible for going back and reversing the unapproved edits. I don't understand, Koavf, why you haven't gone back and reverse the "barelinks" edits yourself, if you are worried about it? You could just do the ones where this problem will occur, so that the other ones can be done by rollback as usual. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback @Xeno: Reviewing WP:ROLLBACK, you are entirely correct and I apologize for dragging this out on your talk. I suppose that since you are unwilling to manually review these edits yourself, barring a change of your opinion or the technical means by which you revert my edits, then I will have to review them myself and I will continue to revert you in such cases where I see appreciable mistakes made by the rollback process (such as the removal of categories.) I have not posted to BOTREQ, because it would simply be impossible for a bot to adequately resolve this issue. There are bots who come along to replace "...was the best president ever.<ref>http://georgebushrules.com/</ref>" with "...was the best president ever<ref>[http://georgebushrules.com/ George Bush Rules homepage <!--BOT-generated title-->]</ref>, but this in no way resolves link rot and does not result in full-formed citations. Also, if users manually check references, they can see if said references are high-quality, which is another thing a bot couldn't do anyway. Unless I'm overlooking something here, there is no point in posting to BOTREQ and this is also why I don't use the semi-automated tools to fill in references.

@CBM: I am not removing the barelinks tag because it is useful. If you are really interested in sloughing through all of this, there is a long discussion about it in which several editors agreed with me as well. At the end of the day, the only problem with the edits were that they were semi-automated, not the actual content of them in and of themselves—that was explicitly stated as not needing admin intervention. Having {{Barelinks}} is useful and removing it from pages is not, so I'm certainly not going to be the one to do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the content of the edits was also an issue. You suggest that a bot cannot adequately handle a barelink to prevent link rot. So who is going to patrol these tags you were adding in the tens-of-thousands? Human editors? Which? Do they have the time and availability to resolve these barelinks expediently? Or are these unsightly tags going to persist on these articles for several years to come? If there are human editors who stand ready to do this tedious grunt work, can they not work from a list, rather than a template-generated category? These are all questions that would have been explored had you gone through the necessary bot approval and sought consensus for this task - hopefully you now understand why subverting this process was a bad idea all around. –xeno^talk 14:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Koavf: People who have run unapproved bot/AWB jobs always say they feel the edits are useful (otherwise, I suppose, the operator would not have made the edits). So this is not a particularly strong argument. As in all areas of life, if you want something done a specific way, you often have to do it yourself, and if you are unwilling to do it yourself, that weakens your ability to complain that other people aren't doing it your way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses@Xeno: No, I do not think that there is anything wrong with this in principle at all. Maintenance tags exist for a reason--we can either have them and apply them or not have them. Splitting the difference and sometimes using them but them sometimes not if they might be there for awhile is not a solution at all. It would be far better for a page to have an unsightly tag for X months than an unusable reference for the same amount of time.

@CBM: You are correct that I didn't have vandalism in mind--I didn't want to intentionally make pages worse--but a user can look at his edits and see the error of his ways. I don't see any such error and again, several of my colleagues agreed. I never complained about others user semi-automated tools to half-way fill in bare references... I'm not sure where you're going with this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but have neither the time nor inclination to debate this further at this time. In future, be sure to seek the requisite approval and consensus before adding maintenance tags en masse. –xeno^talk 14:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

{{ArbCom navigation}}

I'd forgotten about your veto, so can I assume that this knee-jerk revert was of the usual "if a single pixel was changed in the output then UNACCEPTABLE" sort? Easily enough fixed: maybe one day you'll either learn to do it yourself, or contain your rage for long enough to drop a friendly note. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason at all to use a template (that will increase the template use count on hundreds or thousands of pages) when the hardcoded table is working just fine. More worryingly, your edit removed the NOINDEX protection that was there for a very good reason, and the recent changes link. And yes, the change to the rendered output was undesirable. Was "No thanks" not friendly enough? I don't doubt you were acting in good faith, albeit with your usual desire to ensure everything conforms to "standard metrics". –xeno^talk 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved the NOINDEX into an includeonly section: that should have sufficed to ensure that the pages the template was transcluded on continued to be noindexed without noindexing the template itself (you'd be surprised how often I resort to Google to track down templates when I've forgotten their names). So assuming that was working (did you check?), it's a positive move and should be reincorporated even if the rest isn't. The omission of the recent changes link was an oversight: I suppose that's what happens when something thinks it's a grand idea to take a link that's prominently featured on the left hand sidebar on every single page on the project and duplicate it in some tiny row on a navbox where the talk link goes in {{navbar}}s. So that again was a change with negligible impact in the worst case. So finally we're left with the general code change, which shaved 20% off the total file size while making it easier to see how to add new lines to the code and bulletproofed the template against the bugs that continuous integration always gives us (the last WMF code drop broke dozens of hard-coded tables across the project and it was muggins here who had to go fixing things). The counterargument for all of this is... what, exactly? "working fine"? If it "works fine" with the new code as well, then that's no issue either. And no, "No thanks" is not friendly enough: snippy reverts to significant edits never accomplish anything but aggravating people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the table is working just fine as far as I can tell, and has no dependencies. Your change would mean that instead of a simple table, arbitration pages would unnecessarily transclude an additional 4 or more templates. Sorry, I didn't notice that NOINDEX was moved lower (though nearly all arbitration-related material is NOINDEXed on purpose, and I'm not sure that we want this template indexed either - will have to ponder more); and I mistakenly wrote "recent" changes when I meant related changes. –xeno^talk 16:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The impact on the performance of policy pages of including another dependency is negligible: MediaWiki is highly optimised for stuff like this, seeing as it happens on almost every page on the project, and there is no reason to get prematurely worried about it. I can't see any reason not to index the template itself: there's nothing sensitive on it because it's just a navigation template. The related changes link should probably be moved somewhere more prominent than an eye-wateringly small link hidden on the navbar. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Performance was not my concern - the ArbCom navigation box is fine as it is without adding further template dependancies and increasing the number of templates transcluded on hundreds of arbitration pages. I will ask the arbitrator who added NOINDEX protection if they think the template itself should be indexed. –xeno^talk 13:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fine as it is" isn't a valid argument in itself. I've already given the advantages to moving to a meta-template. You are required to address them if you expect to be taken in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As I randomly pass by this page, I have to confess it never ceases to amaze me how many people have an apparently overwhelming desire to modify things without consulting those who are directly affected. I have a hard time believing that anyone would try to do that at, say, a page that would impact the entire FAC project without discussing; I don't understand why people would go about changing Arbom-related pages without at least popping around and saying "hey, I'm gonna fix xxxx". Risker (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong aversion to raising bikeshed discussions if at all possible. These changes have a negligible impact on the actual working of the policy pages: they're primarily for the benefit of those few souls who can be bothered maintaining templatespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes again. The use of a template is not desired; the Arbitration Committee will continue to maintain the template. Please direct your efforts elsewhere. –xeno^talk 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of your powers as an Arb. A wrong one, one might suggest. If you're not interested in having an adult discussion of why the template needs to be as it is (and my experience of you in templatespace is that you never are) then you're in no position to dictate the outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilariously, I see that you've now undone a change to {{helpbox}} which you obviously didn't notice until you decided to stalk my contributions. Will you wave your Arb badge around there as well, or do you have a special "helper" hat you employ instead of adult discussion in that realm? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed this change when viewing the visual impact of your changes to {{ArbCom navigation}} to the rendered page at WP:RFAR. –xeno^talk 13:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno: I view the conversion to meta-template as desirable as it centralises code and allows all templates to benefit from improvements rather than having to maintain hundreds of templates separately. If the functionality is affected then that should of course be discussed and resolved, but reverting on principle or because of performance concerns is not helpful. Risker: we have a principle of being bold here, and the arbitration committee does not "own" this template, so I don't think you are right to suggest that non-arbitrators should discuss changes beforehand. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern about unnecessarily transcluding four templates instead of one was not one of performance, but one of visual clutter in the "Templates used" section at the bottom of the edit preview. –xeno^talk 13:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

← I see that this is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#.7B.7BArbCom navigation.7D.7D - I would suggest this be continued there so that the discussion may benefit from additional outside viewpoints. –xeno^talk 13:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think I owe you an apology, Thumperward - the new layout is much easier to modify and this ease-of-use definitely offsets the fact that a few more templates are now transcluded on arbitration pages. Thanks are due to Coren and MSGJ for helping me see the other side of this equation, and to you for ensuring that the rendered output remained as close to the original as makes no odds. –xeno^talk 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Gratefully accepted. There's still a comment at template talk:helpbox awaiting a reply if you'd care to have a look. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for watching over my talkpage. Very much appreciated. Maxim_(talk) 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing =) –xeno^talk 13:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Admin

Hi Xeno, Thanks for the note on my talk page. Yes, I'd prefer to keep my admin privileges from lapsing. Will this edit suffice? :) --Mysekurity 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes... yes it will... –xeno^talk 13:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Thanks for your modification. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble to Wikipedia regarding my signature violating policy. As of a matter of fact, I like the change you made. It makes my signature unique. Please send a TB.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The templates you transcluded should probably be substituted. –xeno^talk 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the move

I have no idea why that creation script fouled up so badly: every "Kww" was missing. Thanks for fixing the one I missed.—Kww(talk) 18:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you fill your username into the preform box? –xeno^talk 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously too incompetent to be running, no?—Kww(talk) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think you were the first to make that mistake =) –xeno^talk 18:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (nor the last [2])

A kitten for you!

Thankyou for clearing up my ArbCom resignation statement. I'd never make a good clerk in a million years.

The Cavalry (Message me) 15:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

=) No worries. Best of luck in your new position. –xeno^talk 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

TCO

I noticed that you closed the TCO discussion. I'll be blunt: something needs to be done about TCO's account situation. Vanished users are not allowed to edit unless they unvanish, and the vanishing in this case was so botched that unvanishing might not be possible. TCO is now actively editing as user:RetiredUser12459780, while the user:TCO page and talk page are up. (the user:RetiredUser1245643169 situation has since been resolved by a redirect, but that's three accounts for one vanished user).

I don't like TCO, but that's not why I'm getting all uppity about this. This is at least the second case of blatant abuse of the RTV. You can probably guess who else I'm thinking of, but the point of the matter is that if the RTV system is to work, someone has to step up when the user comes back, and properly undo the vanish or create documentation, or otherwise fix the mess that is created. No one has stepped up thus far.

Please fix this mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The account they was editing with has been renamed to TCO per their request. –xeno^talk 13:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored TCO's userrights from the former TCO account to the renamed vanished user account (the one he was using). You may wish to block the other account, but I will leave that to you as you have a better grasp of policy than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 14:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-name request from new user

Xeno Please delete my photos and change my username! <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminataee (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Xeno! See this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done –xeno^talk 14:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Like--Shirt58 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

how do i install statuschanger2.js?

well... you get my question... Abc123456person (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have figured this out. –xeno^talk 13:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about adminship

Hey there, long time no chat. Once again, my thoughts have turned to considering submitting myself to the gauntlet that is a request for adminship. As an admin (and much more) that has followed my work in the past, I was wondering if you had any thoughts/suggestions, or even if I'm ready for such an endeavor. I've started reading the various essays on adminship and trying to get some additional thoughts on how to proceed. Would love to hear your advice, if/when you have time. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I stood for adminship after about four-and-a-half months of active editing. You've been editing for five years - go for it! WP:PASSRFA is probably the best advice you can get. –xeno^talk 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

request for merger of multiple usernames on Wikipedia

Hello Xeno, I just saw your message on my (Osy (usurped)) talk page, In the past I have also used the user account User: ontoyinsimon. I however desire to maintain one username on wikipedia, ie the one I am using to type this message--User: Osy, which I had suspended using after I forgot my login password-lame though-but I do require your help and advice. Prior to informing you about this, I had solicited the help of User: talk:T L Miles, an editor who has also been of immense help to me on wikipedia. An expedient response from you would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.User: Osy, (OSY 11:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)).

We can't merge usernames. Would you like me to rename "Osy" to "Osy (renamed)" and then "ontoyinsimon" to "Osy" (again)? –xeno^talk 14:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to stick with my Osy username-no renaming please. Isn't it possible to merge my contributions then, ie ontoyinsimon and osy?. There seems to be a problem with my signature anytime I attempt to sign a post as is the case now(OSY 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)), do kindly take some time off your busy schedule to help me rectify this problem as well.(OSY 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC))User: Osy

It is not technically possible for bureaucrats to merge usernames. See WP:How to fix your signature. –xeno^talk 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, for the help and advice(Osy 08:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

SUL accnt problem

Hi, Xeno, I wonder if you can help me with this. User:Mahir256 for some reason cannot access his account on English Wiktionary. His account is inexplicably unattached there. So I asked him to log in as Mahirtemp, and I renamed that to User:Mahir256, but his account remains unattached. He made the request at Wiktionary:Changing username. See the bottom of sulinfo Mahir 256. Thanks. —Stephen (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I don’t know if you did it or if it just needed some time to take effect, but it seems to be sorted now. No longer unattached. Thanks. —Stephen (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do anything, but perhaps the customer used Special:MergeAccount to join the accounts (as is required). –xeno^talk 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity) was completed successfully (see contributions). Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 15:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

No errors this time =) Nice. –xeno^talk 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

revision deletion?

Hello Xeno:

Can you please delete this IP address in the revision history for this article...see link here Page text. [3]

I made a number of edits in this article and with two(2) edits I failed to LOG IN (not once...but twice!)...so I have IP address hanging out in general public. this makes me nervous! Please help.

Thank you, {CSXNS011 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)}

 Done. In future, you should email requests of this nature to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org for faster service and lesser visibility. –xeno^talk 13:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Grazie Xeno...I will take your advice. Thanks Again, {CSXNS011 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)}

Thanks

Thanks for your help Xeno.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag unblock request

FYI. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK so

I went to login to Huggle and it wouldn't let me log in. It said I had an incorrect password, and I was putting it in correctly. I haven't logged into it since I changed username, so could there be an issue there? — Status {^talk_contribs 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would have anything to do with it. Try asking at WT:Huggle? –xeno^talk 13:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Slon02 4 RfA

Hello Xeno. The RfA at Slon02 4 has just closed with a final tally of 84/13/4. This is just a message to let you know that an RfA needs to be closed by a bureaucrat and that I am at no power of my knowledge to close it myself. Thank you.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 03:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically an RFA isn't closed until a bureaucrat closes it. Most of us keep an eye on the ongoing RFAs and will get to them in due course - typically we ask users to wait 12 hours from the scheduled end time before poking around for a bureaucrat. –xeno^talk 13:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect wording on my part. I'll be sure to remember your advice. This was the first RfA I participated in. I hope that in due time, I will be put up for nomination someday. I have lots of work to do.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

... and don't go telling Bureaucrats when to do their job either :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not telling them, I was just letting them know. :P—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 18:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Chicago tagging

You use to do the tagging for WP:CHICAGO. Then you delegated that to EdoDodo (talk · contribs), who has not edited in about 4 weeks and does not seem to be responding to tagging requests. Do you have any advice?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Post to WP:BOTREQ or learn to use WP:AWB? –xeno^talk 18:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Seasons Greetings
	Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

	Nadolig llawen and best wishes for 2012!
	Yes, I'm still here. Partly, if indirectly, because of you, I'm sure. All the best for the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you have a good one! Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity) was completed successfully (see contributions). Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 13:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

Bot question

Greetings Xeno, Sorry to bother you but I'm not sure who else to ask I am fairly certain that you know how to answer this question. I am attempting to develop some code, for use in AWB, to do something like this: I would like to look at the Article page and if there is no infobox, then add the parameter needs-infobox=Yes to the WPUS banner. Likewise if the parameter is needs-infobox=Yes and there is an infobox it will remove said parameter. I realize that many articles would not need an infobox so I am mostly concentrating on Biographies. I think I read somewhere (maybe from you) that you had done this with the WikiProject banner tagging (which would also be quite useful to me) and I was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. It seems like it should be a fairly simple if, then else switch but I can't seem to get it to work. I appreciate the any help you can provide. --Kumioko (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

After building a list of articles to consider, you could paste the list into Special:Export to export the current revisions, and then load the resultant .xml file in the database scanner to scan for the presence of infobox code. –xeno^talk 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Thats kinda what I've been doing with AWB. I take all the articles in the needs infobox category and then switch from teh talk page, then set the skip if filter to skip articles that don't contain an infobox. Then I spot check the list to make sure that they really have an infobox, then I start removing the parameter. It just seems like there should be an easier way. --Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There probably is, I just don't know what it is =) –xeno^talk 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok if I figure it out I'll let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ

I realize this will be very tedious for you to look through, but I do believe the admin BWilkins closed this case prematurely (and a little disrespectfully, I fail to see how it is a laughing matter). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_BabbaQ Twafotfs (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As Twafotfs is significantly forum-shopping now, I'll invite xeno to read my final reply to them on my talkpage this morning ... of course, after you read the ANI thread. My reasons for closing are pretty obvious and apparent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What specific action are you asking me to take? Bwilkins' decision to close the ANI thread and suggest you two hash it out elsewhere was a reasonable one. He seemed to try to inject some light humour while doing so, but it appears to have not been received in the manner it was intended (an argument in favour of more clinical 'resolved' statements - while some editors treat ANI like open mic night at the comedy club, I don't think it's a trend that should be fostered or encouraged). –xeno^talk 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ was warned on two occasions this year, not to edit other people's Talk page comments [4] [5]

He was told "It's a Wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia:TPG#Editing_comments - you can only edit others' comments with their permission." by Strange Passerby, and ArcAngel who said "You may not have been aware of this policy, so consider yourself advised." Dating to March and May of this year respectively.

He also labelled be a vandal multiple times, called me a sockpuppet and had another IP banned for apparently being me (incidentally, that admin just attacked me on my own Talk page, calling me a "sock"[6])

At the very least, should not BabbaQ be warned (for the umpteenth time) that uncivil personal attacks are not acceptable? That neither are accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry? Twafotfs (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that now, on my talk page, the accusation of being a "single purpose account" can be added to the list, in addition to "harassment" (again), and the sentence "The only one making personal attacks now is you 'my dear'. [emphasis mine]" Twafotfs (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop already - I told you about WP:DEADHORSE. They were blocked 24hrs for harassing you - move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Cezary Baryka

Moved from User talk:Amalthea:

Hi I see this user is blocked for "abusing multiple accounts" but I don't think he's been sock puppeteering for ages. I know he shouldn't be creating new accounts when others have been blocked but is there are any chance he could be given another chance and to continue to edit under this account prvoding he never sock puppets again? If you look at his work this month he's been outstanding on Polish topics which are pretty important. I think he could be productive and it would be more beneficial for wikipedia to permit him to edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous situation. I am trying to figure out a single disruptive thing that this user has done, and I am not seeing it. He seems to be blocked on sight, but for what, exactly? All I am seeing from the accounts in question is high quality, neutral content creation. This latest account is still waiting for at least two queued DYK nominations. Most likely, this editor is going to create a new account, edit uncontroversially for a month, write a few DYKs, get discovered again, and the situation is going to keep repeating itself. If I ever saw a case of a user being blocked for creating good content, this is it. Did I say this is ridiculous? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He might have used multiple accounts in the past but I believe everybody deserves another chance especially if you consider how productive he has been of late producing articles like Jerzy Szaniawski and Jan Lorentowicz. Can you unblock him on condition he only uses that account from now on? If not why?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My reply here.

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)