Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 78

< Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Upcoming numerological apocalypse

This seems like the default to ask this question, though I hope some of the people I'm trying to reach actually check this page:

Long-term IP editors, you are my favorite class of editor. How are you taking the news of the upcoming temporary accounts for unregistered editors|temporary accounts for unregistered editors roll-out? I hope you all will still feel whole after this comes to pass, and you are IP editors no longer. Remsense诉 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I very strongly support that (the temporary accounts), but then I'm not an IP editor. It seems wonderful for privacy, which if I only edited as an IP I would be concerned about. Cremastra (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I edit as an IP from time to time and I think an increased layer of privacy is only great. Especially since those seeking to find use for such public-facing IP information are generally doing so for bad faith purposes. (The administrative purposes of site maintenance is done with non-public user IP logs.)
I'd suggest for future consideration, for editor recruitment and retention studies, making available additional features for anonymous editors, inspired by that used in other social media. Some message boards allow limited customization of signatures for anonymous posters, for example, such as flair colors and flag icons; one can hypothesize (and test quantitatively) that giving anonymous editors some extra means to express individuality might encourage eventual creation and retention of accounts. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyone seeking to find your IP information may be acting in bad faith, but most investigations concern the minority of IPs which are used to vandalise Wikipedia. Tracking them down so they can be educated or blocked is very much a good-faith activity in the interests of Wikipedia and its readers. As for customisation, the problem is identifying when two visits are by the same person. In many schools and businesses and some homes, multiple editors share a connection or even a device. Wikipedia can only customise appropriately for each person if they log in. We really don't want one editor displaying another's signature because the server can't tell them apart. Certes (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be missing something. Identical IPs have identical temporary masks, so abuse can still be tracked by casual editors. The point is that the IP address itself, with all the security concerns attached, is only visible to those with elevated privileges. As for my suggestion of signatured customization, I only made suggestions of what is termed in other forums "flair" or "flags" -- i.e. supplements -- not changing the actual displayed IP mask/username. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There are some relevant comments in a VPM archive. Details of IP masking are still hazy but it may rely on cookies, allowing a vandal to get a new identity by clearing them or browsing privately (e.g. Chrome's incognito mode). It will also be difficult to work out whether two IPs are in a similar range, or to check neighbouring IPs for vandalism. (Hopping within an IPv6/64 is so trivial it often happens accidentally.) Certes (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have much of an opinion on it yet, to be honest. It'll certainly be nice if it gives me the ability to receive pings, and it may possibly give me a stable talk page across IP addresses on this range - even a separate talk page from that of other users on the range - which would be neat. But if there turn out to be a lot of downsides for English Wikipedia as a whole, the final result may be the entire loss of IP editing here, masked or not, which I would regret. It'll be interesting to see what happens when it's actually turned on. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a leap into the dark. We have no idea whether we will still be able to fight unregistered vandals effectively or will have to reject the millions of useful IP contributions. I fear that we may soon no longer have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but I hope to be proven wrong. Certes (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, WP:IPMASKING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know how long the temporary accounts last and if they last more than 4 days can a temp account become autoconfirmed? I didn't see anything about this in the linked pages but it is a lot to go through. The closest I could find is a comment that there is awareness of the impact on anti-vandal efforts but that is quite vague. RudolfRed (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

One document states that temporary accounts will last a year, but I see nothing about them becoming autoconfirmed and think it very unlikely that it will happen. Certes (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding notice about image copyright

The footer of our pages says:

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site...

I think it would be sensible to change it to something like (additions emboldened for clarity):

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. Images may be subject to copyright or require attribution if reused; see individual image pages for details. By using this site...

My reasoning is that images may be open-licensed or fair-use, and in neither case do we display any notice of this to readers on the page.

Is this in our gift, or is it a WMF issue? Where should a request be raised? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The text comes from MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright, which is already locally customized. While some of the local customizations make sense, I have no idea why e.g. Special:Diff/546973720 wasn't also done in mw:Extension:WikimediaMessages. To me this seems like another one that should probably be done there first rather than only being done locally. Anomie⚔ 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I have asked there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Anomie: I mentioned you in that discussion, but my attempt to "ping" you failed (the interface is not one I'm familiar with). Please take a look. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

April 8, 1974

Why no mention on home page of 50th anniversary of Henry Aaron hitting 715th home run to break Babe Ruth’s MLB record? Fairly significant; maybe more than formation of Progress Party in Norway? Pliny37 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pliny37: You can start a discussion at Talk:April_8. There was a previous suggestion to add it, but that was a few years ago. RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Pliny37 apparently wanted it on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 8 so it would be on Main Page April 8. If there isn't even agreement about putting it on April 8 (it was added after the post) then forget about selected anniversaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation draft annual plan available for review

Hi everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation’s draft annual plan for the 2024-2025 fiscal year is now available. This plan is shaped by many factors. These include external technological, regulatory, and social trends in the world about how people look for information and rely on the Wikimedia projects. Our planning was also built around small group discussions on wiki, via mailing lists and over 130 conversations with individuals in person and in scheduled calls. These discussions consistently highlighted the need to remain focused on upgrading our technical infrastructure and supporting volunteer needs for tool maintenance and metrics.

Our answer to these trends and needs is in this draft annual plan. You will see that it prioritises maintenance and upgrades for our technical infrastructure, such as MediaWiki core, data centre operations, and site reliability engineering services. There are also key results around a number of issues discussed here over the past year, such as ways to help volunteers connect to others who share their interests, building newcomer edit workflows that reduce the burden on experienced editors, building a new community wishlist that better connects movement ideas to Foundation activities, and improving tools for editors with extended rights.

You can read a summary of the plan in yesterday’s letter from Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander, with a slightly-longer version on the annual plan landing page. The summary also offers details about what we’ve achieved so far in this current year. You can also read about our financial model, revenue strategy, and budget breakdown.

The annual plan talk page is open for questions and feedback now through the end of May, after which we’ll summarise all of the responses across talk pages and community calls and publish a final version of the plan that considers this feedback. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts! KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How do you make your username a color or font?

I see everyone doing it and I want to try. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Amoxicillin on a Boat I suspect you are referring to user "signatures" in discussions posts. If so, see Wikipedia:Signatures for all about that. — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I think I got it ~~~ Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I think I got it now Xeno User : Amoxicillin on a Boat 18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk • contribs)

Talk page subscriptions

Is there (or can there be) a bot to remove archived or stale talk page subscription from Special:TopicSubscriptions, or maybe there's a way to condense the page manually? I have not been able to find any documentation on this issue. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime, you have to manually click the red "Unsubscribe" item for each entry that you want to remove.
@Trizek (WMF), you might want to include this in the documentation at mw:Help:DiscussionTools#Topic subscriptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Should this be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard?

User behavior should be discussed at WP:ANI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dalton Tan (talk · contribs) has described misinformation several times in railway-related articles, and it has escalated even if it is warned. Even if I have been warned many times, I don't seem to understand it, so should I report it to the Administrators' noticeboard? --H.K.pauw (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User behavior issues should be posted to WP:ANI. I'd suggest copying this over. It may help to provide WP:DIFFs of misbehavior in your comment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You would need to give a couple of examples of edits that you believe are a problem and explain why they are a problem in a way that people without inside knowledge can understand. Be brief. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  information
According to Talk page, it is the next page that is making the misrepresentation.
Dalton Tan has listed misinformation in these articles and has been warned four times, but it continues to escalate. --H.K.pauw (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do. Their persistence and lack of communication are clearly disruptive – I think a block might be in order. Be sure to provide diffs! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What redirects here tool?

Is there a function that I can add to the Tools menu that will generate a list of redirects to the current page? I.e. similar to "What links here" but for redirects. I'd like to be able to check for valid anchor points. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, if you add User:GhostInTheMachine/SortWhatLinksHere to your .js, it will sort redirects first in the "what links here" results. (I find it works if I click "what links here" and then click "500") Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If that user script isn't exactly what you are looking for, there's also WP:US/L and WP:US/R. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. Praemonitus (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Praemonitus, why not use Special:WhatLinksHere and then un-tick the boxes for transclusion and regular links? That will leave you with a list of redirects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a Level 2 template

How do I request that a Level 2 caution template be added to the Twinkle notices? This is a long-standing complaint of mine about this particular message, which is copy-pasting a draft by someone else into article space. When I request the history merge to provide attribution, it tells me that I can copy a template onto the talk page of the editor who did the copy. However, the message that it puts on the user talk page of the user who did the copying is mealy-mouthed. I think that something a little stronger is in order. This is an action which, whether intentional or not, creates work for an administrator in order to provide attribution to the editor who really wrote and submitted the draft. It doesn't really say that copy-pasting is discouraged. So how do I request that a message having to do with inappropriate copying within Wikipedia be added to the Warn templates? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I don't see why an admin is needed to correct anything. According to WP:CWW, the template {{Copied}} can be added to the article's talk page and anyone can do that. For the other part of your question, you can post your suggestion to Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle RudolfRed (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
User:RudolfRed - That's interesting. Are you saying that history merge is not needed in those situations? AFC and NPP reviewers are instructed to request history merge in such situations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I am not familiar with AFC/NPP so I don't know why it would be different, but WP:CWW says that either a link or list of authors is sufficient attribution, per the CC license and Wikipedia terms of use. RudolfRed (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Then what is history merge for? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Purely regarding copyright considerations, providing a list of authors is sufficient, and avoids the problem of using a link where the source page for the copied content must continue to exist to preserve attribution. In particular, when there is just one author of the source content, that is an easier approach (as alluded to in Wikipedia:History merging § When not to request a histmerge). A history merge preserves the history of individual edits even if the source page is deleted. This goes beyond what is needed to satisfy Wikipedia's licensing requirements, but can be helpful for editors, keeps all the attribution on the article history page, and doesn't require manually extracting a list of authors for the purpose of attribution. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The replies above are technically correct but they miss the point. Copy/pasting someone else's draft to an article is pathetic. Volunteers who create content should be acknowledged in the article history and posting a template on talk as an alternative is just bullshit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq wrote:

Copy/pasting someone else's draft to an article is pathetic. Volunteers who create content should be acknowledged in the article history and posting a template on talk as an alternative is just bullshit.

Exactly, although I think that "pathetic" is not a strong enough rebuke for plagiarizing someone else's draft. That is why I wanted a stronger warning, because I think that usually the editor who copies someone else's draft to an article knows what they are doing, or at least ought to know. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, people who use copy/paste instead of WP:MOVE really don't know what they're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the fundamental question here, though, is whether a strongly worded message is more effective than a gentler one. I doubt that it is.
By the way, about ten years ago, an editor changed the {{Uw-c&pmove}} template to say that page history is legally required. If we've been posting this message for a decade, then it's hardly surprising that some editors believe that it's actually required. @Isaacl, what you say aligns with my understanding. Perhaps you'd like to clarify the text of that message? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a suggestion at this moment, as it's hard to get nuance across in a concise warning message. Page history is the built-in MediaWiki mechanism for maintaining attribution for a given article. There isn't a built-in mechanism for providing attribution for content copied from one page to another, but of course a cut-and-paste move is unnecessary with the page move function now available. So within the context of that specific warning template, the best course is to use MediaWiki's built-in functions to maintain attribution with the page history. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it's the best, but I don't believe that it's actually legally required. (It is required for non-legal purposes, such as Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? and edit counts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I've already agreed. isaacl (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
My point was to explain the benefits of history merges, even if there are other ways of satisfying attribution requirements. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sleeper Account Question

A new case request was made in the past 24 hours at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard with regard to a contentious perennial issue within a contentious topic. I checked on the history of the filing account. What I saw is that the filing account has made 16 edits, between 21 April 2024 and 23 April 2024. That would be a new account, jumping into a contentious topic, which is a little concerning as it is. But the account was created in December 2015. It has been a sleeper for more than eight years. I know that there is a guideline to Assume Good Faith, but should I assume good faith, or is there something that I should do or someone that I should notify? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of people make accounts just for watchlisting or setting a skin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Then the person got into a quarrel over an issue that has not been resolved in a decade, and asked for moderated discussion, and I declined the request, and gave a contentious topic notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I sometimes do wish there was a better way to report and request investigations into editors who show WP:DUCK signs of being a possible abusive sockpuppet but where we have no idea who to compare them to; WP:SPI, unfortunately, doesn't accept that AFAIK and it's tricky to raise the issue otherwise while avoiding WP:BITE / WP:ASPERSION concerns. But I'm certain every experienced editor has encountered that situation before, so it would be nice to have a formalized way to say "hey, can someone look into this?" I think we do have a few more tools that can be used to investigate things like that now and produce initial leads for a SPI, such as the edit-similarity detector, but there's no real way that I can tell to request that they be used until / unless you already have a second name. Frustrating. And this is compounded by the fact that, inevitably, the people who look most closely at suspicious possible-sockpuppets are usually those in disputes with them (people simply notice odd behavior by people they're in disputes with). So what we need is something like a formal way to say "hey it might just be my biases talking but does anyone agree that this account is sus?" and to ask other editors to help do at least a basic glance-over for publicly-available evidence leading to a possible SPI, plus possibly asking checkusers to use their tools if they agree it's already a sufficiently blatant WP:DUCK despite the other account not being clear. --Aquillion (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this question is important and I'm interested in the answers, but sadly I can't provide one. One idea is to consult a sock specialist (probably a checkuser, though they wouldn't be using that privilege to answer) but that raises its own problems. One is that you'd effectively have to say publicly "I think User:Example smells like a sock", which isn't ideal from an AGF/NPA viewpoint. The other is that the knowledge is distributed. I could recognise a few sockmasters' work on sight, but the particular sock you're interested in today is highly likely to be someone I've not seen before. Certes (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
In addition to what ScottishFinnishRadish said, a lot of people make accounts and just never get around to editing. Sometimes they just wanted to get in early to reserve the username, other times they might be paranoid about their IP address showing. One thing to definitely check in these cases is CentralAuth and global activity. I'll also just say that sometimes, just sometimes, checkusers see everything. But you can always just poke one if you're being deafened by alarm bells. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. This doesn't really answer my questions. I think that my questions had two parts. First, is there any particular guideline as to when I should be suspicious of a sleeper account that wakes from a long winter's nap? Second, is there any way that I can request a Checkuser to look at a suspicious awakening sleeper account, when I don't have a clue who the sockpuppeteer might be? If there is no answer, there is no answer. I am asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the more important question to ask is, "Are they being disruptive?" If they are being disruptive, then we need to deal with that in some way that makes the disruption stop, regardless of whether they're socking or not. If they're not being disruptive, then I wouldn't get too excited over it.
One thing I might suggest is to check their global contributions. It might be that they're actively editing on other projects and just happened to drop in on enwiki 8 years ago and got an account auto-created that way. RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem with this way of thinking (which I've often encountered when pushing for stronger measures against sockpuppetry) is that a defining characteristic of "smells like a sock" editors, at least to me, is WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV / WP:BATTLEGROUND editing - some of the editors who are most likely to aggressively evade blocks are ones who feel like they have a "mission" here, crusading ones who approach Wikipedia like a battleground. And those are some of the hardest things to prove and to make a case for on WP:ANI or WP:AE; usually it requires an extensive track record and takes a lot of time. Being "the person who constantly brings people who are editing from the same viewpoint to ANI / AE" is also not usually a good look - even if they're all actually the same person, if you can't prove that then you risk looking like you're trying to abuse ANI / AE to selectively remove people with that view from Wikipedia. They're also situations where people are most likely to want to give them WP:ROPE, which means that a sockpuppet who slips back in is often going to be able to edit for a long time, despite fixing none of the problems that got them blocked to begin with, simply because it takes so long to get someone with a newly-clean record blocked for even fairly serious and clear-cut WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV issues, especially if they know enough to avoid crossing the few red lines that can lead to faster action. Basically, getting WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV / WP:BATTLEGROUND editors blocked is usually time-consuming and exhausting, so naturally editors who suspect sockpuppetry are going to want to start with that - suggesting "oh well if they're disruptive why don't you just get them blocked for that, and if not, what's the problem?" is totally unhelpful when some types of disruption can take months to deal with and massive amounts of effort to build a proper case for. --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Windows 11 update (maybe)

I having trouble with my caplock, if I turn it on I have to restart my laptop to get it to turn off, also I now have a screen indicator showing caplock on/off, this has to be in a recent windows update, I did a search for the issue and they want me to uninstall my keyboard driver then re-install it, no way am I doing that, this really sucks. Is there a way to search recent updates, then uninstall the one with the issue? IDK.. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an HP laptop? If so, this thread might help (either the regedit or task manager approach). Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not really a Wikipedia issue, but installing a keyboard driver without having a keyboard driver installed could be an interesting challenge. Certes (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@Schazjmd and Certes: Thank you all, yes it's a HP and well I'm sure it has a keyboard driver, but I'm not good enough to even try. Thanx again. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The task manager approach worked. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Whew, glad it helped. Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Will the Met Office logo ever have its copyright expire?

The Met Office logo is currently protected by Crown copyright in the United Kingdom, but may not be copyrightable in the United States because it does not meet original standards. The version currently uploaded locally on English Wikipedia is the 2009 version. There may be differences in color matching between this version and the 1987 version. Therefore, the copyright protection period of logos uploaded in different periods will also be recalculated. -Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here, you might want to try asking at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@Fumikas Sagisavas, On English Wikipedia, there is also Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of autoblocking

If a user who is blocked takes advantage of autoblocking being enabled for their block to stop other, innocent users from editing by attempting to edit from random IP addresses, what will the administration do about it? By modifying the block to disable autoblocking, this allows the blocked user to evade the block, so will they send a request to a steward on Meta to lock the account to prevent further collateral damage because the account can no longer be logged into if all else fails? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Has this ever been a problem before? Or are you just telling people how to stuff beans up their noses? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
If a user is being deliberately disruptive in this way, their account could be locked. — xaosflux Talk 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey: Template Picker Project

We want editors to find and use templates easily. As such, we have selected two wishes which we are implementing together:

  • Wish #1: Quickly add infobox – an easier way for newer editors to find and insert common templates such as infoboxes.

These wishes ranked 5th and 11th in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023 respectively.

Please read more about the template picker improvements project, and leave any early feedback on the talkpage.

On behalf of Community Tech, –– STei (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_78&oldid=1223238375"