Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive 2017

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Users adding valid data without standard taxon formatting

Fellow admins, how do you think we should deal with users such as User:Roenzer? He has contributed with just over 50 edits, most of them page creations. They all contain verifiable and in most cases relevant data, however they all look pretty much like this. The problem has been pointed out on his talk page by several editors for about one months time, however he has yet failed to respond even once. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Somebody with the expertise will have to check and correct the pages. I think that he will need to be temporarily blocked until this has been completed so that he does not make further edits. He has had enough warnings. However, the edits are in good faith and so treat gently but firmly. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to communicate with him as well Andyboorman (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this. Maybe someone should try to contact him on his talk page in some different languages. His name seems to be German with an unusual orthography, but nevertheless his language might be Russian???. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I've checked and patrolled his early and even very first edits and changed their format according to our taxon page standard.diff This I've been doing while trying to communicate with him, in order to give him examples of how the pages could be fixed. Since he has failed to respond I've stopped doing so, prior to bringing up the issue here at the Admins' Noticeboard. (This is also why his latest edits are marked as unpatrolled.)
@Franz Xaver: I've tried to figure out his native tongue but so far without any success. Unfortunately he's got no Wikispecies user page with Babel information, nor has he done any edits on other wikis that might give a hint. We might try a combo of German and Russian anyway – but my Russian is exceptionally limited, at best... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: @Franz Xaver: @BanKris: With regret and subsequent to my warning and continued unformatted edits, I have blocked Roenzer and placed a message on his/her Talk Page. The reason I gave was Vandalism, but may be that is not right. Please feel free to alter my block conditions and so on. Hopefully we get a communication soon. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this page [1] with its attempt to communicate. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I have altered the reason for the block: "not reacting to warnings". --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is very sad (but probably necessary). Please see also Wikispecies:Village Pump#Gyrophaena chees. For the reasons described on en.Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism, please do not describe good-faith contributions, however poorly formatted, as "vandalism". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My error apologies Andyboorman (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your efforts. Later today and above all tomorrow I'll fix whatever pages Roenzer has created so far. It is not a huge deal, since as I mentioned earlier the factual data seems correct. It is only the formatting that needs fixing, in a total of 56 pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Copying Wikispecies data into other wikis

At Help talk:Contents#How can I import a Taxonavigation to Wikipedia article? there is a discussion regarding whether it is possible to import taxonavigation data from Wikispecies to Wikipedia, in this particular case the Tamil Wikipedia. Please have a look-see and add your ideas and comments to the talk there. Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Geographical categories

I have recently deleted 43 geographical categories like [[Category:"Geographic place" (family)]] since they are unused, discouraged, and there is significant consensus against them. Neferkheperre has deleted even more, just about 500 or so. There are many more and in my opinion they should all be deleted, but please remember to double-check to verify that they're unused prior to deleting them. Some of them contain good references, and any such inline reference should first be made into a standalone reference template before deleting the category. (Please check for duplicates: many of them already exists as reference templates, but not all.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I had better squint harder before deleting. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least finding these is easy: just look at Stephen's category contributions. Circeus (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories I have an AWB list of about 10,000 to delete if anyone wants it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, almost everything in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded also falls into that category. Circeus (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, take "good reference" with a grain of salt. Something that discuss the invasiveness of a taxon in New Zealand (i.e. most stuff from Surveillance) is a reference that has not bearing or usefulness on Wikispecies IMO. Circeus (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise - see Amorphophallus titanum (New_Zealand). It is present on no pages at the moment. Delete as well? Andyboorman (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire hierarchy serves no purpose that we can discern, really. I'm not sure if Stephen ever intended to put actual pages in them at all... Circeus (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Im submitting missing geographical categories in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion in bulk

There are now almost 5,000 items in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Is there a tool that can be used do this - after manual checking - in batches? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately AWB is only with limited help with this, once you have the list in the left window, you can press the delete button, after checking the file, which is safe, but AWB has no bulk delete function, a program which has is Pywikibot. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out there is a "mass delete" option, Special:Nuke. Admins have access to that, on this project. However I've tried to use its filtering options, and they seem to be ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have some input there; presently we only have category Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think we need another category for files we want to suggest to delete, but which are not absolutely Candidates for speedy deletion, and then a category for such files that can freely be deleted, and then with Special:Nuke. In such a case we can go trough Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with AWB, and files which can be deleted, just get transferred to the category where we "mass delete" with Special:Nuke? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having been through many pages, Dan's suggestion seems to have legs. Can we have the procedure or category? Most of the pages I have looked at and deleted are Nuke candidates, IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the Special:Nuke, marked it with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and watch the resulting list. It was totally irrelevant, not at all from the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion but pretty new, good articles. Strange... Dan Koehl (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, Special:Nuke can't filter at all, so it's literally listing the same things as special:newpages... except without the capacity to filter. Completely useless for its purpose. Circeus (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are now a bit more than 4,000 items in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Already 1 000 files were deleted, only in one week. If Special:Nuke is not useful presently (On the other hand, why isnt it? Can it be configured better?) I guess manual deleting is not as bad, since the user deleting the file really can get a good check-up, before getting deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl, Andyboorman, and Pigsonthewing: Special:Nuke is only made for recent edits. It was the first place I went for old edits by Stho002 but it's not an option. As you can see from my log, I have deleted several thousand of these pages and I'm still working on them every now and again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
↑ What he said. I estimate I've blasted away some 3k of them. Circeus (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered Species of the Month

If I may I would like to ask a particular species next time we do endangered species of the month. Elseya albagula is a species I described, but I am not proposing it for that reason. In fact I do not mind if no mention of this point is made in the commentary on it, I am mentioning this in admin first before going elsewhere because of my own lack of NPOV on this taxon. It has been receiving global attention for this:

Both stories are a couple of years old but this unique species is continuing to decline. The references for the species are on its page here on WS. For those interested. I would be happy to write a piece and can provide photos. I need no credit it is just one I wish to get some attention on. Thanks for considering. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: Odd and unfortunate as it may seem Elseya albagula isn't assessed for the current IUCN Red List, at least not as of this writing. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: the IUCN is about 10 years behind with turtles, last assessments were done in 2006. This species is among the species being currently assessed to update this. It is recognised as an endangered species in the Australian EPBC Act. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Thanks. Since the IUCN Red List is a bit more "international" than the 1999 EPBC Act and lists from Natura 2000 and such, do you have any idea about approximately how long it will be before the IUCN catches up? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: the new redlist coordinator is a friend of mine I will ask her to see where she is up to. Unfortunately redlist assessments are a very slow process. At present I believe they are focussing on the South American taxa. Will get back to you. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: ok Carla Eissemberg (RedList Coordinator) has told me that the Australasian species are set to be updated in 2018, not before. However she suggested we consider Mesoclemmys hogei its redlisting as critically endangered has just been updated (2016) here. I can write up info on it and obtain photos for the page. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: It is of course unfortunate but then again also understandable that redlist assessments can take a long time. Nothing much we can do about that. As you might have noticed I created the new {{Especies-2017-05}} template a few days ago, hence right now the stick insect Dryococelus australis is listed as "Endangered Species of the Month" on our main page. I mainly did it because I first went through and updated the long overdo "Distinguished author" template, and saw the "Especies" redlink when alternating the Main Page code to render my update.
I think Mesoclemmys hogei is a very good representative for future "Endangered Species of the Month". Please update any information, photos, templates etc so we can use it, may be for June's ESotM? That would be most welcome – as would of course any other, suitable species. In the meantime I'll try to add a bunch of new templates for future Wikispecies:Distinguished author's, which I have been neglecting for far too long. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC), 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

CheckUser Policy

One thing we need to discuss is our local CheckUser policy. Since our nominations are drawing to a close. I am putting this here initially for discussion only no voting at this time. We do need to allow the current vote to run its course. Also any voting I would rather do in an RfC rather than here. So the purpose here is to have some ideas of what may be presented in an RfC.

The EN WP policy for CheckUsers is here: Checkuser Grounds for Checking for the most part. A particular point they address and we should think about. WP does not permit users to request a CheckUser of themselves, some people do this as a defense against accusations of sock-puppetry. Do we wish to permit this? Or follow WP viewpoint on this.

We also need to have a clear process, which includes the evidence required to perform a Check. Generally this would be in the forms of diffs. However we are a small Wiki, most of our editors are known to us. A point we can take into account but a clear guideline of when we can take that step of performing the check and the evidence required is important.

Another point is a way for people to open investigations, for example here is Wikipedia Sockpuppet Investigations. Note that the users have options, we should have a means upon which Checkusers can be contacted off-wiki, as they do on Wikipedia. On this point it is probably advisable that the CheckUsers can all contact each other off wiki. These checks are sensitive, potentially with major ramifications and under strict privacy control. Which we must adhere to.

Clearly we do not face some of the issues that the various language Wikipedia's face, sheer numbers of editors means hiding a sockpuppet account is easier. We should of course also look at other sites, the smaller wiki's for their policies.

I ask all admins and crats to post their views here so I can prepare an RfC after the vote on CheckUsers is dealt with. Please no votes here they will be saved for the RfC.

Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-investigation I'm glad that you're taking it seriously and it seems like others are as well--it's a pretty serious responsibility to have access to this information. But I'm confused about the problem of self-investigation... What sensitive info could be "leaked" if I looked into myself...? That was actually the first CheckUser action I did at the first wiki where I had these rights precisely because no one else's sensitive information would be at stake. Besides, if I did check my own username, that would be in the logs for others to see, so it's not like I could somehow use CheckUser to cover up my own sockpuppetry somehow--it would only make it more obvious. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not you investigate yourself. That I guess is your business. What WP does not grant is requests by other editors to have themselves investigated. From my experience mediating edit wars (which I acknowledge is not that common on Wikispecies) I have seen that if its not going one editors way they sometimes accuse some of the other editors of being sock-puppets, maybe out of frustration, maybe they really suspect it, but there is no evidence. Sometimes the accused says to investigate them as a defense. WP does not grant requests like this. There has to be clear evidence of possibly sock-puppetry for a request to succeed, not just because the accused says to go for it. It is a double edged sword. Yes the user has technically given permission, but CheckUser does not always work either. So I am basically saying should we have a minimum evidence required and stick to it no matter what, or will we accept users requesting that they be investigated. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── We need to set up an off wiki global email address that contacts all checkusers and place it here. Users need to be able to contact us offwiki in the event they suspect an admin or crat of sockpuppetry. Hopefully will not happen but the option must be there. We also need a mass message list of the checkusers once we know who they will all be. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another issue is the building of the case application page. Using the one on Wikipedia is difficult as its highly protected and I cannot access it properly so would have to code it myself. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock FuzzyBot

Hello, I would like to know if it is possible to unblock FuzzyBot; I find it rather inconsistent the reason why Pigsonthewing block the bot in June of 2016, this forms part of the Extension:Translate and by default is the extension that controls its operation. Although the bot can still edit in spite of being blocked, its editions are not autopatrolled and when you mark pages for translation, all you do is fill more and more the queue of unreviewed editions. Thanks. Alvaro Molina ( - ) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlvaroMolina: Since this was the action of one particular admin and your post is saying that you are confused as to why he did something, you may want to ask him first directly. @Pigsonthewing:, do you care to explain your thinking? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 37#Translation undone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see sense, it is a bot that is operated by the extension Translate and it is incredible that it has blocked only because it invalidated the translations of that template, which was also the fault of the translation admin of that time and not the bot. But since I do not have time to start a discussion in the Village Pump, I think I will withdraw this request. Alvaro Molina ( - ) 14:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: It seems like this is a good idea, Andy. What do you think? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it [was] blocked only because it invalidated the translations of that template" That's not why it was blocked; as clealry explained in the page section I linked to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a no-brainer that does not have a human operator, it is part of an extension. And if we talk about controllers, indirectly are the translation managers and they are responsible in case of an error with the bot when they forget to check the option of no invalidate translations. Also, blocked or unblocked the bot keeps running. Alvaro Molina ( - ) 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not having full insight in this, it sounds as if it should be unblocked, especially if there was one error, and it is still running? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bot works the same or not blocked, as it is an extension software functionality. The underlying problem is that you can not flag as autopatrolled your edits because when you are locked, you do not have access to the autopatrolled right that was granted to you at the time, so it contributes to fill more the list of edits without reviewing. Alvaro Molina ( - ) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Indeed the edit that triggered Andy to block the bot is very disruptive, but it seems more of a temporary oddity in behaviour rather than a true flaw in the code. Any occasional erroneous edits are of course unwelcome, but all in all the bot seems to work as advertised. As Alvaro Molina mentioned the bot is controlled by an extension of the MediaWiki server software, which run the entire site. Hence blocking it locally will have no real effect – it's a bit like trying to block a namespace, or a magic word... I vote for unblocking the bot. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I have no objection if you want to unblock, but I reiterate I did not block the bot because of the edit you mention, but - as I clearly stated at the time, both her and in the block log - because it did not comply with Wikispecies:Bot#Requirements; indeed it is still deficient in that regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and understood. I guess that issue should really be brought to Meta-Wiki, rather than (at least for now) being discussed here. Perhaps Meta talk:Babylon is a good starting point, as per the redirect from the Meta-Wiki User:FuzzyBot's talk page? FuzzyBot's user page here at Wikispecies is globally protected, and we can't easily change the data on that page ourselves. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
the bot is absolutely Necessary otherwise a lot of translation work is pointless also believe that the bot is associated with your translated and then run by the WMF employees see no reason to keep him locked not to mention that some of the functions of the translations administrators are undermined by this lack --Samuele2002 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bot may well be "absolutely Necessary"; it (or rather, its operator) is still required to comply with this project's bot policy (and even if it were not, should do so as a courtesy; the requirements are hardly onerous). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── @AlvaroMolina, Pigsonthewing, Tommy Kronkvist, Dan Koehl, and Koavf: Look who hold locked FuzzyBot is useless is useless. There is a reason why there is not written anywhere who is the conductor and the discussion pages that link to Babylon as this bot is NOT manipulated by anyone is controlled by the same translate extent and by extension from its developers. Account lockout has the same effect of the m:user: MediaWiki default block that is nothing because these utilities are free from any type of block. Also FuzzyBot bot even if it does not belong to the group Bot is actually has the flag of bots all this because these utilities are written to the MediaWiki code with all its parameters and even system administrators can do much. Look at that FuzzyBot is just currently active you see last contributions dating back to today here --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuele2002: I agree that it's not accomplishing anything to keep it blocked. It's not like a user-created bot but like a WMF script essentially. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes In fact, mainly because the block does not produce effects for the bot --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me this bot for want of a better descriptor has been caught up in bureaucracy. ie red tape. basically rules and policies do need to be administered with some thought. things come along that require a bit of a reassessment. My view is unblock this bot, keep an eye on it, and maybe we need to tweak the policy a little. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin list

Ok @Dan Koehl, Tommy Kronkvist, OhanaUnited, and MPF: and all admins, one of the things I want to do since we have discussed it at least 3 or 4 times is deal with the list of administrators and bureaucrats. But I will do it one at a time starting with Administrators. We have had several conversations about making this list realistic and representative. So first task is to desysop inactive admins. I believe in the past we were talking about 12 months with no activity? Please correct me if wrong. I do not want it seen as some sort of punishment. Its nothing more than they are not able to do the job now for some reason and that is their business. But the list of admins needs to be people who are here often and are contactable. So could we please agree on a list of those that we shall remove the flag from. I ask you all to look through the list of admins, consider what people have done in the last 2 years and decide if they should keep it. Once we have a list we can put it to a vote. Feel free to ping those you list they should have the opportunity to say something.

@Dan Koehl: We do need to make a way to honor these people for their service. As I said I do not want this to look like a punishment. I would suggest a category for former admins, maybe user box that shows they were an admin between two years, and that we shall reinstate them if they wish once they start working here again. Those are my thoughts.

Everyone we have discussed this many times. We need the admin and crat pages to be realistic a list of people users can turn to and get attention when they need it. So I wish to do this quickly. Once done we can look at the crats the same way and then look at filling in the gaps left if it is not enough people. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support . If I remember right though, before we do that, we must establish a local policy, which replaces that stewards take care of this. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support . We really need to rationalise, but the former admin category is also constructive, as long as it does not include desysoped people. Andyboorman (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes this category my intention is for people we have removed the higher user level from for inactivity or who have asked for it to be removed. Not for people stripped of the rights for abuse of privileges. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I share Scott's ideas and thoughts in this matter but yes, in order to be able to desysop or "decrat" any user without the use of Wikimedia Stewards (regardless of user activity) we first need a local policy for de-adminship. Since it already is an accepted official global policy I suggest we use Meta-Wiki's Admin activity review as a starting point for that discussion. Side note: For issues like this I think we should start to utilise RFC to a much greater extent than we do today, since imo it would be best if these matters involve the whole community rather than only admins and bureaucrats. I have added an RFC link to the top of the Recent changes page in order accommodate that. At times the Village Pump is already rather swamped with discussions of an at least somewhat lesser degree of importance, and inquiries regarding policy changes and other critical issues might go unnoticed. Hence better to move them to the Requests for Comments page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed we need to make this an RfC, I started here to get the ball rolling. I will look at Meta pages and work out a policy for here. Can I ask the process for having a policy accepted so that the Stewards are not needed. Not the vote here part. I assume we have to present the policy to the Stewards somehow? do they need to approve it? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Here are the discussions from 2015 and 2016, but there are older discussions than that on this topic; earlier in 2015 and in 2014. Reading that, I now remember only stewards can remove crats user rights, while local crats can remove local admins user rights. So, I guess what we could do, is to have consensus discussions, according to a local policy, and after decisions ask a steward to remove any rights from anyone the community has decided. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah figured only stewards could do the crats, hence I was splitting into two decisions, though they could be done concurrently. I will write up an RfC and post it and begin discussions. I will include a list of which ones I think should be removed, everyone can feel free to disagree or add more. I will do this later tonight. ~I will put the option in for some policy decisions too, get it all done at once. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: I'm a local 'crat and it turns out even I can't remove local admin rights. I can only assign admins and bureaucrats, but demote neither. What gives? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Dan Koehl and Tommy Kronkvist: I am in the same situation. I know I asked to confirm this last night. But I just looked I can remove rights for bots and translation admins, but not for admins. If this is correct I will have to change the RfC to be more like Commons in this area. Unless I am seeing something wrong. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, I didn't notice this before. My guess is that this is deliberately configured by someone, guess we must apply to get this corrected. Strange. Im curious as to exactly when this was changed, and by whom. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist and Dan Koehl: This is consistent with m:Bureaucrat. Only a handful of wikis give bureaucrats the ability to revoke--usually it is only stewards. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok makes sense, I will alter the RfC, make that part the same as Commons. Give me 10 mins. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Thanks Justin (and Scott). I only checked enWP:bureaucrats and thought that was the norm, but it turns out they're one of the exceptions where bureaucrats have that ability. IMO we need a local policy for admin and crat (in)activity regardless of that. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Faendalimas: If you change or add paragraph headings to the RfC page, please also alter the RfC links in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext to reflect those changes. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I did not change any headings, just struckout the incorrect text and brought it into line. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, but I also meant to give a heads-up for future RfC's. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Please would an uninvolved admin close the RfC at Wikispecies:Village Pump#Paid editing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dan Koehl (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: I can see you've templated it, but where is the summary of what was agreed? And as the first supporter, surely you're involved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I removed the div. Now its open again. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not participate in this discussion. What ritual must be performed? Neferkheperre (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A short summary of the consensus reached, like that at the head of this Wikipedia RfC should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for delete

After a change in Wikispecies:Localization page, 2 translations are not need anymore and the translation pages need to be deleted. The pages are the sub pages of Special:PrefixIndex/Translations:Wikispecies:Localization/7 and Special:PrefixIndex/Translations:Wikispecies:Localization/8 (23 each, i think the english page need to be delete too, but i am not sure). - yona b (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Tommy Kronkvist: - yona b (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@יונה בנדלאק: You're welcome. To other users and for the sake of reference, the corresponding deletion logs can be found here.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

MediaWiki Code of Conduct Draft

Fellow admins and 'crats, please take a look at this talk+poll at MediaWiki regarding whether the drafted Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces should become an official policy for Wikimedia technical spaces: MediaWiki: Finalize "Amendments" section?

If the amendment is approved it will apply both within physical spaces (such as Wikimedia technical events and Wikimedia technical presentations in other events) and within virtual spaces (Phabricator, MediaWiki IRC channels, etc). Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]


There's a glitch in Template:AEMNP, it produces an empty line, e.g. here: Template:Černý,_2011. IMO the problem is caused by a line feed between Full article (PDF)]}} and <noinclude>[[Category:External link templates]]. Please check. --Murma174 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That was fast :-) Thank you. --Murma174 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd behaviour for "Spanish" main page

Please see the thread "Main page in Portuguese for Spanish users with Spanish set in their preferences" at the Village Pump. Any help is most welcome! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved. Thanks Koavf. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Maxim request for removal of advanced rights

A request for the removal of advanced rights has been made to the Stewards here at the request of Maxim. Maxim sent me a message on my talk page here which I have followed up on. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards have marked the request as done. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Please move

[[Traundl Krapp-Schickel]] to Traudl Krapp-Schickel -- 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maik Bippus

Maik Bippus

This person contacted wikipedia twice by email asking to withdraw that page. Is there no respect of personal data at wikipedia for living persons? Kindly somebody takes it out and blocks it. 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there is no need to publish the address, as it is a private address obviously. --Murma174 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ This is not Wikipedia, so I can't speak to what happened there. The info has been deleted and the history suppressed. If I had the Oversight, I would remove it entirely but I can't. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edits revealing personal information should be oversighted. I've made a request, in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been enacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy

I have drafted Wikispecies:Biographies of living people. We should probably consider developing it further, I have been concerned for a while that we publish email addresses, without verification or checking for currency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a bit of an overreaction. Granted a private address or contact details should not be provided and should have been removed. However, we are not writing biographies per se, what we are putting together is the basic taxonomic authority information of these authors. It should only contain the name, institution, authored taxa and relevant references. It is not a full biography. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF Board resolution, passed in 2009, calls on us to: "[Ensure] that projects... that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles". They do not distinguish between "describe living people" and "full biography". It also imposes a duty of "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". The case above clearly failed the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should have extreme caution about providing contact information outside of something that is forward-facing like a university homepage. Those are by definition intended to broadcast information for communicating between scholars and having them here is actually extremely valuable. As Andy has pointed out, it's incumbent upon us to come up with a policy either way and I think we can all agree that erring on the side of caution is better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The standard policy is fine. The information we provide should be public domain anyway. If you publish, which you have to have for us to do a page on you, then the information in those papers is public domain. However, we should refrain from private addresses and email contacts. Apart from that its all public information and without opinion. I do not see the need for us to do anything complicated in this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Even if our policy is just "please see the WMF's policy", we should still have something. I don't think we need much more than that but we should have that documented. There are definitely contributors here who aren't familiar with cross-wiki policies, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which "standard policy" would that be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of local policies we are required by default to follow that's of WMF thats what I mean by standard, I was generalising to be fair. The reality is that on this wiki to have a page you have described a taxon, which means you published that and hence verification is kind of a moot point. You would not have the page if the paper verifying the taxon did not exist. All information in those papers is public domain. Can be used under fair use. We are not really writing anything about the author, just a list of their taxa and the relevant references. I agree we should not list private addresses and emails for these authors, its in the paper anyway people can get the paper and read it in the public document the author agreed to publish thus making their right to such privacy irrelevant. However, we should not repeat this it is unnecessary information on our pages. Hence the basic principals already set out by WMF more than cover what we do. So as you say we have to say something, fine make a policy page with a link to the WMF policies and guidelines on this. Issue covered. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To make the point that I really do not agree with private addresses being on there, check my taxon authority page, I obviously have given permission for all the content there. But nowhere on that page or anywhere else on WMF pages is my private address. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long time abuse user for User:サンピア

User:サンピア is long time abuse user. jawiki blocked him. He is cross-wiki vandalism. He wrote 「アルトクールは死ねばいいのに」 ("アルトクール should die.") for User talk:アルトクール. This user use sock puppet. User:アルトアンチ3.1, User:アルト⑨3 and Special:Contributions/240D:1A:381:8000:34A0:77B9:1CC4:52EB. Please block for his sockpuppet account and delete for User page and talk paeg. and delete and semi-protection for User talk:アルトクール.--アルトクール (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@アルトクール:  DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 17:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permissions:AutoWikiBrowser

Hello admins, I would like to request access for using the AutoWikiBrowser. But my login to wikispecies is not possible yet ("username already exists"). Who can help and manage to allow access? --Thiotrix (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thanks. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


mw.loader.load("// rand/WikidataInfo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); // Backlink: d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js doesn't work for me anymore on Wikispecies. In other projects it does. Any ideas? --Murma174 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Now the same problem in other projects as well. --Murma174 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mine won't work either. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed this as well. Some hours ago the text string "maintenance" could occasionally be seen instead of the usual Wikidata information rendered by the script, but other than that I have no clue what might be going on. The script itself hasn't changed since February 15, so that's probably not an issue. It is dependent of the mediawiki.jqueryMsg and mediawiki.user core modules to work, but as far as I can see they haven't changed a bit since April 4 and April 3, respectively. Hopefully this is only a temporary glitch due to MediaWiki server maintenance, but I'm sorry to say I have no hard evidence on the true underlaying reasons for the problem. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Works again, might have been a maintenance problem. --Murma174 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, about midmorning, CDT. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Maintenance problems seems to have been a plausible cause. For about a day the Wikimedia Tool Labs databases have been lagging behind as well by well over 100,000 seconds, and often twice that. In any case it looks like the tech staff are working their magic, and more and more services are again running fine and dandy. Who knows, maybe they're simply upgrading hardware. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]


I will not be able to be logged in as much as usual for the next couple of days. In the meantime please keep on eye on the following three threads:

Please note that Varlaams first edit to Dan Koehl's user talk page was deleted by me, and that the deletion was reverted by Varlaam himself only five minutes later. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Varlaam is now blocked, indefinitely. Please see their talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Not disagreeing, thanks for taking care of this, just for info since I have been away, what other sites was he doing this on? Beyond what has been eluded to here. I ask for information only. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His global account information, including four current blocks, can be seen here. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Blocking him indefinitely here on Wikispecies, is an absolutely unreasonable reaction IMO. --Murma174 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I agree, and have changed the block to one month. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It's really not on to change another admin's action like that, without consulting them. Please revert yourself. And the point of an indefinite (as distinct from "permanent") block - as I clearly explained on Varlaam's talk page - is " may return to editing only when you give a clear undertaking not to repeat such behaviour.". See also en:WP:INDEF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with one month block. We can extend that if the block expired and the user continues to be disruptive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: My only point here is that while breaching policy, Varlaams five edits to Dan Koehl's user talk page(Revision history) IMO wasn't “significant disruption or threats of disruption”, to quote WP:INDEF on indefinite blocks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: On the contrary, in the context of the user's several blocks on other projects, and the reasons for them; and of their lack of any constructive edit here since 2010, it was very much a "threat of disruption". But even so, my point that "It's really not on to change another admin's action like that, without consulting them." stands. Given that and the content ofen:WP:INDEF, you should revert your change to the block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: This shouldn't be a big issue. I have changed the block back into "indefinitely".(Block log) That said, I fail to find any Wikimedia policy or guideline stating that "it's really not on to change another admin's action like that, without consulting them." However, I like to see myself as one of the nice guys always trying to do my best, and hence will be happy to abide with such policy if there is one! Therefore a link to such information is most welcome, and if available that information should most likely also be mirrored here at Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It should indeed not be a big issue when an account used only (in the last seven years) for abuse is given an indef. block - that's SOP; and I have no idea why some people are making it one. And you seem to have overlooked, for example en:Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Varlaam

Fellow admins, what length of block, if any, do you find appropriate for Varlaam (talkcontribsblock logall projects) as a response to their edits to Dan Koehl's user talk page?(Revision history) I tend to lean towards one month, but that's only me and I'm open to suggestions. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 22:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A more pertinent question would be "When an editor has been told 'For... abusive posts about other editors... you have been blocked from editing... you may return to editing only when you give a clear undertaking not to repeat such behaviour', under what circumstances should they be allowed to edit without giving such an undertaking?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that's another question. My question here is a response to "changing another admin's action without consulting them" – however since the issue has been raised here at the Admin's Noticeboard I chose to ask all admins, rather than just one. Seems fair, I think. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Changing an indefinite block to a block of any set length means "after this period, you can carry on editing, despite not having met the term of the indefinite block". I'm not sure why, after I have given repeated explanations of this, it is still not clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the issues is one of perception. I know what the policy says, this is not about that, its about peoples perception of the word indefinite. It comes across as "forever" whether thats the intent or not. I would have been ok with a one month block on user Varlaam, initially, then see if he returned, another offence could be discussed for a much more severe block, possible ban. I appreciate his history, and accept it is possible he would be trouble. So I would not be surpised if it eventually led to a total ban of his account. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that "indefinite" may have been mistakenly read as "forever". Do you agree, now, that I have made clear that it does not mean that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I agree, I have read the policy. Like I said its not about the policy its about peoples perceptions, particularly across language where subtle meanings can be lost or confused. I think a matter of priority as an aside is that all policies be translated to as many languages as possible, that is just an aside. Anyway, I think people have this conception that it means more than how you are intending it. That is all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]



I have blocked User:Mariusm. The account was making ~50 edits a minute, using AWB. AIUI, edits such as this require approval according to our bot policy; should be made with a separate '-bot' account, thereby not flooding recent changes lists; and should not in any case be made so rapidly. The block is indefinite, but any admin may reverse it if Mariusm undertakes (on his talk page) not to make automated edits without first adhering to the bot policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok from what I have gathered AWB is only generally considered to require approval as a bot if the auto-save ability is being used, I checked this on EN-WP since it would happen more there. Granted at 50 edits a minute I guess this may be likely. I bring this up because what is being edited had been discussed in detail, ie the mining of CoL species. So I have no issue with the content being created. Therefore the only issue is the rate, the possibility its using autosave and hence it possibly should have its own account as a bot account under these circumstances. Is this a reasonable assessment of your view @Pigsonthewing:. I am after clarity here before deciding what to do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our bot policy clearly states "The term bot... refers to a script that modifies Wikispecies' content with some degree of automation, whether it is entirely automated, or assists a human contributor in some way. This policy applies to any such process." I am aware of previous discussion of his proposal to create items using external data, but not to use a bot to do so. As to what to do, the ball is in Mariusm's court; and I would expect to see him at Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval once unblocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with policies is that the world is not black and white. However I do get your point. I consider Mariusm a valued and trusted user and feel that what he did was done in good faith, albeit not in line with the bot policy. As such my preference is to give Mariusm the opportunity to discuss this, plan a better way, go through whatever is needed for that. But once discussions are under way and this is being dealt with the block can be lifted. I have not lifted your block. Would this be ok with you? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"my preference is to give Mariusm the opportunity to discuss this, plan a better way, go through whatever is needed for that. But once discussions are under way and this is being dealt with the block can be lifted. which is entirely congruent with the action I have taken and my suggestion for resolving the issue. "I have not lifted your block. Would this be ok with you?" Please note what I wrote above: any admin may reverse it if Mariusm undertakes (on his talk page) not to make automated edits without first adhering to the bot policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the block from infinite to a week, so that good faith discussions can be started. I will notify Mariusm and act as conciliator, if possible. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Did you not see my reply to Tommy Kronkvist, in the section above: "It's really not on to change another admin's action like that, without consulting them., and referring to en:WP:INDEF? The purpose fo blocks is widely held, across Wikimedia projects, to be "preventative not punitive". In other words an indef. block prevents Mariusm from running a unauthorised bot, contrary to our agreed policy, If he undertakes, today, not to do so, we assume good faith and the block can be lifted immediately. On the other hand, if - as at present (see his talk page) - he fails to do so, the block stays. An arbitrary period, be it a day, week, or year, does not match either case. Please revert yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Marisum is a valued taxonomic editor and this is a commodity of comparative rarity. Let us just step back and take a deep breath please and not further inflame an already vexed situation. Andyboorman (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: The bot policy applies to all editors, equally. Indeed, it is clearly more likely that "valued taxonomic editors" would be the people failing to comply with it in this manner. Your comment addresses none of my points. Did you read en:WP:INDEF? You should revert your change to the block, ASAP, for the reasons I have given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policy, but I am a person who feels that policies are guides not absolutes and people are more important than policies. Feel free to revert my well intentioned attempts to get @Mariusm: to respond by discussion or doing as you instructed. I am off to finish a mini job filling in red links that is why I am here. I will revert tomorrow or later this evening. Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I didn't ask if you have read "the policy", I asked "Did you read en:WP:INDEF?". Did you? I have no interest in, nor intention of, reverting your talk page comments; that would be highly inappropriate. You should revert your change to the block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make above was that this may have been an over-reaction in this case, I was hoping you would change your block to a time limited more reasonable response whose purpose was to get Mariusm's attention and nothing more. Then we could work out between us how best to proceed, lift the block and permit this to be resolved calmly. However this is not what has happened. People get upset when they feel they are being attacked, from below you clearly do, so do others. It works both ways. Mariusm is a highly valued editor and has earned a little good faith on our part as admins also. I for one will not accept a long term valued editor being treated unfairly, he has earned a little respect. I agree with @Andyboorman:'s approach here, honestly now that Mariusm has clearly seen this I feel the block can be lifted immediately, then we can discuss how to proceed and have a bot account approved for Mariusm. All that was needed is to get his attention then proceed with dealing with the issue. An indefinite block in this case is overkill. I know what it feels like to have my editing work unfairly messed with by an admin, as @Dan Koehl: knows full well. My view is that this matter should now be stopped. Lift the block, I am giving you the opportunity to do this, I have not over-ridden you. I would like everyone to deal with this professionally please. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again: please read en:WP:INDEF. An indef. block is not a "long time", it can be undone in minutes once the required action (in this case, "Mariusm undertakes (on his talk page) not to make automated edits without first adhering to the bot policy" is performed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pigsonthewing: Given this will you now please lift the block on Mariusm as soon as possible. We can all learn from hind sight in this instance I feel, but I will do my best to try and keep him editing here, as this is a taxonomic site after all. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be having trouble locating the part of that where "Mariusm undertakes... not to make automated edits without first adhering to the bot policy"". (Indeed, I see only a clear and unambiguous refusal to do so (together with a number of personal attacks which themselves would warrant intervention by an uninvolved admin).) Can you highlight it for me, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I am, in good faith, trying to calm things down, so that a valued taxonomic editor does not feel that he is being pushed out of WS. Equally, if we can take this use of a semi-automatic bot to the pump, so that others can review its use then that would be of real value, surely? Having broad shoulders is a basic requirement for an admin here, as I have learnt through experience! Andyboorman (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could try to calm things down by discouraging Mariusm - an admin himself - from being repeatedly abusive; and encourage him instead to comply with the communities' agreed policies? The place to review the use of a bot is Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing and Andyboorman: In my understanding of the affair, Mariusm did not, from his point of view, break the bot policy. Given the fact, that the bot like creation of new articles by Mariusm already has been discussed there at the pump and, as far as I can see, nobody has suggested in this discussion, he would need a bot flag, nobody can accuse him of a deliberate breach of bot policy. So, from the point of view of Mariusm (and probably also others), the first breach of policy happened, when Pigsonthewing acted against the AGF policy. Of course, the reaction of Mariusm, expressing a suspicion of revenge, also is against our policies. Anyway, in my opinion, both parts of the conflict, have reason to review their own way of acting. Please, calm down and resolve the affair peacefully! Anyway, I suggest, the block of Mariusm would be removed, as it gives a strong disadvantage to his side, as now he cannot express his opinion here or at the pump. If the block was removed, I expect that Mariusm would refrain from creating articles by AWB, until the question is resolved, if a bot flag is neaded for this or not. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The breach of the bot policy is unambiguous. Nowhere did I make or express any assumption of bad faith. As I have stated more than one already, Mariusm's block should be removed as soon as he undertakes not to breach the bot policy again. If he believes that the bot policy is wrong, he is then at liberty to call for its revision. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot policy

the bot policy and more specifically the definition of a bot is not unambiguous, therefore, breaches of it are not necessarily unambiguous. I have assumed good faith on both parties here. Hence I have not over-ridden this block. However, I think time has come to lift the block, accept that if the policy was breached it was unintentional. In my experience Mariusm is not going to deliberately do anything against community wishes. Therefore I agree with @Franz Xaver: and request that this block be lifted immediately. This now needs to be resolved, adequate discussion on whether or not Mariusm should be using a bot flag account for this can then take place. Mariusm should be able to take part in that discussion. So please lift the block Andy so we can move forward with this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I understand, that this is your point of view. Would you please consider, that from a different position the affair might be viewed different? In my opinion, the breach of the bot policy does not seem that obvious, regarding the existence of the older discussion, I had linked to. Anyway, if there was a breach of bot policy, we may assume, it had happened in good faith. And if I assume good faith, I never will block another user indefinitely. OK, I may block him for a short period, in order to stop it immediately and to enforce a discussion. However, knowing, that a block will be a difficult start for a discussion, I rather would start with a message on the other users talk page. Yes, you did not express any assumption of bad faith verbally, but your handling of the matter seems to allow the conclusion, that you did not assume good faith. Anyway, one person never can read in the thoughts of others. However, we always are basing our actions on theories, what the actions of other persons might seem to be. Such theories can be totally wrong. Probably, that's the deeper reason for our AGF policy. I assume good faith from both of you, but please try to understand one another. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"And if I assume good faith, I never will block another user indefinitely. OK, I may block him for a short period..." Once again, please see en:WP:INDEF. "Blocked indefinitely" does not mean "blocked forever", it means "blocked until the stated condition is met"; it can often mean a very short block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since several admins here have now pointed out, myself included, that all that was needed here was to get Mariusm`s attention then move forwards I do not think the definition of an Indefinite block is relevant to the current issue. Several admins have requested that you lift this block so the matter can be resolved. Myself and other admins have assumed good faith on your part and hence not over-ridden your block. We have asked you to lift it. I am as you know quite capable of lifting the block, I have not done so, I have respected your point of view. Now please, lift the block and let us proceed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an indef. block is very much to "get Mariusm`s attention then move forwards". As I stated in my original post, and have repeated since, "any admin may reverse [the indef. block] if Mariusm undertakes (on his talk page) not to make automated edits without first adhering to the bot policy" (I obviously include myself in "any admin"). Has he done so, yet? The last I saw he had explicitly refused to do so (as I also noted here). It is that, not the existence of an indef. block, that prevents us from proceeding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the purpose. The purpose has been achieved. Exact points are no longer relevant. Therefore it is time to move forwards. Policies are not laws they are guides. Mariusm has seen the block, has engaged in communication as best he can. The block is now preventing resolution and the exact conditions are of no consequence. You have his attention, that is clear, the issue is raised, it is clear. Nothing more is needed. The block can be lifted. Anything more is just being pedantic at this point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very well: unblocked. Please note talk:Mariusm&oldid=3331826 my comment here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: What would you do, if you were confident never to have acted deliberately against bot policy, but another admin was trying to force you to confess, that you had done, what you never had intended to do? Would you humiliate yourself in such a situation? On the other hand, would it be against honour, to revoke an administrative action, which is questioned, concerning necessity and fairness, by some other admins? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one, least of all me, has asked anyone to "confess" to anything. I have advised Mariusm to give an undertaking not to do something in the future. This he refuses to give; and he indicates that he is confident that he may continue as he was before. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I am not sure about the fact, whether the AWB edits of Mariusm actually have constituted a breach of bot policy, ambiguous as the wording of the policy is. Maybe we should have a poll among admins on this question? Anyway, if we could come to the result, these edits did not require a bot flag, why should he now promise, never to do such edits in future? --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing and Mariusm: Of course, Mariusm could promise to follow any policy, which will result from our discussions now. I am confident, he will. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── ok everyone. block has been lifted, thank you Andy for that. So everyone breath, let it go. Now lets discuss what should be done. @Mariusm, Franz Xaver, Pigsonthewing, and Andyboorman: let us discuss how we want this done now. So our questions are:

  • Does editing with AWB in this way require a bot flag?
  • If we decide yes for above then Mariusm is going to need to apply for this as per usual means.
  • Do we need to have limits on the rate or methods employed by AWB?
  • To avoid this issue in the future what discussions should anyone wanting to do this raise to gain community approval, if not the Bot process.

Thank you everyone for this not getting too out of hand. Now lets resolve it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any other points relevant to this issue please raise them. Lets get this issue thrashed out and resolved fully to the satisfaction of the community so we do not have a repeat of this issue. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're proposing to modify the bot policy, this is not the forum to do it. It's not a matter for admins alone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At present I am not sure we need to. If we do have to modify the Bot Policy then it must be done in the appropriate forum, right now I want to see if we can clarify if AWB is a bot, or what functions of it make it a bot. On EN-WP it only requires bot flags when autosave is used, based on previous applications, otherwise it is deemed assisted editing. I want to clarify how we are reading this issue, since its a bit grey. If we feel this will need a modification to the bot policy then we will have to discuss this on the pump, then go to a rfc for a community vote. First though I want to see where we stand. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI, approval is needed to use AWB on en.Wikipedia at all: en:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Not really! You certainly have read "Administrators are automatically approved and do not need to request access.", which here would apply to Mariusm. Actually, there are many more approved users of AWB than bots using AWB. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really; becoming an administrator itself requires approval. It wouldn't apply here, because it's not part of the WS bot policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: You certainly can explain to me, why they make a distinction between "approved users" of AWB and "Bots", when, as you seem to believe, AWB itself is a bot. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, and have never, said "AWB is a bot". I said it's use in the case discussed above fell within our bot policy. You can see the relevant part of that policy quoted in my second post in this section, above. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for pointing to this paragraph. Interestingly, following this quotation you wrote I am aware of previous discussion of his proposal to create items using external data, but not to use a bot to do so. Do you remember this old discussion? There Mariusm under the header "Speedy creation of new species articles" wrote The pages will be created automatically by me with the aid of AWB software. and you did not have any objection against AWB in your response to his contribution. Opinions changed? --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; I made, at that time, the good-faith assumption that he would do so in accordance with our bot policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────Ok I have AWB privileges on EN WP and am not a sysop there. Basically it is true that all users must be approved for AWB use, automatic for sysops etc, however it does not require an additional account with a bot flag except in those instances where users are using the autosave function. For the most part users there just ask for the permissions and from as best as I can tell if they have a good record it is granted. No questions on how it will be used were asked of me. As best as I can tell from previous issues on EN WP with AWB the edits being done by Mariusm would not have raised any issues. Its possible someone may have questioned if he was using autosave, but other than this I cannot see there would have been an issue.

That said I want to now keep focused on what we should do here. To me AWB is not a bot, and should not require any additional privelages on WS unless auto-save is to be used. At this point it is effectively being used as a bot and should have some sort of advanced flag for usage, the simplest option being to require it to have the bot flag. This is not a proposal. I am suggesting this as a definition of what AWB is. This is why I want to discuss this here first, we need to be clear on some definitions before we go to the community. I personally do not care about edit counts, however if anyone is concerned with it flooding recent changes then I guess we need a maximum number of edits per minute that we agree is the cutoff limit for it to be approved as a bot also, ie get a bot flag. Again I am concerned about definitions not proposals. Proposals must go to the community. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


In talk:Mariusm&oldid=3331028 this edit, User:Murma174 refers to the bock discussed above as "an act of revenge". This is an outrageous and baseless slur, itself contrary to Wikispecies:Policy (users should "try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally" and "not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikispecies. Comment on content, not on the contributor") and I therefore expect another, uninvolved admin, will take appropriate steps to ensure it is not repeated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, people get upset when they think they are attacked. I would suggest to you that a good start would be to lift the block, we have Mariusm's attention let the matter proceed. Let Andyboorman's approach proceed. Everyone needs to take a breath and not let this get out of hand. We have to apply policy with a judicious and generous hand, not as a black and white stamp. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about Murma174's going on the attack, not Murma174 being attacked, and not about Mariusm's block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being an uninvolved admin, I've put forward a question regarding this on Murma174's talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I take the liberty to copy the questions posted by Scott Thomson(diff.) into a thread of their own, since they are not exclusive to the original thread or issue.

  • Does editing with AutoWikiBrowser ("AWB") on Wikispecies require a bot flag? This needs to be decided upon.
  • Do we need to have limits on the rate or methods employed by AWB?
  • In either case, we really should update the local Wikispecies:AWB, Wikispecies:Bot and Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval pages to better inform the user base regarding how to use AWB.
  • When the initial work is done I think it is appropriate to take this discussion to the VP or open up a RfC, rather than finalizing it here on the Admin's Noticeboard.

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Like Mariusm, I use AWB for the half automatic creation of species stubs as a start for very species-rich genera. In my opinion, this is an assisted editing, but not at all full-automated. The first part of the work is to prepare a table with the data that shall be in the new species pages. This is all manual work and takes a lot of time and carefulness (which cannot be seen on wikispecies). Only the last step is done with the help of AWB: filling in the headings and formatting, just like a “Word form-letter”. This assisted page creation can be done either more slowly, while individual changes can be added to each page, (for example, changing template:aut to template:a for several authorities), or it can be done fast without further changes to the text, just looking all is ok and clicking the Save-button. That is was Mariusm did, finally reaching very high rates of page creation. If wikispecies admins really think, we will need a bot flag for using AWB for our work, then I would like to ask for one. --Thiotrix (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You copied them without my pre-existing replay, which said "If you're proposing to modify the bot policy, this is not the forum to do it. It's not a matter for admins alone. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry about that, Andy. It was unintentional, and more the result of an edit conflict than trying to ignore your reply.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Firstly it may be a good idea to discuss here first just to iron out ideas and get our heads around a complex area that has already caused a degree of angst and bad blood. Thiotrix's use seems to indicate that this use of a semi-automatic AWB is a grey area, but can be very productive. I am not an expert on bots, but precedent suggests that this sort of use is tolerated elsewhere. It could make sense to make policy explicit. Just a few points. Andyboorman (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly before any proposals are made discussion must go to the full community. However, I think it will be a useful exercise for us to discuss some concepts here first so that a concise proposal, hence I am in agreement with Andyboorman and this was my intent on starting this here. Then, if needed, it can be presented to the community. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I treat AWB-assisted edits as bot edits. Case in point, my bot (User:OhanaBot) from 2008 only uses AWB to perform edits and I use the bot account with bot flag to do so. Other AWB bots like User:RocketBot in 2010 also requested for permission before doing AWB edits. I think the precedent is set to expect editors to apply for bot flag prior to using AWB in a systematic way for editing. Certainly anything over 10 edits per minute should have bot flags (and whether this kind of speed is merited at all). OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is the flood-flag right which we can have added here. A person won't have to create a second account or be marked as a bot for this user right. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our bot policy is very ambiguous, especially it isn't clear what "some degree of automation" really means. If I look at other wikis' practice I see there no evidence for bot requests to use the AWB. I take a bot to be a fully automated process which requires no user go ahead for individual modifications. This is contrary to the AWB, which requires every edit to be confirmed by a "SAVE" key-press. I see no difference between a conventional edit and a AWB edit except for the speed. As Thiotrix mentioned before, AWB the way I use it needs a lot of preparatory work before it can be launched. What looks like an exaggerated speed is only the culmination of the edit process where the data which was scrutinizes beforehand and saved to a text file is sent to the server to be saved. Therefore, the speed is no indication of carelessness or neglect. The AWB can be operated by admins or by users with special permission, so there's an initial barrier to sift out any improper use. I feel a real bot is one that scans all the wiki's pages and performs a specific task, entirely without human assistance or supervision. To request a bot permission for every AWB use would be highly inconvenient and superfluous to my mind. I for one use the AWB for different tasks: to create new species pages, to add categories, to delete unwanted templates etc. Would I need a different bot clearance for each and every task or should every user have a single AWB bot of his own? This seems highly inconvenient. My conclusion is that we have to rewrite the bot policy to exclude the use of AWB from the bot definition so that over-enthusiastic admins won't feel the need to pull the trigger before even starting to talk. Mariusm (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the enwiki Assisted_editing_guidelines and found that "any large-scale semi-automated (or automated) article creation task requires a BRFA". This was decided in 2009. At that time, one of the main arguments in the discussion was, that wikipedia could be flooded with too much pages without encyclopedic relevance (cited were for example: rivers of tropical countries, names of sportsmen, or "unimportant orchid species"). There was also some doubt, if "Bots/Requests for approval" was the right place to ask for allowance of assisted page creation. For the scope of wikispecies, all species are important, and given that only admins use AWB, the danger of creating pages out of scope should be neglectable. And we have discussed the assisted creation of species stubs already. I think we need own decisions here at wikispecies. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our bot policy was crafted by OhanaUnited way back on March 2008 based on Wikipedia:Bots at the time and without consulting other WS users. Since then the enWP text changed significantly but ours remained essentially the same. The main question to ask is in what way would WS benefit from requiring AWB edits to be made by bot accounts?. As I understand, enWP is flexible on whether AWB edits are performed by bot accounts or by regular users, leaving the decision to the user. The only significant instruction I found at AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage namely: Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute. (Notice the word "consider".) But is this applicable to a low-volume wiki such as WS? Mariusm (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as I said AWB on EN WP is only given bot accounts for high volume editors using the autosave function, that said this is done at user discretion and is not challenged, ie it does not go through bot testing etc like a regular bot would. From what I can gather those who do high volume editing are also experienced by the time they do this and are in themselves aware of the issues of high volume editing so basically opt for this voluntarily. Main thing we need to do please is agree on definitions so we can write starter proposals for the community to become involved in. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm, Thiotrix, and Faendalimas: You may remember from earlier discussions, that I am not happy with creation of stubs, irrespective of creating them manually or by bot. Anyway, my perception of earlier discussions on this matter is, that at present a majority of people in our community is in favor of (semi)automatic import of data from CoL. Given this, approval of a bot flag for this purpose probably will not be a big difficulty. Nevertheless, in my opinion, creating a bot account and approval for this should be obligatory, if someone intends to do more than occassional edits assisted by AWB. If using the autosave function, AWB would have to be treated like a bot in any case. However, also without using autosave, in my opinion, a bot flag would be necessary at a rate or amount of created articles still to be defined. My intention is, to have a safety system, in case the mood would be changing and there might be no majority any more for (semi)automatic article creation. So, probably every approval of a bot flag should be reviewed after a certain period of time. Not only this kind of bots, but in general. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: please, we aren't discussing here a specific application of the AWB (creating stubs) but are debating on using the AWB in general. I've used the AWB several times to perform tasks other than stub-creation with the same high rate of 50-60 edits per minute. Other than flooding the recent changes buffer, do you see any harm done to WS by this practice? Mariusm (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on your talk page only yesterday: "Regarding the speed of editing, and the need for limits, you may find the information at en:Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot requirements useful.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the recommendations in the link you provided Andy, some things to consider though. On Wikipedia one of the issues with bots is server lag, and edit rate etc is an impacting factor on this. This would be less of, though not zero, an impact on WS due to our lower connections, ie number of users. Therefore I would consider the Wikipedia limits as guidelines but are not necessarily applicable here at WS. And yes everyone, please keep this to an agreed definition of what AWB is, we have to go to the community for any policy changes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I am not thrilled with stub creation either, particularly here as we do not exactly present an enormous amount of info on each taxon anyway. However, I am not going to argue against it either. Its neither here nor there in a way and I assume good faith on those creating them that they will fill them out eventually. In saying this I do recognise the point that we need to get taxa done, too many gaps and redlinks at present. This is another topic though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: said Our bot policy was crafted by OhanaUnited way back on March 2008 based on Wikipedia:Bots at the time and without consulting other WS users and that is patently false. We have an informal process since 2005 before moving towards more formal and centralized style in March 2008 in anticipation of increased bot activities (to auto-generate articles) to compete head-to-head with Encyclopedia of Life (EoL) over coverage. I am disappointed that you erred in your judgment but continued to defend your own action with false narratives. And please don't do 50-60 edits a minute. That is an extremely high editing rate and the edits are not a rush job to justify that kind of speed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: I'm not trying to undermine your editing practice in any way, and if I erred I'm truly sorry. I was only trying to stress the point that the bot policy wasn't being reviewed for a long time and perhaps it's the time to do so. You may not know, but I was working on the Coleoptera familia - a work which was interrupted by the recent block - for a considerable time offline. It took me hours of offline work to sort the data which I was in the process of saving when I was blocked. Again, the high rate doesn't mean carelessness or neglect by me but the simple process of saving the data which was already scrutinized and verified beforehand. Therefore, your reservations regarding the speed are not justified in my opinion. @Pigsonthewing: I wish I knew how to satisfy everyone here or how to avoid these petty enmities with other admins and I wish my intentions were properly understood by everyone but apparently it's an impossible feat, therefore I'll suspend my AWB use and I will try to apply for a bot account before I use it again. Mariusm (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no emnity, petty or otherwise (I blocked your account only because it was operating contrary to the community's agreed bot policy). You must look within yourself to resolve whatever such issues you have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:, @Mariusm: and @OhanaUnited: the above threads really belong on a personal talk page, surely? Anyway, the immediate problem has been resolved by this application for bot approval. However, does this application obviate the need to modify our bot policy? I am not an AWB or bot user so am neutral, but is does seem to me that clarity in policy could have prevented the unusual action on WS of an admin blocking an admin as a first resort. Andyboorman (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are admins not immune from Wikispecies policies, or blocks, but you would do better to view the incident as "an admin blocking an unauthorised bot, which was running at 50+ edits per minute". You will note that I offered to lift the block as soon as an undertaking was given that this would not continue; such an undertaking was - most surprisingly, given that the blocked account belongs to an admin - refused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was rather "an admin blocking a user he thought to be an unauthorised bot". The question is still open, whether this was a bot or unauthorised. Do we need a changed policy. Or is it about a common understanding, what the existing policy is meaning? --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Lets get things straight once and for all: (a) I wasn't running a bot but an assisted editing. (b) I was using this editing practice for several months and for 20,000 edits with the same speed without a single objection. (c) Nowhere is a speed limit for assisted editing specified. (d) I refused to promise anything when blocked only because it would have looked like I was confessing I did a crime, while this wasn't the case. Mariusm (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're still not clear about this, but here, again, is the quote from the bot policy, which I posted in the section about your block, above: "The term bot... refers to a script that modifies Wikispecies' content with some degree of automation, whether it is entirely automated, or assists a human contributor in some way. This policy applies to any such process." It continues "Operators should... be conservative in their editing speed" and "Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every four seconds." Fifty or more edits a minute is not "conservative", by any measure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read this, it is now the subject of discussions to modify the policy to deal with AWB / JWB. Personally I have never disagreed that you raised the issue per se, I do not think it required a block to do so. But that is done. Now we resolve the issue which is in process. Time this facet is just let go of. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not sure why you are still not clear about this, which I only recently pointed our to you elsewhere: "When a bot is editing at 50 or more edits per minutes (that's 36,000 or more edits in 12 hours), and there is no indication as to whether or not a human is watching the edits, it needs to be blocked; waiting for discussion could take several hours". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am clear, I just do not see it as an important issue and I am able to view policies as guidelines that can and should be viewed on a case by case basis. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly how I treated it; the preceding quote is the reason for the conclusion I came to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move Lobelia pedunculata to Pratia pedunculata?

(This discussion started at Talk: Lobelia pedunculata.)

Could we move Lobelia pedunculata to Pratia pedunculata? An existing redirect with history stops me from doing so. See w:Pratia pedunculata. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Lobelia_pedunculata, as other views exist. Batternut (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Batternut: When in doubt go with Kew. However, if you have a real concern then contact them directly and ask for their opinion. As far as I can gather Pratia has been subsumed into Lobelia for a number of years, but some local flora will still hold out, of course. Are you aware of any recent papers? It is likely that Lobelia will be further expanded - see here [2] under Campanulaceae Andyboorman (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Australian Plant Census states that Pratia is a synonym of Lobelia. WP is wrong and needs correcting and indeed its page references indicate that as well! Andyboorman (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I just saw that User:ThiotrixBot had been granted a bot flag, even though the account is not registered. Since this seemingly left it open for anyone to create the account, then run a malicious bot. I have therefore created that account, as a protective measure. I shall email User:Thiotrix to arrange transfer of control of the account, shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I approved it, but had not applied it. I realised after the approval that the account had not been created properly. I left a message hoping he would deal with this urgently then an admin could grant the bot flag. However your way is is just as good. Thanks for doing this. I am assuming this is just an oversight on the part of Thiotrix at this point. Giving the benefit of the doubt. However, could you please ensure Thiotrix understands what has happened before transferring the account. I discussed this with Dan Khoel after I discovered the account had not been correctly created we have some concern that if he is unsure of how to do this what implications this has for granting the bot flag. Please let us know what happens. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any harm was done. You can't grant userrights to a yet-to-be-created account. But that begs the question. If we cannot identify such glaring oversight during the bot approval process, then we need to slow down and be more careful in that process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, now I'm back from some weeks of journey. Sorry if I made an error and the account was not created properly, I thought it was ok this way, as being just an alternative name for my original account. What is needed now to change ThiotrixBot to a properly registered account? --Thiotrix (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix: Please see the email I sent you on 29 May. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andy, thank you for correctly creating the Bot account User:ThiotrixBot, and sorry for my error. Would you please send me the temporary password by email, so that I can login to this bot account and confirm the mail address? --Thiotrix (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:, Andy Mabbett, may I again ask to receive the preliminary password for the account User:ThiotrixBot per mail, like you said in your email? It is still your account until now, as I am unable to log in. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix: Resent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Andy Mabbett, thank you, the transfer is done. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Rights Steward Request: Removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have made requests for removal of Admin and Crat rights for Benedikt and Open2universe. Messages have been left on their talk pages. Others to follow. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the removal of permissions for UtherSRG. This takes care of all Bureaucrats that need this done. Still a few admins to go. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone else wants to continue with this I added the what links here template to Template:Warning_message so you can get a quick list of who has been warned. Quick way of checking who has the warning, apart from looking for their reply, I have also been checking their activity, am giving them every chance. If nothing has changed since the warning I go through with it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Above three users have had their permissions changed by the Stewards. here. I will remove them from the Admin and Crat pages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────User Totipotent added to requests. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Totipotent has had their admin rights removed here, a couple to go still. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User Ark request to Stewards made. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User Ark has had their admin rights removed. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last person from the March 2017 Inactivity Check, User Uleli has had a request to the Stewards made for removal of admin rights.
The next Inactivity Check is in August/ September 2017, all admins please keep an eye on candidates for checking as per our Inactivity and Admin Review Policy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── User Uleli has had admin flag removed. This was the last from March run. I am closing this topic. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Main page in Turkish needs moving

Hello, Please move Ana Sayfa to Anasayfa as the translation has been updated. Thanks.--HakanIST (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HakanIST: Done. Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Please change the caption 'templates' to upper case 'Templates' in MediaWiki:Sidebar. Thank you --2003:52:EF23:EB21:559B:5C2A:CC98:9ED5 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should reawaken the question whether we need local Importers and Transwiki importers. Today we have none, but in my opinion having (transwiki) importers would be helpful. For an example of such an instance, see User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Template translation. For earlier discussions about this, see Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive 2015–2016#LangSwitch. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Scottish version of main page

FYI, there's now a page named Main Page (Scots), created by User:John Gordon Reid. I do not know whether it is correct or not, and as of this writing it is not linked from the {{Languages}} template, hence not linked to from the "International" main page either. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I went ahead and added it--it seems right to me and I find it unlikely that anyone would troll with a Scots main page on Wikispecies. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. He's also created several other /sco sub pages and such, like {{Sisterprojects-sco}}, Wikispecies:Checkusers/sco, Wikispecies:Localization/sco, and Help:Translation/sco. They seem valid to me, and are welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Plus, Scots is either a 1.) pretty non-standard dialect of English which uses a lot of eye spellings or 2.) a very closely-related West Germanic language which is mostly mutually intelligible with Scottish English. Either way, you and I can both look over the page and tell that it's not just links to malware or patent vandalism. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the recent abuses with this tool in Wikispecies, I created this page that will allow the Wikispecies administrators to control who can have access to AWB in this project. Unauthorized users who are not listed will now see an error message when trying to use this program on Wikispecies. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 06:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted from English Wikipedia this guide for the page. Feel free to improve or correct it if you feel it is necessary. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 06:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but should perhaps also include a reference to the Help:Contents pages, particularly the pages involving formatting. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bot request for approval

Dear fellow admins, please take part in the current discussion regarding PokestarFanBot's request for approval. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Request for approval withdrawn by bot operator, so case closed, for now. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Revoke TPA

Could an admin please revoke talk page access for (talkcontribsblock logall projects) There'sNoTime (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: excuse the ping, but I noticed you're active -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Category: Taxonavigation templates confusion

I have noticed a few times during my edits that an admin @Koavf: has added <noinclude>[[Category:Taxonavigation templates]]</noinclude> + <includeonly>[[Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates]]</includeonly> to many pages only for a fellow admin @Franz Xaver: to remove this content when editing, for example, Bernhartia. I am confused. Any help appreciated. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did this specifically so that these were easier to find and pages would be taken out of Special:UncategorizedPages and Special:UncategorizedTemplates. Franz, why would you do this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman and Koavf: You may remember the old discussion Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 39#Taxonavigation templates. These categories were added in a bot like manner using AWB, without having discussed the topic in advance. As far as I remember, in the follwing discussion this initiative did not get much support – and was stopped. Anyway, we may continue the old discussion, where it had ended then. The argument "these were easier to find" does not convince me, as I cannot not find anything in a category with thousands of entries. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: But they are impossible to find without categories. Either way, there isn't consensus to remove them so I'm not sure why clogging up the maintenance report is somehow better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: So, now only a part of the taxonavigation templates do have these categories. You mean, these categories are useful, so that a bot could find them? I suggest, you make a proposal, which categories should be included in every taxonavigation template, and why this should be so. If there is support, the task should continued, where it has stopped then.
Anyway, taxon pages should remain in Special:UncategorizedPages, as long as they are not categorised in at least one of the author taxa categories. Adding a tracking category and thus removing them from Special:UncategorizedPages simply for having them removed, does not make sense to me. I am personally not against adding <noinclude>[[Category:Taxonavigation templates]]</noinclude>, but I am objecting against adding <includeonly>[[Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates]]</includeonly> --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: @Franz Xaver: Thanks for clearing up this confusion. This needs to go back to the pump I guess, as we have one admin adding unwanted data according to another admin and the later admin removing data without consensus from the community. Over to you, please Andyboorman (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree discuss this on the pump justify it and make a proposal. If accepted it can then continue. Personally I do not have an issue with these categories and I can see some use for them, however we do need consensus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock back?

Have a look through the contributions for this recent editor. Please tell me I am wrong! Andyboorman (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He once claimed not to be a sock of this guy – or did he just claim not to be an "amateur entomologist"? Anyway, it is remarkable, that he recently edited the user page of a permanently blocked user, who is supposed not to be him. Should we explain to him, that reference templates should be added to author pages, not user pages? Or is this enough evidence, that a CheckUser procedure might be appropriate? --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He actually did not claim not to be the sock. I agree he confirmed not to be an "amateur entomologist", which I guess being published this claim could be considered legitimate. However, he also said to go ahead with a CheckUser, but if he had changed his IP, ISP and OS than this could result in a complete negative I believe. Indeed he also may have programmed a spoof - not that I know much about this side of computing. I agree to explaining that editing a blocked user page is a trifle bizarre and the data belongs elsewhere. We could agree to blank and delete the offending redundant user page, or is this just being vindictive or provocative? Andyboorman (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your information PeterR have also brought this matter up on my talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
For me, Allspecies is Stohner. He works the same, make the same mistakes in the reference templates etc. PeterR (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone feels a CU is appropriate they need to make a request. With the evidence for doing it. Please note that CU`s cannot be done just because the person in question ok`s it. There must be evidence it is required presented in the application. Our 3 CU`s can then determine if this can and should be done. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence can include; editing the sock's blocked user page, working during a time frame similar to the sock, editing on pages created or edited by the sock, creating pages and working in areas of interest and relevance to the sock and also using formats similar to the sock. Is this enough? Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please use the process here: Wikispecies:Requests for checkuser. If someone formally requests and makes a case, then I can investigate (or decline if it's not warranted). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more admins contributing here before I feel that I could act, but it looks very much like a duck to me. Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind the type, style and frequency of the edits suggests it to be a new sock, but of course before a CU it's hard to know for sure. And as Andyboorman points out above, it may be hard even after that. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Like before, a sort of consensus for a CU is needed. As well as a certain uncertainty. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have both of these. Andyboorman (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another important question. Do I inform him on his talk page that a CU will be requested? Andyboorman (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be sufficient to inform him, that a CU has been requested. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a CU I am being neutral here at present. However all I ask is that you fill in the required form Wikispecies:Requests for checkuser that @Koavf: also pointed to above, ensure you present your reasoning and yes also note on their talk page with a link to the request. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't Allspecies block like the other Sock names of him? Stohner of one of his socknames have no entree on If you don't block him I quit. Allspecies make again a lot of rubbish in his own style. PeterR (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: We need to go through due process, as his present edits are not spam or vandalism and indeed many are useful. I will put a CU request in soon, so please continue with your valued edits. The key issue is sockpuppetry and the fact that this is not tolerated across all Wiki projects. If this suspected sock wishes to rejoin WS then he has a process in place in order to do so. Andyboorman (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CU request is now in, see it here. Hope I have followed the procedure correctly. Andyboorman (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improved search in deleted pages archive

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this:

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the Help pages regarding author pages

I've edited the Help:Author Names page adding information about formatting Author pages. Please have a look, make revisions, and/or discuss the matter further etc. – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There is no mention of Standard Form or Abbreviation. This is very important for plants. Andyboorman (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. My main reason for adding the text about author pages was to explain why the "Authored taxa" sections shouldn't include exceptionally long inline lists of named taxa, but instead only a link to the "Taxa by author" category. This often seems to be a confusing issue leading to misunderstandings. (See for example this discussion archived from the Pump, but there are many more.)
At the moment the "Author Names" help page is quite poorly designed, with a mishmash of parts about author names, categories, "Authority control" templates, author pages and stuff about name catalogs all mixed up in a rather illogical way. Ideally I think we should make two separate help pages: one about how to create author pages, and one solely for how to enter author names in taxon pages and publications. Information about Standard Form or Abbreviation should of course be present in both. -Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It is the taxon name, which has an author, not the taxon, which later on may be reshaped and emendated in various ways by different authors. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, however this discussion regards the Wikispecies Help:Author Names page. Taxonomy and nomenclature is not involved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, I was not clear enough. I tried to explain my edit in that page. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's another matter of course. Two things though:
  1. Although you're right, there is no consensus that the heading should read "Authored taxon names" rather than "Authored taxa". If the community decides so then it must be changed on almost 34,000 pages. That can be done semi-automatically with the use of AWB or a bot, but we need to take the decision first.
  2. According to Help:Reference section as decided by this poll (in which you voted) there should be no space between "=="" and the name of the heading. A small detail I admit, but losing them all will save us 66 kilobytes on the server... ;-)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I am not aware, that the question of no space between "=="" and the name of the heading should have been part of this poll. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not directly, but the examples on the "Help:Reference section" page (including but not limited to the Reference subsection) are based on the poll and the discussion preceding it. But as I said it's a minor detail, and nothing to make a fuzz about. Changing the "Authored taxa" heading should however be discussed, but probably not here on the Administrators' Noticeboard, and certainly not in this thread. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bot flag required

User:ThiotrixBot was approved some months ago and is listed here as having a bot flag. But really is has not yet. Can someone please add the flag? Thanks for your help, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These seems to require more than admin tools. You probably need a bureaucrat; see Wikispecies:Bureaucrats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Back

Please check this user ISSN 0111-7696. The alias is a real ISSN for WETA and it is working in the same way as Thorpe. Block or not? Andyboorman (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is Thorpe. Mariusm (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked, alerted stewards at Meta for a global lock. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Justin Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last night User:ZooNom visiting. Blocked by duck test. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect wiki link in User lists

As you all know, a current and complete list of our bureaucrats can be found at Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat. However, the "bureaucrat" link after the user names there points to the Wikispecies:Administrators page rather than to Wikispecies:Bureaucrats. (By the way the "Bureaucrats" links on the Special:UserRights and Special:ListGroupRights pages are also incorrect.) The reason is that originally we simply did not have a complete page specifically regarding bureaucratship. Instead the "Bureaucrats" page was only a redirect to the Admin's page, more specifically to a Wikispecies:Administrators#Bureaucrats subsection. This was back in 2008 and since then we have created a complete and "proper" Bureaucrats' page. But how do we change the 'crat links in the User lists to aim for Wikispecies:Bureaucrats rather than the Admin's page? Is it done in one of the local MediaWiki files, or someplace else? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I think so. Ill take a look and see if this can be corrected easily. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist:, I corrected the link at MediaWiki:Grouppage-bureaucrat. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Thanks Dan! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Wikispecies protected edit requests

Dear admins! Please check Category:Wikispecies protected edit requests. --Kaganer (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaganer: The category lists 54 pages in the MediaWiki talk page namespace, but no pages in the MediaWiki namespace itself. On what grounds should these talk pages be edit protected? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist:These pages related with Wikispecies:Localization. Talkpages contains a proposed translations for related MediaWiki messages. Need to move them to these local messages. --Kaganer (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there is also two related requests from me: first and second.--Kaganer (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already taken care of all the pending protected edit requests in that category. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 02:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New request for adminship: Kaganer

I thought that I could not do work with translations without administrative rights. I ask for your support: Requests for adminship#Kaganer and Requests for translation adminship#Kaganer. --Kaganer (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaganer: m:Meta:Translation_administrators/ru? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request updated. If in this project source pages is protected, that for improving markup needs admin rights with "translation admin" rights. I ask both flags at once.--Kaganer (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I'll permanently disturb everyone with my requests for changing protected pages ;) --Kaganer (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaganer: Please see my answer to your request at Wikispecies talk:Administrators. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

───────────────────────── @Koavf: Global account information for Kaganer. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: No blocks and advanced user rights on many projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The user was a global-sysop between October 2014 and November 2016, and is currently Admin + Translation admin on six different wikis, with a total of +300,000 edits since 2008. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

IP block

I suppose, it is not desirable to block IP addresses indefinitely. I have changed some indefinite blocks to a shorter period, but added a range block for, which should cover all these IP addresses. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your block log and it all seems okay to me. As for that IP is already globally blocked and has been globally blocked no less than 29 times before that,(verify) so I don't think any Wikispecies users have any issues with you blocking it locally as well.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Is that who shows up frequently and vandalizes numerous pages with one swearword? I have blocked that one at least twice. Very happy to see it blocked whenever. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's this one. And I had to realise that a range block with ##/19 or ##/20 is not sufficient to block this vandal. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information from RIPE database query: route Kronkvist (talk), 01:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

───────────────────────── For information, there are a number of IP addresses that are blocked indefinitely: [3]. Korg (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to unblock these IP addresses, at least such, that are blocked since many years. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "ancient" blocks (2006 and prior) are blocked for possibly being an open proxy, which is based from this meta policy on no open proxies. Based on the information from that page, the collateral damage appears to be aimed towards projects where government censors certain political opinions. I highly doubt that Wikispecies fall within this category. As for the indef IP blocks from 2011 to 2014, I think they should be lifted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xwiki vandal

FYI: (talkcontribsblock logall projects) . Blocked on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Now blocked here as well.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Global user stats and WHOIS

Hi. Just wanted to inform fellow admins that the WMFLabs GUC tool now (or has it always?) also provide WHOIS data for IP users, see for example (i.e. IP of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.) This information is not shown for logged-in users, e.g.

–Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Request for AWB access for User:TheStoneBot

Please grant AWB access for User:TheStoneBot. This is my additional account for mass changes translation units through AWB. See request page.--Kaganer (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaganer and TheStoneBot: Bot approved for trial. See Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval#Bots in a trial period for details. Please use that page for further discussions. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
After a successful trial period the bot was approved in December 17, 2017. See the User rights log for details. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Cross-wiki vandalism, amok mode

Please execute Special:Nuke/ Thanks. --Schniggendiller (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked and indefinitely blocked. This one recurs frequently, Neferkheperre (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good and swift work @Neferkheperre:, however since blocking IP addresses indefinitely is generally unrecommended by Wikimedia (see for instance IPBLENGTH @ enWP), perhaps we should consider changing the block to a few months or so? As you point out this specific vandal is frequently reappearing here, but as far as I know always from different IPs (though all of them are within IP ranges assigned to a Turkish ISP named "TurkNet Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S").[4][5] Hence an indefinite IP block probably isn't effective against this particular vandal, but might instead stop other users from editing, should they be assigned the "" IP by that ISP in the future. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
An abuse filter could be helpful. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point @Tommy Kronkvist:. I changed block to 6 months. Probably better idea, as IPs involved may be hosted by internet cafes or libraries. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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 archive.