This is an archive of past discussions with User:SQL. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the long section, mostly my contribs, on the allegations?
(((Hmm. This article is drawn from Weber State archived material, I see. I'd sent somebody on facebook this link, along with [1], direct transcript of this oral history by the faculty member there.... But I'm just getting paranoid!)))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I've never been to that article before today, and I only viewed the most recent deleted revision. The "early life", and "professional career" sections in that revision were mostly word-for-word copies from the archivesspace page. It looks like Ritchie333 is working on restoring the parts you contributed. SQLQuery me!
Just letting you know that the unblocked range that was reported to WP:OP/R was 207.148.64.0/18 which is from the same webhosting ISP as 207.246.64.0/18 which is currently blocked. I think you had mistaken which range was actually reported to the noticeboard at that time.
@Bobherry: Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Replication lag seems to have quieted down (something about maintenance). I just re-enabled the bot and it seems to be working properly. SQLQuery me!02:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jjjjjjdddddd: - The text of the article was literally "a.s.car is a famous business company in world . This company work as a buy/sell luxury auto". I'd be happy to restore it if you'd like. SQLQuery me!02:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi SQL. First off, I want to say thank you for creating SQLBot's function of removing AIV reports that have lingered for a long time without being acted upon - I think it's very helpful. However, I have a question about this edit by SQLBot. It removed a report from AIV because it had been listed for more than six hours. However, there was ongoing discussion (albeit a slow one) and the most recent comment was newer than six hours. I'm wondering if this is intentional (removing a report when the first comment exceeds more than six hours old, rather then when the most recent comment exceeds six hours old). I'm assuming that since this is probably a rare situation at AIV, it may not have been considered. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Edgar181:The bot archives based on the original report. My thought process for this design choice was it could possibly otherwise encourage a disruptive situation where editors continually "bump" the report from falling off. SQLQuery me!20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. I guess either way is uncommon enough that it probably doesn't make much difference one way or the other. Anything being discussed for >6 hours at AIV should probably go to ANI anyway. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The last link I added was spam - at the time it did link to the event but this has subsequently been removed. It now appears as an unconstructive edit, but was done so in good faith at the time. 157.203.254.1 (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The block, the unblock, and a grumpy, tired SQL...
Hijiri88 - As you incorrectly noted here, I did not unblock DK2149 "for wikilawyering about not having been aware of having technically violated 3RR". If we look at the block log - it clearly reads "Editor understands why they were blocked, and how to avoid violating 3RR in the future. With consent from blocking admin - [2]". I clearly mentioned that the editor's original unblock request was insufficient, and offered some advice on how to correct it (which pretty much directly addressed the lawyering). I came across this block at CAT:RFU. Udarr made no such unblock request.
Darkknight2149 Please stop edit warring over this page. You are already on extremely thin ice for edit warring right now. I'm very tempted to full-protect the page for a while, or worse. The process is bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-discuss-revert-revert-revert-revert. No harm will come from the movie being called a remake vs a reboot for a bit while a consensus forms on the talk page. Remember that there is no deadline. Additional advice would be to stop threatening with an arbcom case. Either gather evidence, and go forward - or stop mentioning it. Edits like this, this, this, and more aren't really appropriate for a collaborative environment in my opinion. Either file a case, or let it go.
@ both of you - please stop pinging me. I don't need or want any more notifications or contact unless it's absolutely needed for the good of the project. This is going to soundpretty familiar - so there might be a lesson to be learned here. I will archive this message in a day or two - I don't require any replies. SQLQuery me!03:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no edit war. Hijiri88 is just stalking me (reverting me on more than one article) because he's holding a year-old WP:GRUDGE, he is angry because I was blocked and then unblocked, and has been doing stuff like this for well over a year. The whole debacle is complex, has been carried out on various Talk Pages and ANI reports for a really long time, and he and his buddy Curly Turkey don't plan on stopping. I'm going to be spending my weekend preparing a lengthy (and inevitably messy) ArbCom case. Rest in peace, me getting much sleep. DarkKnight214903:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. I know you meant well, and don't think you actually unblocked him for wikilawyering over the applicability of 3RR and his prior unawareness of said, but I think you took AGF too far in assuming that just because he said he understood it that means he actually understood it -- his post-unblock behaviour shows he doesn't. DK2149 is wrong on the substance, and three editors other than myself have spontaneously come to this conclusion, and he doesn't even have STATUSQUO or BRD to justify his repeated reverts. He has been refusing to use the talk page (the only thing he's written is "the sources say reboot" despite the fact that the flawed logic of this argument had already been demonstrated). I don't think you were "wrong" not to unblock Udar55 as well or even not to check whether they also understood why they were unblocked, but I do think that your telling DK2149 now that he is required to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page in order resolve content disputes or any reverts he makes, regardless of quantity or length of time in between, are considered edit-warring would go a long way to resolving this.
Elaboration on off-topic stuff
As for "hounding", I noticed a disruptive pattern with DK's edits (specifically using primary sources to push the "official" line of various corporate entities who produce media he likes, as opposed to media he apparently doesn't like such as the Adam West Batman show or is apparently indifferent to such as the original Suspiria) in early 2016, and commented to that effect in an ANI thread in early 2017. I would have been justified, per the actual, quite narrow, definition of "hounding" in regularly monitoring his contribs between those two dates to see if the problem persisted, or monitoring his behaviour since the 2017 ANI thread to see if his behaviour had improved following his TBAN, but I did neither; his name showed up at around the same time on both FTN and ANEW, I did a quick check, and noticed that the ANEW incident was exactly the same problem as before, with him edit warring over his interpretation of primary sources. I saw he was wrong on the substance again, so I decided to say as much.
All that said, if you don't want anything more to do with this I completely understand. If DK2149 continues edit warring he's going to shoot himself in the foot, and neither you nor EdJohnston are required to prevent that from happening. I totally understand not wanting to get involved in this -- I didn't even want to, but honestly I don't feel comfortable knowing DK's threats are never far away from me, CT and anyone else who commented in that ANI discussion 16 months ago.
What are you going on about? You briefly replied on the Talk Page, and then immediately reverted me on the main page. That's not WP:BRD. And the only person with "a disruptive pattern with their edits" is you. Here you are again, going on about things that happened in 2016. And you are lying, stalking my recent contributions, WP:CANVASSing your friend Curly Turkey, being upset because I was unblocked (and for no other reason), ETC. You saw an opportunity and you pounced. I'm not even the only user that you have done this with.
"I didn't even want to, but honestly I don't feel comfortable knowing DK's threats are never far away from me, CT and anyone else who commented in that ANI discussion 16 months ago." - That's because you're constantly showing up and continuing your disruption, as you are doing now. This WP:SANCTIONGAMING and "playing the victim" is precisely why the ArbCom case (which you are probably trying to prevent) is now getting filed. DarkKnight214904:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to maintain. I should point out that it works, but revdel'd edits don't appear in the log (only the number of hits increases). -- zzuuzz(talk)17:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah, just need one. I tested it against deleted edits, and it matched. I haven't used EF before ever, so good practice. SQLQuery me!17:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SQL. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, SQL. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 05:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This is the second time you've done this so I know it's not a one time mistake. In closing the unban request on User talk:Krish! you changed their sig and broke their report. I fixed the first time you did this but you might want to fix whatever it is that's causing this. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be accusatory and I would have responded as such had you given me a hot second to reply instead of archiving it, but here we are. All I was saying was that in responding you broke it. The one I fixed was the previous request for help, something you also broke when you closed it. Sorry for attempting to tell you about a problem you were having. Obviously I've learned my lesson not to bother. --Tarage (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of the "My Privates" user. Wikipedia doesn't need users like that person. I placed a speedy delete tag on his talk page if you feel the page should be deleted. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Template:Adminstats/Caulde, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied11:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tyw7: - Please don't template me for pages created by a bot a decade or more ago. SQLBot probably created hundreds (if not thousands) of these, and a template / notification for each one would be pretty disruptive. SQLQuery me!13:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
From a more careful check, yes, Louislouislouisniall reverted vandalism. For a moment I was not able to figure out what was happening, there were many edits in a few minutes. Maybe they were a group of friends trying to spend their free time in a very dumb way. Thanks again SQL. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
While I was trying to figure out what was happening on that article, they were enjoying their actions [8]. Wikipedia is a real social experiment, not just an encyclopedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The reason for that was the whois only lists the /20. That being said, it looks like all the ranges inside the /18 are also leaseweb, so blocked. SQLQuery me!04:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
My oppose vote for RfA Jbhunley
Sorry to be getting back to you so late: Curse you real world! I was referring to what I perceived as a lack of temperament on the candidate's behalf. I could go further if you'd like me to. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the use of SQL/AFC-Ores had been dropped. It does't appear to be updating (assuming it's not my computer, which is always possible!). Obviously if it's meant not to be doing it, that's fine, I just wanted to be sure - for the short time I used it, it was a great help.
Thanks again for the very useful tool. Would it be possible to have the task that updates the front page of the tool also add a timestamp, so that I can see what time the front page was last updated? Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 19:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
However more correctly it should be listing any unsourced file that was uploaded prior to Sept 18th 2005 (which is when sourcing rule began to be enforced more vigoursly.)
If the query can be tweaked to rely on a timestamp for the first upload instead. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: - If I understand correctly, the answer here is to add something like this:
Did a quick check and there's a difference of 664 files between the query with the log entry timestamp join and the one without it. There must be some REALLY old uploads, if they predate the upload log. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
There are:
MariaDB [enwiki_p]> select min(img_timestamp) from image limit 1;
+--------------------+
| min(img_timestamp) |
+--------------------+
| 20020804195517 |
+--------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
Which returns 4498 entries. I'm not sure how to use the oldimage table in the same query (for files that were re-uploaded) without involving an outside scripting language like PHP/python/perl/ruby/qbasic. SQLQuery me!19:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi SQL. I'm not sure if you're around at the same timezones as I am, but I regularly arrive to an AIV backlog around this time, particularly on certain days, when there are actually very few admins around and even rampant vandals can go unattended for a few hours. To say that enough admins have eyeballed the reports is optimistic. I'd like to see the standard 6 hours extended to 8. I note you and others have previously expressed a preference for this figure, so without a strong consensus against it, perhaps you could have a tweak. At least, register my concern about 6 being too short. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)07:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any strong opinions either way. I think I originally suggested 8 hours might be too long because it is rare for a report to go 8 hours without any admin eyes, but it seems Zzuuzz is right that at certain times of the day, there are less admins who watch AIV available. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As an aside - do reports in that timezone really not even see even one single set of admin eyeballs in 6 hours? If so, we are in some sort of desperate need for change. Or are the more-borderline reports being ignored in this timezone because they're borderline on a good day - and eventually the bot will deal with them? SQLQuery me!07:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I've asked for stats on this before, without success. Anecdotally, I have noticed for many years that there is an issue while the US is asleep, and especially at weekends. I wouldn't say that no admins are around, as some obviously are, but I have always thought there was an insufficient number, and in this case not enough to meet the 'enough eyeballs' criteria. Rampant vandals will be blocked before 6 hours, but others which can (or perhaps should) be blocked but aren't urgent will often wait. It's very noticeable to me - I sometimes enjoy the peace and quiet catching up on admin tasks on a weekend morning, other times I seem to be the only person battling rampant vandals. I have an alternative suggestion, which is to set up an intelligent cron job which can deal with US weekends. -- zzuuzz(talk)08:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, any report that has been left for more than a few hours is not a blockable offense. Personally I think waiting even 6 hours to clear them is long. I'm in the US and typically editing during busier hours though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I was actually thinking we should lower it to 4 hours. I consider overzealous blocking and reporting of high school kids and the like to be worse for the encyclopedia than the vandalism itself. If something has sat here for that long with no action and is not ongoing, we shouldn’t be blocking. If it is ongoing, I’m confident it will be back here within minutes. If we actually mean what we say about blocks being preventative, and AIV only being for clear vandalism, someone who hasn’t edited in 8 hours (or longer) on a dynamic IP shouldn’t be blocked, even if they would have been eligible when initially reported. Accounts are more complex, but I’d much rather take the chance and not block a stale minor vandal and potentially gain a contributor down the line, than block someone for doing dumb stuff that they stopped doing 8+ hours ago and that poses no real threat to the encyclopedia. Maybe I’m too optimistic here, but I see no real downside to waiting to block until someone is actually active and a lot of downside. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, and I know we don't live in an ideal world, but ideally, the bot would have a sliding scale of retention times, perhaps between 2 to 8 hours, and would change based on how active we (admins) are at blocking accounts reported on AIV already, and how active we are at blocking in general. I don't know whether a compromise approach to this might be to decide on appropriate retention times based on analysis of activity levels for various times, and have the bot change accordingly. Nick (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I like that idea (poor SQL) but I think something based on recent admin edits/activity would be better than on AIV blocks. Pretend you have a board filled with 10 bad reports. None of them are blocked because none of them are good, so the bot lets them stay 8 hours. You end up with them staying there and then you get one of the panic threads at AN because no one has blocked the "vandals".I dunno. I'm definitely on the less-likely to see vandalism and block side of the spectrum (I was even when I used STiki and wasn't an admin), so I can get the concerns others might have who view things differently than me. I'm afraid though, having watched SQLBot in process, an 8 hour timeframe would largely make the bot useless, and we'd be back to the semi-weekly "the sky is falling" threads at AN/ANI, which it has actually done a pretty decent job of stopping from occurring. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
~60 admins active is roughly the median. As we approach 80 admins active, shorten down to a minimum of 4 hours. As we approach 40 admins active, lengthen out to a max of 8 hours.
Oh look, SQL being all fancy, yeah, if you can figure out a variable timing piece, that sounds like a good idea. I'd also like it to autoremove any report with the string "genre warring" in it, but doubt that would get approved . TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. So my initial comment was right on time :) I'd assume that that more admins are relatively inactive during the summer, roughly in line with the vandals, but I'd also be interested to see a weekday/weekend breakdown, if that's something you can plug in, because I'll bet that's a variable. I'd also be interested to see what proportion of admins deal with AIV reports. But it's a useful proposal. Thanks for the crunching. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be an issue with the above bot. It should not have removed just my edit here. If the report with my edit was considered stale, it should have removed the user (Daffa Dilantra) my comment applied to and my comment. KnightLago (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@KnightLago: Unfortunately, this happens when a bot helps with a busy page. You saved your edit at just the right time in the milliseconds between the bot reading the page, and writing the new page. SQLQuery me!20:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
So, it's taken a long time (mostly occupied by putting off working on it), but I got a web tool running of the old aivanalysis I would run offline. It works by manually walking and evaluating every one of the 1.5 million revisions to WP:AIV, and saving to a MySQL Database which takes about a week of machine time. I split it into ~1 year chunks, each chunk running a separate process on the open grid. At the moment, 2007, 2008, 2016, and 2017 are still processing, but there are 416,252 processed reports to work off of. Hammersoft, 72, Serial Number 54129, you had comments in the previous discussion, I figured I'd let you know about the update.
There are still some known bugs that affected early versions of the old tool that I'm working on.
FixedThe 1= bug
FixedThe "User:", "User talk:", and "User_talk" bugs
Can't fix The oversight bug (this seems a little more like an issue with mediawiki, but I can work around it pretty easily by screen-scraping - This has been fixed, apparently. I could scrape Special:CentralAuth, but I'd rather not)
Can't fix The rangeblock bug (Which is likely not something I will be able to correct).
FixedThe non-registered user bug
The renamed editor bug
FixedThere's an issue that I'm aware of - which is fixed in the code, but won't show until the next walk over AIV's revisions: In a limited circumstance (removing characters from a report), you now "own" the report.
Hi SQL. Thanks for the ping. I understand that this is a test page, so it might be something you're already aware of, but when looking at the list, I noticed a few reports dated 2012/13/14/15 which can't be correct since I only registered my account in 2016. There are only a few like this, but I can't say for sure about the accuracy of the rest without going through each one in detail (which would take quite a long time!). It lists the report correctly: example, but says the report was made at "20131029182917". Thanks, 72 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the pattern is that it is relating the timestamp to other AIV reports/entries of the block log. In the case of this report, it says it was made on "20071210101100", which is one minute away from a block made by User:Kafziel. 72 (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The report for me still shows the same problems, but some of them just aren't rectifiable (see my comments in the archived discussion). The renamed false negatives are perhaps rectifiable, and as you are aware that remains a (minor) problem. Overall, I still think this is a FANTASTIC tool. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I've got a query that I've used for this for a while, figured it might benefit others as a tool. Very much a WIP, and unstable. Will move it to it's own project from my incubator before long. https://tools.wmflabs.org/aivanalysis/compare.php.
Tool attempts to compare editor interaction by what category edited pages belong to. Tool attempts to filter out maintenance categories.
TODO:
More than 2 editors. Possibly up to 5.
Export to it's own project
I need to come up with a skin... Not just for this tool, but all of mine.
Header/footer/link to home, tool is very raw.
Tool can take a "long" time to run (up to 90s) on editors with a lot of edits. Possibly "LIMIT 500"?. It's already limited to 30 days.
Filters. Probably inefficient and could be condensed some
Thank you for welcoming hundreds of users, for fighting vandalism with precise messages, for offering service for the Electoral Commission, for providing technical analysis tools, for service from 2007, - repeating (19 February 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Hi, SQL. I see you've already seen the results, but just formally letting you know that you have been appointed by the community as an Electoral Commissioner for WP:ACE2018. The coordination pages can be found at WP:COORD18 and WT:COORD18. Congrats! Swarm talk 02:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SQL. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Contains the word "ACE 2018". Message added 07:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Just a query about User:SQL/AFC-Ores - normally the system updates every couple of hours. I was just wanting to check that it acting as planned rather than frozen - obviously the AfC numbers have dropped enormously recently, so I wasn't sure whether it is acting normally just for those conditions.
Can I just ask is there a reason you aren't responding? I don't mean to be accusatory, but you've been active on here and even left a comment on my self-nomination but haven't responded to any of my pings regarding my BRFA. Just trying to understand what's going on. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Zackmann08, I typically don't like to approve bots that I set to trial. There should be more than one bag's input. Also, frankly, I haven't had the time to examine all the edits that the trial generated. SQLQuery me!06:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello SQL, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, TheSandDoctorTalk07:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all that you do for the project, as an administrator, BAG, and editor. Without editors like you, this project would be worse off. Keep up the good work! - From my family to yours, TheSandDoctorTalk07:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, Thanks for the heads up. Looks like it was a small regex error. You used a timestamp, "17:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)" formatted exactly like the timestamp in a signature. The bot read the first timestamp it came across in that line, and used it. I've corrected the regex to end in "$", which specifies that the timestamp must be at the end of the line only. I've just re-ran to make sure, and it has fixed the issue. SQLQuery me!19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I seem to recall realizing that this needed doing at some point yesterday, but it slipped my mind until now. Thanks for getting that SQL. --TheSandDoctorTalk01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
User:SQL/RFUTemplate shortcut.
Thanks for taking over updates of the RFU report. If this is going to be permanent, would you consider getting the bot to add {{shortcut|WP:RFUR|WP:RFUT}} to the top of it? Thanks. O Still SmallVoice of Clam17:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SQL, I see you're on call--would you mind looking over my shoulder here? CU revealed a bunch of accounts, and most of their efforts were stopped by the filter, but maybe you have a better idea of how to block and how long to block. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey. I opened a phab ticket (phab:T215132) but no one has responded yet - any chance you can give me bot rights over there for a bit? I may be running a bot task here manually, and I want to see how the interface is different (if at all) when you have bot rights - like can you manually choose if an edit should me marked as a bot edit or not, stuff like that. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey there
If you take a look at User:London International Education College it's pretty clear they have a COI or aren't quite familiar with how Wikipedia works.
I'm wondering what is the usual course of action in such a case? Should notices be posted to COIN only after the user has made a problematic edit? (I just chose an admin at random to ask) TIA
Hydromania (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you believe that changes need to be made to policies or content on meta, please discuss them there, not on an ongoing bureaucratship request here. Thank you. Samsara23:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Samsara, I'm not proposing a change to policies or content on meta. For the third time - can you explain to me how the crat role on the english wikipedia intersects the ANIP, the privacy policy, the CU policy, or the OS policy? SQLQuery me!23:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm aware you're busy and this is the definition of non-critical, so obvs wait as RL supercedes.
User:SQL/AFC-Ores isn't functioning, and hasn't for the last 12 days. I'd wondered if this was anything to do with the migration from Trusty to Stretch that knocked a few other things offline a couple of weeks ago.
Nosebagbear, Good catch. It looks like it was running out of memory. I've allocated 1Gb to it, we'll see if it finishes it's next run. As an aside, with the new AFC tools - is there still a need for afc-ores? SQLQuery me!01:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at this tool for the first time, and I'd just like to double check with you that I'm interpreting the results correctly before I place any block based on it. The edits of 208.84.155.212, which is part of the 208.84.152.0/22 range used by a company called Total Server Solutions L.L.C., raised my suspicions so I used the tool to check that IP address. Can you check the results and confirm my interpretation that this range is a proxy service and/or VPN service? @MusikAnimal: Pinging MusikAnimal too, if you'd like to respond instead. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, Would you please point me to an admin action that was taken inappropriately? As Swarm mentions, admins are not required to take actions upon request. As I stated, I cannot look into the CU issues - I lack that access, as most of us do. Your best bet w/r/t inappropriate checks would be ARBCOM or Ombuds. My personal experience with Ombuds on the topic of inappropriate access to PII would be to contact arbcom first :/ SQLQuery me!07:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The big wall of text was the admin action taken inappropriately. But for something more bite-sized, the last bullet on the wall of text, especially him closing the SPI while a CU request was still open is the most egregious. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:33 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, Fair enough. I disagree - but as you feel I've closed the topic inappropriately, I would be happy to reverse my close, and leave it for someone else. SQLQuery me!07:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Nah. I accept I was in the vast minority there. So, keeping it open wouldn't help. I just wanted to clarify what you said. We are agreeing to disagree (which is cool). You actually explained it in a calm and cool manner, so I appreciate that. But I'm accepting that the discussion had ran it's course. Thanks... Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:39 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)
I reverted your reopening of the discussion per my comment above. I appreciate your doing that, but again, I accept it's closure and that it has run it's course. I reverted it with the edit summary "Accepting the discussion has ran it's course and reclosing the discussion with SQL's result message. Reverting AGF.". Thanks again... Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:53 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)
Hello, SQL. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
Panam2014, Only one source considers it a proxy - IP Quality Score, whom I've always felt are a little overzealous, and can have a lot of false positives. Obviously, I'm not going to scan that IP as it is a gov't IP, but I don't see anything that makes it stick out as an open proxy. SQLQuery me!23:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
But it is possible that the claiming that the IP is gov't IP is false? Because it is accused for doing "Hacking SQL Injection". So I don't think that a real gov't IP would do illegal activities. Sometimes, when only one source claim that an IP is a proxy, it is possible that it is truth? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Panam2014, I really can't say. I have no access to that site, and I don't know how or if the reports are vetted. Things like this can be caused by compromised or infected machines. Additionally, it isn't unheard of for governments to have teams to do things like that - but I would think it would be highly unlikely from an obviously government-owned IP address. If those are legitimate reports, my guess would be a compromised machine, or machines on the network behind that IP. This can cause behavior that strongly resembles an open proxy as well. Compromised or infected machines are bought and sold, and even rented/traded by hackers all the time. SQLQuery me!23:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This also appears to affect botwatch (I've just shut it down, I'm not sure many used it in any case - so likely permanent), and isprangefinder (I'll either shut it down tomorrow, or update it in the unlikely event that I have time). I'm sure it affects aivanalysis - but to be fair that has needed some TLC for a while, so I've shut it down. I think AFC-Ores will be OK. IPCheck shouldn't be affected. SQLQuery me!06:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen recently your edit here: special:diff/899212467. Please note that {{unsigned}} creates a link to the user's page based on the supplied user name. However, anonymous IP users do not have their user pages. In such case a link to the user's contributions should be created instead. For this purpose please use the {{unsigned IP}} template. --CiaPan (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there scope for SQLBot to remove stale reports from WP:UAA as it does those at AIV? In particular the bot reported usernames, which tends to get very long at times, creating a backlogs for account names that typically not a serious / blatant issue and thus requiring me and other admins to clear them manually. NJA | talk12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
NJA, That's a good idea. It would require discussion, and consensus to implement - as well as a new BRFA. The development bit should be the easy part of the equation. SQLQuery me!04:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Amazon
Hi SQL. I know you've done this before, so I was wondering if you had a handy way of blocking AWS, like most of it? (and yes, finding the addresses is the easy bit). -- zzuuzz(talk)12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, I have something that I can use to make an easy-to-block list of ranges that aren't blocked. It's been a while since TonyBallioni and I went thru AWS / Google Cloud / Microsoft Azure's ranges. I bet a lot of them are falling off now. I'll get working on it. SQLQuery me!18:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was December/Januaryish 2017/2018. It’s been longer than a year, so they probably need to be reblocked. I’d go with at least two years if the range hasn’t changed since our last round. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've seen some Azure ranges being abused recently, but the Amazon ones are definitely a thing. I think I noticed that at least some were soft-blocked before. That's probably sensible and OK for my purposes. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, I think we started off soft-blocking them because of a software issue, and never went back to hard-block them. My plan this go round is probably a 24-36 month hardblock, randomized so everything doesn't expire the same day. SQLQuery me!18:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah OK, well as far as I know that would also suit (I'm always a bit wary of parts of these networks that get used by applications being used by schools etc, but if you're happy I'm happy). -- zzuuzz(talk)19:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz and TonyBallioni: - If either of you are interested in helping, it'll post here when it's done running. I imagine it's going to be a large amount of blocks. I'm probably going to have it auto-update daily once the backlog is cleared out. SQLQuery me!19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
AWS is done now too. Azure is the big one however, needing at least 2000 rangeblocks to be applied. I've set up SQLBot to update the page every other hour until the backlog is cleared out, after that I'll probably turn it down to either daily, or weekly. SQLQuery me!17:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
/32 range blocks
A /32 IPv4 range block covers just 1 IP… (e.g. 192.168.0.1/32 covers 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.1, which simplifies down to 192.168.0.1) -GeniusWorkbench462218:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
GeniusWorkbench4622 - Looks like a bug that needs fixed with the list generator. Amazon / Google / Microsoft list /32 netblocks in ipv4 on their list of addresses. Hadn't considered that (tho the block should still be as effective). I'll patch it, but there's no reason to go back and change the old /32 (and /128 ipv6 if there are any) blocks to single ip blocks SQLQuery me!18:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello I recently made edits to the page Over the edge. I added content that I now see was removed. I’d like to know why as this was not false or unnecessary information. Thanks in advance
Dickard Wellington Dickerd (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SQL. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.
New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.
Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, --Cameron11598(Talk)20:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, You know my struggles with OAuth... Would you be able to lend a set of eyes here, please? I feel like I would be more of a hindrance than a help. SQLQuery me!03:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Update about a script you use
Hi SQL. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I wanted to send you a warning about a change I am making to a script, User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser, that you currently import. If you are an administrator, feel free to ignore this message. For non-administrators, you should be advised that I am removing the script's automatic addition of {{nac}} to your closes. If you have relied on this to mark such closes for you, please remember to add {{nac}} yourself. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk)
Suffusion of Yellow, I apologize - I'm out of town at the moment. I should be back next week, and I will try to look at the issue then. It might be best to remove it from the RFA toolbox for the time being. I'm going to have a lot of work to catch up on when I get back, and it could be a little bit before I can dedicate much time to it. SQLQuery me!03:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
SQL appointed trainee clerk
The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome SQL (talk·contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
I hope you enjoy clerking, SQL. It's interesting to see how arbitration works from a clerk's point of view and the biggest challenge can be keeping folks calm & orderly when cases can get overheated. Oh, and you use a lot of templates! Enjoy! LizRead!Talk!00:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason OAuth is required so frequently? Is there a possibility of changing this behaviour to a more realistic duration? --qedk (t桜c)19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
QEDK, I can take a look at it tomorrow, but I can't make any hard promises right now. I can't speak for you, but I go around 2 weeks before being asked to oauth again - so it's possible that it's something clientside if you're seeing it more frequently (it does rely on cookies). It's the same backend that WP:UTRS uses, but UTRS forces me to oauth multiple times a day. It doesn't ask for a password - so at least it is relatively painless. SQLQuery me!01:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I hate having to have passwords everywhere so yeah, the OAuth feature is great, but the OAuth cookie always expires within a day. So mostly, it only lasts for half a day for me. Like, last night when I sent you this I was still in (second ACC spree in about 4/5 hours) but now I had to reauthorize again (12 hours later). It's kind of an issue but it's OAuth and clicking buttons is definitely easier but I would think developers would not want this behaviour so I thought I'd let you know. Appreciate it either way. --qedk (t桜c)06:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"his chicanery" + "This is about Icewhiz trying to spam a particular source - an "essay" by a photographer full of anti-Polish cliches and stereotypes - into as many articles as he could" (second bit arguably more a BLP violation towards the cited scholar),[11]
Calling me a Trump/alt-right supporter without evidence (my record is quite opposite to this)[12]
WP:ASPERSIONS towards IP editors (calling them socks of neo-Nazi user(s) without evidence and alleging my support for said editors),[13]
"how we could rescue the puppies you and Icewhiz (potentially) drown?" + " the best way to help the old ladies you and Icewhiz (potentially) mug?".[15]
Clerks and arbs were mostly absent (yes - I know - bigger events afoot) and this will drown out in the sea of bytes. So what's the correct forum to raise this?Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
And how do I complain about Icewhiz's repeated false accusations and gross misrepresentations of other editors' statements? What's the correct forum to raise this? One administrator suggested going to AN/I with it, regardless of how the case turned out, but I thought maybe it'd be better to give ArbCom a chance to look these over first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz: You both need to stop this behavior or I'm going to start issuing sanctions under the authority granted to clerks under the Gun Control Arbitration Case, Arbitration Policy, and Clerk Procedures. --Cameron11598(Talk)00:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have issues with conduct that you've seen or been the subject to you are more than welcome to email the Clerks mailing list or the Committee's mailing list. Either group will look at both sides conduct so I'd suggest being sure that is the route you want to go down. --Cameron11598(Talk)00:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why I got blocked with the reason being "{{Colocationwebhost}} " like I don't understand what did I do to be blocked cause I didn't break any wiki rule.
WIKIZILE, Without the IP that is blocked, I am afraid there isn't much I can do to help. You, personally aren't blocked - and you haven't broken any rules.
The most common reason for running into this block is editing via a VPN, or other anonymizing service / app. Per our local and global policies, editing via open proxies or other anonymizing services is not allowed.
If you have a demonstrable need to edit via open or anonymizing proxies, there are instructions here that you should follow to apply for IP Block Exemption, which would allow you to bypass this sort of block. SQLQuery me!15:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Copied from NinjaRobotPirate's talk page: "Hey! Someone reported 103.212.20.243 as an open proxy over at the WikiProject. As a user not verified, I decided to check this IP to see if I understand it all properly. So what I did is I found out it is not a web server, so I tried finding out the port numbers via Nmap. I got 2 port numbers: 443 and 8080. I logged out of Wikipedia and tried to connect to both, but I wasn't able to load up Wikipedia when I set the IP and port as my proxy. Therefore, it is not an open proxy, right? (Because I am not verified, I haven't made any comments at the WikiProject.)" Could you check if my check is correct? Also, could I become a verified user at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I understand that checks should only be done when there is probable cause to belief that an IP may be an open proxy and that ranges of IP addresses serving as open proxy should be range blocked (I am not an admin but I can leave the blocking up to an admin). --MrClog (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia email, repeated
Hello! Thanks for your help (regarding a deleted page content); could you please send it again, due to a still unfixed bug in Wikimedia config? I have changed my email to avoid that bug. Thanks, and sorry for the repeated sending! (Now it's obvious why I didn't get some email sent from enwp…) --grin✎18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi me, I hear we could use a list of blocks currently active on enwiki by procseebot, that are not globally blocked. Mirror params, create lists based on remaining block length: <30d, 30m, 9m, 12+m using makelinks() recycled from compute.php. SQLQuery me!03:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, I can only really speak as a clerk, so: Probably not. The clerks remit is arbitration pages, and we can't issue blanket ibans - as that would include pages outside of arbitration. If there is a problem on a case page that needs to be addressed, I would recommend emailing us at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org . SQLQuery me!16:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: Thanks for your question. The term "commentators (not participants)" is not well-defined in arbitration: do you refer to editors who have never participated in a case, or editors who have commented in the arbitration page but are not listed as parties? I would imagine that ArbCom would be less likely to intervene with non-parties and with uninvolved non-participants, but in any event, the concept of a "party" to an arbitration case exists solely for internal administrative convenience; any editor may be added or removed as a party to an arbitration case at the direction of the drafting arbitrators. ArbCom is vested by the arbitration policy with "jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia", where it is the "final binding decision-maker". The answer to the question of whether ArbCom has the power to take any action to resolve a conduct dispute on the English Wikipedia is "absolutely", so the answer to the question of whether ArbCom would act hinges on a number of hypotheticals: in what ways did the two commentators violate policy or disrupt Wikipedia? Why is it necessary for ArbCom to intervene? Why couldn't it be handled by administrators acting alone or through established community processes? Historically, actions outside of cases have been rare but not unheard of. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Remedy 2d. It says there are 3 support votes (there are now 4 but that's immaterial) and no opposes or abstains. It says it needs 2 support votes, which at 3 is correct, but it says it cannot pass. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The common ASN is 13335, there are additional ASN's. Looks like this config should work:
:$hosts['cloudflare']=array(:'name'=>"Cloudflare",//Set the name to be displayed in headers:'asns'=>array('395747','394536','209242','203898','202623','14789','139242','133877','13335','132892'),//List of ASNs:'searchterms'=>array('cloudflare','cloudflarewarp'),//List of items to search for in the whois:'blockname'=>'Cloudflare / Firefox VPN');//Name to display in the block message:
Something is running really slow with running WHOIS requests, and block-status requests. Both of which should be cached? Possibly FS being slow. It's late, I'll have to revisit this tomorrow. SQLQuery me!04:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Stale reports
Hi, my valid report to AIV was removed as stale by your bot. This doesn't look appropriate to me. Perhaps we should increase the elapsed time before deciding that a report is stale? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
MSGJ, It looks like there were active admins around that time, and I see lots of reports being removed as actioned / blocked in the hours leading up to removal. The reason for removal is keeping unactioned reports from lingering forever. In many cases reports are just left unactioned because some editors tend to get very angry when reports are declined. SQLQuery me!16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
MSGJ, Actually, looking at the logs - that's turned out to be a bug. It removed your report at 3.15 hours instead of 4.3, due to having a space between the IPVandal template, and its parameter. It's incredibly uncommon for templates to be used in that fashion at AIV, I can only find a couple times it's happened in the last year. Fixed, report detection regex adjusted to /\*(?:| )\{\{(?:ip|)vandal(?: |)\|(.*?)\}\}/i. SQLQuery me!16:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I still think that report was actionable and your bot removed it too quickly, even if it was 4.3 hours. Can I suggest 8 hours as a minimum? There is no harm leaving them around for a bit longer. I think a disregarded/removed report is likely to generate much more frustration than a declined report - editors should be given feedback. (I'm just discovering how editing Wikipedia without the admin tools can be a pain ...) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Signpost article
Hey there,
Just letting you know we'll be pitching a story for the Signpost soon.[19] Icewhiz has been working on it for a while[20] and will be credited as author, but if a T-ban is in effect I'll be signing the actual post myself as editor or co-author, so as not to have him break it. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, I don't really work AE in an administrative capacity much, so I might not be the best person to notify. If there are clarifications needed after a completed case, WP:ARCA would probably be the best place to get them. SQLQuery me!16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Communication Barnstar
For your efforts to extend and improve the communication levels of Wikipedia, at a time
when tensions were already at a high level, Ched would like to award you the Communication Barnstar.
In relation to your efforts at User talk:Bradv I wanted to commend you for having the humility and maturity to say things like my bad. I'm new and I apologize. My view is that people willing to do that are the ones that command the most respect. While I can find much to complain about, and point to as something that could be improved, I preferred instead to find a silver lining and make note of it. The barnstar isn't completely unique, but it is a rather rare one from my personal collection. And maybe barnstars have become a cliché over the years, but I did want to find a way to say I really appreciated your efforts. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that my IP is unblocked but that it also gets blocked sporadically. I tried to use the site you gave me to submit my IP address privately but, because my IP has been sporadically unblocked, it will not let me send an appeal. Basically, I'm clear for now but if there is any other way I can get you my IP address privately as to not get blocked again, that would be appreciated. Snapplepapp (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been asked to ask ArbCom about ECP. Currently, it is inconsistently applied and people use it with relative frequency when it doesn't apply per WP:ECP and they fail to log it accordingly. Requests to Admins go unanswered, ignored, or just deleted. How and where do I ask this in relation to WP:ARBPIA4? Buffs (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
