User talk:AzaToth/Archives/2013/December

File source problem with File:Mr.and mrs. Fürstenberg.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mr.and mrs. Fürstenberg.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Roadsign-Warning-Sweden.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roadsign-Warning-Sweden.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle blacklist
Hey, AzaToth, I have a question about Twinkle. There's been some discussion in the past about adding a blacklist functionality to Twinkle (i.e., allowing us to prevent people from using it), which got pretty much unanimous (though perhaps narrow) consensus. We could easily just tie it to rollback or some other userright, but that's too messy. Looking at the source code, it looks like this would be easy enough to do: one solution would be to put the blacklist itself in its own page (say, Mediawiki:twinkle-blacklist.js). In that page (if I have this right; not super-clear on how gadget dependencies get resolved), we could put Then, if we add this page as a dependency to Twinkle on the gadgets page, we could add a call in the  line, making it: That way, we have a blacklist that admins can add people to on the fly, if necessary. (Of course, the comments and error message  would have to be updated to reflect this, as well.) What do you think? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where was that discussion? We used to have a user blacklist, but removed it after an AN discussion a while back: consensus IIRC was that it's too easy to circumvent, doesn't allow you to do anything that you can't do manually, and any user who can't be taught to use Twinkle properly or avoid it entirely can probably simply be blocked (Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221). Amalthea  09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with Amalthea here; users should be warned and blocked if they are violating policy, regardless of whether such violations are taking place via Twinkle or not. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not my pet issue; I was just asked to implement it. It's easy to circumvent, but it's also easy to block people for such obvious evasion of things. As for "why don't'cha just block them," well, sometimes you just don't want to block a dude, and I get that. But I'm sure Drmies can tell you more, as he's the one who asked. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's one of my pet issues. Recent discussion is found here, in an ANI thread about someone (now retired) who was too quick to click the button. The basic premise of the entire discussion is that Twinkle is used just as easily as rollback, and that rollback abuse is easily taken care of but Twinkle abuse is not. The other premise of course is that this kind of Twinkle abuse is abuse for the same reason that rollback abuse is. This, that, and the other, in practice users rarely get warned or reported for this kind of Twinkle abuse, if only because it's not evident to everyone that it is abuse. Rollback abusers are brought up quickly, but Twinkle abusers aren't--I can remember only one, maybe two cases on ANI from the last couple of years. Anyway, that's a bit of context, and the ANI thread I linked provided a clear consensus (and I don't really like the sound of decisions being made on IRC, if that's what "IIRC" means). I'll be glad to explain more, but I have to run off for a bit. Thanks, and thanks WK for bringing this up, Drmies (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, "IIRC" is just internet-speke for "if I remember correctly". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I've linked to the AN thread above. Amalthea  16:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read that thread and can understand probably half of it. Let me get back to the original question, then: there was a recent consensus to give us (admins) the ability to easily prevent certain people from using Twinkle. Can it be done? thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's practically impossible to prevent someone to use Twinkle as it's just javascript, so anyone would be possible to make a local copy and run it. Also any blacklist might have a delay up to 30 days (don't know if that still is a issue though). We decided to remove it because it was unenforceable and normal ban procedures works as well for people who systematically misbehave. → Aza Toth 19:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)