User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/17

Unblock request

 * That "autoblocks" button isn't working for me... –xenotalk 18:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like, thanks, Xeno. I'm still a bit confused as to why the autoblock would've impacted an admin account, though I'll cop to not paying too much attention to the settings of the test block to begin with. Phab? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be related to the new partial blocks feature- see Administrators' noticeboard. Don't know if there's a phab ticket. –xenotalk 18:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was definitely my first thought too. Lemme try it out with short-duration blocks that I can just wait out if need be. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like the IP autoblock is impacting admin accounts. I'll file a Phab. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Phab: T242902. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

massRollback.js
Hello Writ Keeper, I copy massRollback.js script to ckbwiki, but it doesn't work! I can not see any changes after installing it! I need that user script. Can you help me? Thanks! ⇒ Aram  Talk  12:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aram! Unfortunately, I don't speak Kurdish, and Google Translate isn't particularly helpful here... My first question is: do you have the rollback right on ckb? Sorry if that seems obvious, it's just that, if you don't, then the script won't do anything. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much help I can be. It's definitely possible that the different language (particularly that it's RTL) changes the structure of the page such that it won't work with the scrip as written, but I'm not sure that I can debug any more without having the rollback right on that wiki myself, to see what the structural changes might look like. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (I referred Aram here) - WK, he is a sysop on ckbwiki, and copied your script to w:ckb:بەکارھێنەر:Aram/massRollback.js, I have a feeling it is a RTL/LTR issue but didn't know if you had any extra insight. Thanks for looking! —  xaosflux  Talk 14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, i'm one of the sysops at ckbwiki as said. I translated   to Kurdish; It was the main problem. In addition, i changed   to   because the IDE warned me with a warning. Anyway, I tested it and worked properly! It's a GREAT user script and we buy time by using it. Thank you very much! ⇒  Aram  Talk  14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy it works. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but I'm glad at least past me was helpful in writing the script. :) Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy it works. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but I'm glad at least past me was helpful in writing the script. :) Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

De-orphanizer script
Hi WK, hope you're doing well. When you have a sec, could you take a look at a minor issue with your de-orphanizer script? It's weird - it looks like the regex string that removes the orphan tags works when the O in orphan is capitalized, but doesn't work when it's lower-case. The "de-orphan" option still pops up in the drop-down tab, but it doesn't do anything when you click on it. I'd try to fix it myself but of course I can't edit your .js page. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it; it should be case-insensitive now. Thanks for letting me know, PMC! I also tweaked the regex to work on a raw tag; I'm not sure if that ever happens in the wild, but previously, the script would've performed similarly if the orphan tag used was a standard one with no arguments. Let me know if there are any issues, as always. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Checked and the change works, thanks for the help! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your language
enough

uncalled for

So cut that out

This language suggests "don't template the regulars" is a hard rule that justifies personal intervention and telling other editors what to do.

But let me tell you that once you have spent equal energies personally intervening against EEng for his repeated sniping and snark and outright insults I will consider your opinion.

Not before.

Now, I would like to ask you to behave politely if you plan to post further messages on my talk page. And yes, I am doing so in order to be able to point to it should you escalate your overbearing and unjustified attitude towards me. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @CapnZapp: First of all, the mere fact that you used a template on a regular is not, in itself, a problem, so I am uninterested in arguments that DTTR is an essay. I know that. The problem is that the actual template you used is condescending when applied to a prolific editor of 12 years, suggesting that they are the same as a raw newbie who doesn't know anything about how Wikipedia works. Had you used a more appropriate template, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. DTTR is a commonly-known expression of the idea that templates can be considered condescending and irritating, but at the end of the day it was the content of the template you used that was the problem, and as I'm sure you know, you're responsible for the content of a template that you use as if you had written it out.
 * Second, I assert that I haven't been anything but polite to you. The phrases you quote are informal, perhaps, but not impolite. They are peremptory, but that's because I was giving you an Official Admin Warning. I suppose I could've attached a threat to block you, to make it more explicit that it was an official warning, but I didn't think that such escalation was necessary; I figured you'd look at the template you used, realized that it was inappropriate to give it to a veteran editor, and acknowledge the point. You didn't, so here we are, I guess. If you have a problem with my language or behavior, feel free to take it up on AN; I like to think that I abide by WP:ADMINACCT pretty well, and so if a consensus is reached that I have been inappropriate, I will happily apologize and modify my behavior. (For the record, so this doesn't look like a bait, I do not recommend that approach; I don't think that would go the way you might want. But that's just me; you're welcome to pursue it if you want.)
 * Third, as far as I can see, EEng has not done anything wrong, at least not without provocation on your part. I don't know exactly what you mean about "sniping"; outsiders have always been allowed to comment in discussions that they feel are relevant to them, and EEng certainly feels that talk page lengths are relevant to them. So I'm not sure what behavior you're seeing that is bad or "against the rules" in that respect. They've been a bit snarky--I would say "colorful"--in expressing their opinion that the whole conversation about talk page size is a waste of time, but I've already gone through their relevant contributions and I don't see any place where it dips into actual insults. So no, I don't see any evidence that EEng needs a warning; if you have some, bring it and I'll take a look.
 * To conclude: Don't use condescending language, in template or original text, to refer to EEng again, or I will block you. Well, I probably won't; I don't really believe that this exchange here makes me WP:INVOLVED, but to preserve appearances, I would probably ask another admin to take a look. But this whole episode does not reflect well on you, and I wish you would take a moment and reflect on that. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You definitely need to look into the way you issue official warnings, Writ Keeper, because that was definitely not clear to me. To be frank, you came across as a random asshole editor, telling me what to do in very informal language, without giving the slightest flash of your sheriff's badge. Mixing informal language with formal warnings is a bad idea.


 * Since you claim you have read EEng's posts, which I find off-topic, inflammatory and directly attacking the need for having a discussion at all, I will simply conclude you don't care, and not waste my words on that. You care solely about not templating the regulars. Got it, Officer. CapnZapp (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's what you got out of everything I said, then yeah, I guess further breath would be wasted. Nevertheless, I'll waste a little bit more: directly attacking the need for having a discussion at all is not the same as attacking you. I don't know why you think that expressing teh opinion that a discussion is pointless is somehow a bad thing or against the rules. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you really going there? Saying it's completely fine to litter a discussion with snide remarks and non sequiturs, I mean? CapnZapp (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing
WK, how do you feel about littering a user talk page with faux outrage and sealioning? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm available. EEng 06:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Writ Keeper/Scripts/markBlocked.js
Hey WK, is there anything you can do to treat partially blocked users differently from sitewide (I hate that term) blocked users? It would have to be something fairly visible. I'm not sure a dotted strikethrough (like - - - - -) would be good enough. A color? The same strikethrough but with a P in the center? I'm just tossing out ideas. I assume you can know that someone is partially blocked, but maybe not. Anyway, what do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: The gadget version of markblocked uses a dotted underline to indicate this. I could certainly port that over, or change the style to whatever else you think would be useful. Although, maybe it would be easier just to switch to the gadget version entirely? I forget exactly why we created a separate version, but I know that the gadget version now supports marking up usernames linked with an external link, the way they are on SPIs. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I have to disable your script to try the gadget?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to doing it. It's not hard to do, but I'm scriptophobic. So far, the gadget looks good. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem! I recently switched to the gadget too, actually, due to exactly this thing. If you notice any weird behavior, though, feel free to let me know; I'm still happy to customize the script version too. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed one thing, but it doesn't make sense (to me). At SPI accounts listed that should be red (no userpage) are blu(ish). However, no-userpage accounts listed in places other than SPI are red. From my limited technical perspective, my first suspicion would be a recent change to the checkuser template, but there haven't been any. Any ideas?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you. I think that's to be expected since the links at SPI are external links, rather than normal wikilinks. I'd imagine this is done to keep pings from going out whenever someone is added to the SPI, but comes at the cost of redlink detection. I didn't think that was new, though; is this a recent development? I thought it was always like that at SPI. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going a little balmy here. Before I enabled the gadget, I disabled your script. Just now, I disabled the gadget (unchecked "Strike out usernames that have been blocked") and clicked on Save. However, with the gadget and your script disabled, I'm still seeing blocked editors with a strikethrough. What am I doing wrong?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I'm imposing on your time, but could you look at my situation? AFAIK, I still have the gadget unchecked and your script disabled and yet the strikethroughs persist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries; you're welcome to my time, I just don't have a lot of it going around. I don't see any reason that you would still have the strikethroughs; you appear to have correctly removed the scripts. I can't see into your preferences to confirm whether the gadget has been disabled or not; I assume so, but just to be sure, on Special:Preferences, the entry that reads Strike out usernames that have been blocked (the third from teh bottom in the "Appearance" section) has been unchecked, right? Not to doubt you, just to be totally sure. Have you tried bypassing your browser cache? Beyond that, I don't know if one of your other scripts is performing a similar function as part of a set or something like that. I'll try importing your vector.js and see if that does anything. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

OBOD script question
Hello Writ Keeper, hope you are well! Quick question, I added your orange bar script to my common.js page however it doesn't seem to be working. I also tried to add it to my vector.js page with no luck. Do you happen to have any suggestions on how to add it? --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll check it out, but it's possible that the WMF might have disabled the code that allowed it to work. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like they disabled the  variable that the script used to detect whether there was a new message on the talk page. I'll have to poke around and see if there's a replacement (maybe piggyback off the notification panel). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you looking into this Writ Keeper. --   LuK3      (Talk)   19:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @LuK3: I think it should be working now, although the "last change" feature isn't going to be as convenient as it was. Still looking into a way to fake that, but it might just have to be how it is. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it does work now, thank you! Appreciate your fast response. --   LuK3      (Talk)   00:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Fugue State (Theoretical Physics)
This is a well understood and agreed upon definition, awaiting to be ratified by a theoretical physicist. I understand that wikipedia is not necessarily the service to use for definitions. However, it is well defined according to common usage in Theoretical Physics, by Theoretical Physicists, please undo the deletion at once. And please be patient enough for a Theoretical Physicist to come along and add examples from their transcripts and notes. It's a rarely published phenomenon because it is a sensitive matter pertaining to the psychology and mental health of theoretical physicists. This page was intended to be a tool to facilitate the composition of 'similar' definitions by other physicists. i have merely provided a general example of the definition. And i await review from Theoretical Physicists only. Do i have to petition the wiki organisation to disallow non experts to edit and or delete esoterically specific articles of epistemological and etymological esoterica ? I would prefer to not have to. Reference is great when talking of knowledge that comes from other sources. And there will be references to come. But not if you keep pulling the page down. This is a well used and understood exemplary and genericised definition from a highly esoteric field. It is also a definition with no apparent recordings yet other than in correspondence amongst Theoretical Physicists. Please allow us (Theoretical Physicists) to compile sources, references, links, and referees. Please un-delete the page

and on a side note..

I am the author

I did not request deletion

Is there a bug in the system ?

why did you delete it? you stated that i requested the deletion. I did no such thing. I just want my page published please, My colleagues are getting impatient and want to contribute their contributions


 * Hi, Optitron, I've restored the page, per your request. To answer your last question first, you actually did request deletion of the page, in this edit. The db-g7 template you added is a request for deletion; I've now removed the deletion request, since you apparently placed it in error, but you can see what it looked like here; note the phrasing "the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion and/or blanked the page in good faith."
 * To address the rest of your post, I'm afraid that you have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's core policy is verifiability, which means that everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to independent, published reliable sources. Topics that don't have published sources about them don't get Wikipedia articles, because they are not considered notable by Wikipedia's definition of the term. You and your colleagues' anecdotes of a fugue state, though I don't doubt their truthfulness, are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. You need to bring sources that discuss this phenomenon as part of a published work for a Wikipedia article to be created.
 * Furthermore, there is no way to limit an article to editing by "experts only"; that, too, is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed to be editable by everyone, which is why there is such an emphasis on reliable sourcing. We have no way to confirm or verify your or anyone's credentials when it comes to theoretical physics, professional patisserie, or any other subject, so we cannot take you or anyone else at their word; we must stick to what the reliable sources say. If that means that there are some things that we just can't have articles about, since they haven't been published about, then that's just how it is. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * yes you are right. I had followed an instruction i thought i remembered seeing and it had informed me to paste that there in the top right. i see i must have mis read perhaps i will need to check and i do apologise for seeming rude. good work. keep up the good job thanks for letting it slide it's abit of an in thing but with enough effort it won't have to be god i was rude to you sorry once again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optitron (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Optitron: It's quite all right! No need to apologize. Wikipedia is pretty byzantine in its policies, and there's no shame whatsoever in misunderstanding how things work, whether it's a deletion request template or a content policy. Wikipedia has its own inside-baseball terms, too, and words like "notability" don't necessarily mean the same thing here that they do elsewhere. Misunderstandings like this are very common--I made them myself when I was just starting out.
 * Also, no worries, I didn't consider your post rude at all! You're definitely welcome to question the actions of admins on Wikipedia; admin accountability is part of Wikipedia policy, too, especially for something like this, where I mistakenly thought you were requesting deletion. It's no problem at all.
 * Finally, let me just say that I'm sorry for your rough introduction to Wikipedia, but thanks for joining! It can be tough when you're starting out, but it can also be pretty fun and enriching once you get the hang of it. No worries if you don't want to stay, but if you do, you're more than welcome. Thanks, and happy editing! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Further PR script request
Hi WritKeeper, I have another request for the PR closure script. It's been very useful, probably upwards of 50-100 reviews have been closed this way. I was wondering if it could be made to work with Articlehistory, such as essentially:
 * 1) See if the article has that template
 * 2) If it does, add:
 * 1) And don't add the normal PR talk page archive template.
 * I ask because of Cristiano Ronaldo and as I've seen a few articles with that template on it.
 * Loving your mysterious user and talk page by the way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tom (LT), I'll take a look. I can't make any promises, though; template parsing based on naive wikitext can get messy. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Animated Universe
Hello, the Marvel Animated Universe page contains false information, it was confirmed by Cort Lane that all three seasons of Guardians of the Galaxy is set in the universe of Spider-Man 2017, this is also confirmed on the Marvel Appendix, which is edited by people who works at Marvel. I've tried to fix this error, and even added the source to Cort Lane's interview, but it keeps getting undone, can you please do something? That false information also keeps being put on the Ultimate Spider-Man, Avengers Assemble, Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. and Guardians of the Galaxy pages. Aaa11769 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aaa11769. Sorry, but I have only a passing knowledge about comic book topics, and so I won't be able to be of much help. All I can offer is the standard advice to start a discussion about it on the talk page and seek input from other editors there. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

cuStalenes removes cuEntry?
Hi. I've been working on a script that parses SPI pages. I was using span.cuEntry to find the checkuser template output, and discovered that when your cuStaleness script is running, the cuEntry classes are removed. Why is this done? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, RoySmith, if I recall correctly, it does that to keep track of which entries have been handled and which haven't. I should be able to modify it so that it doesn't mess with pre-existing classes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, that would be cool if you could do that. Thanks.
 * This was a strange one to debug. I was initially testing my stuff in my sandbox, where I wasn't running cuStaleness.  When I tried it on a live SPI page, I discovered that it was still (partially) working, but I couldn't figure out how it even got as far as it did because there were no cuEntry classes.  I think what was going on was a race condition where my script ran before the classes were removed :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith: that should do it; the script shouldn't modify existing classes any more. Sorry for the inconvenience! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yup, that fixed it. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yup, that fixed it. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

massRollback.js not working on contributions pages for IP ranges
... The subject line says it all, I guess. I was trying to use it on 2601:44:1:5220::/64, but I had to open each individual IP's contribs and use it from there. Graham 87 08:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, I see the problem. Lemme see what I can do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, Graham87, I think that fixed it. Let me know if you come across any more problems. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it seems to work now ... I just tested it on Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1619:4A91::/64 and it worked fine ... but it probably wasn't that necessary to use the script in that case, because the older edits had already been reverted. Graham 87 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, well, that's still more productive than what I had to do to test my changes, which was to wait for an IP user to edit Sandbox, go to their /24 range (because I didn't want to take the time to do the binary math to figure out a tighter range), set the contribs view to only show 5 contribs at a time or something to make sure the sandbox edit was the only one to be reverted, and then finally click the mass rollback button. Writing the fix was easier than testing it! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing this. There's something weird with my clipboard (inadvertant pastes); that was a note I'd written earlier then removed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries! That is weird. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mail call
Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC).
 * @Bishonen: I replied to this a while ago, just to be sure you saw. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC).

Urgent request to update peer review closure
Hi Writ Keeper, could you please update this line in your peer review closer: To: This is to update the closure process based on my recent changes to the process documented at WT:PR. It also fixes the problem of all peer reviews closed using your tool being placed in the category Category:November 2018 peer reviews.

The plus side is that your tool has been used to close 255 reviews, which is now coming up to 2%!! Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional request to update PR closure script
This one's not so urgent, but if you'd be able to, could you please replace this line:

With something like this line:

I am not sure if "subst" works with your script, but I've updated peer review so that now the page name and ID will be recorded when a review is closed. That way the frustrating issue of page moves breaking peer reviews will be fixed. Thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't know of any reason that subst wouldn't work, but let me know if you come across any issues. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee,  Heart  (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
- 250 years Beethoven, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

2006 toolbar
Hello Writ Keeper. Would it be possible to implement Search and replace tool for 2006 toolbar ? Eurohunter (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Eurohunter: It looks like the Polish script was actually based on one from enwiki, actually: User:Zocky/Search_Box. Not sure if the script still works as is, but you could try to install it as a userscript. Zocky seems to still be around sporadically (has edits in 2020, at least), so they mgiht be able to help, as well. If you have trouble with it, let me know and I can take a look at updating the script myself. Just as an aside, I don't think this really makes sense to add to the legacy toolbar gadget itself; it's probably redundant to the browser search/replace for most users. But there's of course no reason it can't be a userscript. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will try it first. I think a lot of users still use that old toolbar and I guess that would be useful helpful to promote it somewhere (add links, move this page to "main" or anything) because it's probably the most useful tool from the whole old toolbar. Eurohunter (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just tested it. It works but instead of icons it has just links to "Search/Replace" and "Toggle case" so I probably should ask Zocky. Eurohunter (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Redacted PA
Hi. I read PA before applying RPA. Just wondering why the text seems to meet RUC and not RPA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Pasdecomplot: what part of WP:RUC do you think it meets? In my opinion, it doesn't meet either of them. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The quotation is (it would be so much easier if you stopped playing this little game of yours and just addressed me directly, but whatever). Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. What I'm asking is: what text in RUC or RPA do you think supports your decision to remove it? Because I would say that that doesn't meet the threshold of clear-cut ... where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack, and doesn't even come close to any of the exceptions listed in RUC. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The edit meets the apparent definition of direct rudeness, and possibly of trolling, given the other edits in the thread. But if you don't agree... Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Direct rudeness" is not the same as a personal attack. Why do you think it is? (And if you have to qualify "trolling" with "possibly", then that of course doesn't meet the "clear-cut...obvious" criteria in RPA.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI FYI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass rollback feature request
Can there be an automatic edit summary like "Reverted edits by Example (talk) to last version by Example2: (summary here)". Steve M (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, not really, no. The mechanism that the mass rollback script uses (i.e. the rollback permission itself) has its own default edit summary, which doesn't include information about the edit it's rolling back to. In theory, I could program a custom default edit summary like that, but in order to do so, I would have to make at least one extra API call per rollback to retrieve that information, which is just too much extra network traffic to justify. Sorry. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Bug
In User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/markBlocked.js, IPs that are part of a rangeblock are not marked. Steve M (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Steve M, that's a known issue that can't reasonably be fixed on our end, as there's no efficient way in the Mediawiki API to look up rangeblocks for more than one IP address at a time. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it it possible to file an issue about this on Phabricator? Steve M (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably? but it would be a feature request for something that's a pretty minor use case (as far as I know), so I doubt it would get attention any time soon. Probably not worth the effort IMO, but you're more than welcome to try. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

legacyToolbar
Hey, is legacyToolbar available for wikipedia in another languages? —liège (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the local gadget is actually based on one from the French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-mediawiki.toolbar.js. If you don't have it in your local wiki, you can copy the script from MediaWiki:Gadget-legacyToolbar.js to your userspace (e.g. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/legacyToolbar.js), translate it there, and then import it as a normal userscript. (There are a couple of other ones, like MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-extra-toolbar-buttons-core.js, that add extra buttons to the toolbar.) HTH, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Rollback all
Writ, I'm a big fan of your useful "Rollback all" script, but it does have one negative: rolling back a lot of vandalism will bloat up the rollbacker's own contributions history in an unconscionable way. I mean, look at my contribs history now. Not pretty. I suppose there's nothing that can be done about that effect? I mean, I guess there's no way to make all the rollbacks not count as contributions of mine? Mind you, if I were casting about for a way to become extended confirmed, using the script on some prolific vandal would be a great way to achieve it. :-) Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, no, there's nothing that can really be done about that. There would have to be an action on each page the rollback affects, and each of those would always count as a separate edit AFAIK. It does suck that it clogs up the contribs history, but I think that's just how it is. :/ Haha, as far as extended-confirmed goes, though, the script won't work unless the user has the rollback permission, so if they're working hard enough to game extended-confirmed that they can convince someone to give them rollback...well, honestly that's just kind of impressive in itself, I think. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

revdel
So clearly I don't understand how this works...I've read the info at RevDel but I still am not sure what I should have done. I don't think I've ever deleted two separate items from the same page -- it's always been a single edit, or a contiguous series. Is that the issue here? Thanks for any insight, and if there's somewhere besides that explains RevDel for Dummies, I'll go read that. :) —valereee (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valereee: Haha, I don't think there is a place that explains revdel more simply, but there probably should be. The main reason why I habitually check revdels whenever I see the log entry on my watchlist is because it's pretty much universal that people don't really get how revdel works (myself definitely included, at various times).
 * This explanation might go into too much detail, and will almost certainly include stuff you already know, so apologies in advance, but this is how I think about revdel, and I hope it'll be helpful. So basically, there are two ways to think of page histories. The first way is by thinking of any particular page as a base page and then a history of changes to that base page, where each entry in the page history records how the editor changed the pre-existing content. This is of course how we as humans normally think about it; we think in terms of diffs, of what changed in a particular edit. But that's not actually how the software works. The software works in terms of versions; each entry in a page history is a complete copy of the page as it existed at that time, and when we provide diffs, the software actually grabs two versions of the page and literally compares them to display that diff.
 * And that makes sense from a technical perspective, but it has implications for how revdel works. Because when you rev-delete a single edit, what you're actually doing is just deleting that one copy of the page. Unless the very next revision is someone reverting that edit, that next revision will also contain a copy of what the edit said, since that revision is a complete copy of the page as it existed at the time. So, to illustrate, say we have the following page history:

10:00 -- we start the page by typing in "foo": page content "foo" 10:10 -- someone adds "bar" at the end:       page content "foo bar" 10:12 -- someone else adds "gil" to the end:  page content "foo bar gil" 10:15 -- someone else removes the "bar":      page content "foo gil"
 * What's labeled as "page content" is what the software is actually storing for each revision. Now, if we want to revdel "bar", instinctively we might just want to revdel the 10:10 edit, since that's the one that added bar. But the problem is that what's stored in the history isn't that someone added "bar" in that edit; it's the complete page content with "bar" added, which is to say "foo bar". Simiarly, the data contained in the 10:12 revision is another complete copy of the page content: "foo bar gil". And the 10:15 edit is again a complete copy of the page at the time, which is just "foo gil", since "bar" was removed in that edit. So, if we want to use revdel to keep anyone from seeing "bar", it's not enough to just revdel the 10:10 edit; we have to also revdel the 10:12 edit, since the complete copy of the page there will also contain "bar". We don't need to revdel the 10:15 edit, though, since that copy of the page no longer contains "bar".
 * So, the end result is: if there is a particular piece of content that needs to be revdeled, you have to revdel all the versions of the page that contain that content, which basically means: the edit that added the content and all edits between that one and whichever edit eventually removed the content (although that removal itself does not need to be revdeled). Along the same lines, it's another common mistake with revdel to delete the revision that added objectionable content, but not actually make a normal edit to remove the content itself; this means that the content will still be visible on the live page itself. For that same reason, it's impossible to revdel the content of the latest edit to the page, since copy of the page that corresponds to the latest edit is exactly what is displayed live; the software will give you an error if you try.
 * I hope that made sense and/or was at least a little bit helpful. :P Let me know if there's something that doesn't track. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, and I apologize for making you spend that much time! I really didn't intend to ask for significant effort on your part! I have read this but will likely need to read it again, and I sincerely thank you for the work! —valereee (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Use Rollback All in other language wiki
Hello. Is there any possible way for me to use your script in another language Wikipedia? I've tried to include it in my common.js in that Wikipedia, but seems like it won't work without extra modifications. Minhngoc25a (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC).
 * Hi, Minhngoc25a. It should be possible, I would think; what language Wikipedia is it failing on? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm trying to use it on Vietnamese Wikipedia. Minhngoc25a (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC).

Teahouse talkback script
Hey there! Your Teahouse talkback script is really useful, but I would love if a feature could be added so that you can't talkback yourself, for accidents ;) EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, I've actually been studiously avoiding eye contact with the Teahouse scripts for years; they're very out-of-date. I take it you're talking about the script that introduces the link to leave a talkback? Let me see what I can do, although it might take me some time; very RL-busy. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both the talkback (adding the link in sigs) and the option in the More menu on user talk pages. No worries, I'm very RL busy as well. Take care! :) EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 17:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:4005:500:415F:2294:8732:2728
Since you blocked this user, I thought I'd point out to you this violation of the Civility policy that he/she posted several hours ago, in case you haven't already seen it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw it. I'd been tossing around the idea of removing talk page access, but decided to just let them be. Something something "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The block's expired now anyway, but feel free to redact as you see fit. I'll try to keep an eye on them to see if they cause any more trouble. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

IRC
Hey; I saw your message on IRC a few hours ago (at least, I assume it was you). Freenode dropped their users registrations last week so there's no way to confirm or recover cloaks on Libera based on that. You'll need to request a new cloak. Instructions for that are on IRC/Migrating to Libera Chat. You can get a temp cloak to hide your IP immediately and a proper WP/WM one after a couple weeks. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was me. I figured something like that went down, so I've already requested a new cloak. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Threat of harm
I saw this threat of harm. The instructions I saw were to report it to an administrator but not on a high-traffic notice board. Wasn't sure how seriously to take it. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cheerful Squirrel, you did the right thing. The general instructions for threats of harm (including, but not limited to self-harm) are at WP:EMERGENCY; as it says there, we shouldn't try to assess how serious they are. I've already contacted Emergency directly, and revision-deleted the edits in question. If you have an email address that you want to attach to your Wikipedia account, you can use the Wikipedia email function to report such things to Emergency directly, as well as using the "email this user" function to contact admins directly off of their talk page, but please don't feel the least pressure to attach an email address to your account; contacting an admin on their talk page and letting them handle it from there is perfectly fine, as you did here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we report this? Not sure how seriously to take it. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That one, nah. Reporting that would be giving it more acknowledgement than it's worth. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Defensive Architecture/Exclusionary Architecture/Hostile Architecture
I think you over-reverted this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hostile_architecture#Defensive_Architecture_vs_Hostile_Architecture

The moves were 1 hostile -> 2 exclusionary -> 3 defensive

The admin-help tag was added after 2. Before you responded, I, following the consensus, changed the title to 3: there was general agreement already that "Defensive_Architecture" was a more neutral, yet still common term.

Your revert also removed edits that were not in question, including changing "homeless activity" to "sleeping," clearly a more accurate description.

The currently restored version reads, "Proponents say hostile architecture in urban design is necessary to maintain order and safety...." Clearly, no proponent of the practices refers to them as "hostile architecture; leaving the text in this form adopts a strong anti- point of view.

All in all, the issue was that "hostile architecture" is the term used by a movement that opposes "defensive architecture." An article about that movement should use that name, but a neutral point of view can't allow it as the title of a disputed practice. I ask that you restore the edits, and the move to "Defensive Architecture," which the edit page shows was a consensus. Abrothman (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Abrothman. Sorry, but no, I won't undo my change. I'm aware of the move history; I checked it before I took action. SmokeyJoe asked for a WP:RM; I'm fairly sure their intent was to ask for one based on all of the recent moves, not just one of them. This is an extension of the bold-revert-discuss cycle. It is better to have a discussion on what the article is to be named if there is disagreement, and there clearly is. My moves and edits were to restore the article to what it was before the dispute started, so that there is a clean slate for any RM discussion--feel free to start one. You're right in that I reverted some of your other edits, as well; that was not my specific intent, but again, I was not making a judgment on the merits of the edits but simply restoring the status quo. That said, those edits had already been reverted by another editor; your re-insertion of them could technically constitute edit-warring, so again, I will not reinsert them, and you shouldn't either until a consensus is reached on the talk page, where your edits and page moves do not yet seem to have support.
 * A final note--you're right in that the name of the article may be negative in tone. However, that does not necessarily mean that it is non-neutral; generally speaking, "even-handed" is not the same as "neutral" when it comes to POV. Wikipedia has a concept of due weight; not all sides to an issue need to get equal space on Wikipedia if some are more fringe than others. This is visible in many places on Wikipedia, such as the articles on pseudoscience. Now, again, I'm speaking generally here; I am not familiar enough with this topic to opine whether any overall negative tone of the article is justified or not. But you should keep in mind that simply pointing out that there is an imbalance in coverage of the sides on a topic might not be sufficient to prove that the coverage itself is non-neutral. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI
https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/45287. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 03:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Chan Oversight Subsection

 * Did you mean to just close the subsection regarding oversight or the entire discussion on Chris? Your comment came off to me as it was just in relation to the subsection, but the entire thing is closed.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I meant to close the whole thing. ANI is for discussing conduct issues, and there are none to discuss in either the subthread or the larger thread. I guess I could've explicitly added "and no admin is willing to unprotect these drafts" to deal with the original question, but I felt that was kind of implicit. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Made the close clearer, and all in 69 handy bytes (nice). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Before it was closed, I was going to post in there asking which of the list of news articles I have on Chris are considered reliable or not. With Christine getting more and more coverage every day, I am curious at what point could she constitute getting an article?Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you're not taking my advice. Ah well, it was always a long shot. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a simple question I'm curious about to help me better understand the site. It can be in regards to anyone, not just Chris, at what point does enough news coverage constitute someone getting an article?Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a simple question that does not have a simple answer, as it is entirely dependent on the subject and the circumstances. In this case, I have no interest in discussing it further; this person has been the subject of an extensive, decades-long harassment campaign involving exactly this kind of coverage, and neither I nor Wikipedia are here to participate in it. It is not impossible for there to ever be an article about her, but it is currently not worth discussing, and I'm certainly not interested in giving criteria that people can then turn around and arbitrarily argue has been met to keep the discussion alive beyond reason. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

limit
Hello, thank you for editing Saeed Ganji's page Can you limit it to one week? Amiir.masterr (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amiir.masterr, I'm not really sure what you're asking for; I'm not sure what you mean by "limit[ing] it to one week". If you're talking about page protection, then honestly I'm not sure I see enough recent activity on that page to really justify protecting it; I've put it on my watchlist, so hopefully there will be a couple more eyes on it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Amiir.masterr (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Chris-chan was not an attack page
Really, I had every intention of writing an article to WP standards, and I didn't put a single unsourced POV claim in it. I'm not a 4channer or other troll seeking to fuel the drama, I'm established here. Besides, I even sought to discuss the AFC on the talk page - I did everything to be civil. Explain yourself. Gaioa (T C L) 18:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my actions should be fairly self-evident, given the extensive discussion there has been recently on this subject. I've already asked an administrator I trust for a second opinion on this; I will certainly defer to their opinion if they feel I've been unfair. I'm also certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about your motives, but again, we've discussed this ad nauseam and the consensus seems to be that an article is not appropriate at this time, so I'd advise you to not pursue this further. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "We"? Don't assume every soul on the planet knows about every WP discussion going on at every moment. Just sounds like you're saying "because me and my friends don't like it and are tired of it".
 * But whatever. I'm not in the mood to fight, so keep your deletion. I'll come back when consensus is different. Gaioa  (T C L) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "We" being the Wikipedia community at large; I assure you that the admin noticeboards where the linked discussions took place are not staffed entirely by "me and my friends". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, I will definitely admit that the deletion summary was not the most flattering to choose, so I am sorry for that; it certainly impugns your motives more than I intended. But beyond that, I stand by the deletion. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You might both be interested in User talk:GorillaWarfare this conversation as well. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Bugging you about a script you didn't even create
Hi, Writ. At one time, I stole Floquenbeam's code for fixing the navigation bar at the top of the page, finding it in User:Floquenbeam/common.css and pasting it into my own corresponding page. It's been working very nicely ever since, for ages. But not any more. I wrote to Floq, reproachfully, and he has just replied that it's not working for him either. He thinks it was OK before he went on vacation on August 6. Can you help us? Wiki life was a lot better with this function! Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC).
 * Hey, Bish (and Floq), yes, this would've been new as of last Thursday; the updated Monobook that they released overrode custom styles for a bunch of people. The simple version of the advice I've been giving people is to just add  to the front of each CSS rule that stopped working; that should increase the calculated specificity (without *actually* changing anything, yay) and reassert your custom CSS's dominance over the new stuff. Here's a diff for the change to be made, if the visual is helpful. Cheers! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Done, and working! You see this, ? Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC).
 * I do now. Thanks, as always, for understanding/fixing things that are over my head, WK.  And thanks for poking him, Bish. I'm off to see how many edits it takes me to do this right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it worked, but when I went to save it the change, it warned me the page had unspecified errors. I suppose if it does what I want I don't need to figure out what it thinks is wrong?  Sounds like a problem for future me. Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah's talk page
Thank you for your message! It was a total accident that I left him a message not signed in. But I appreciate it! Just looking for some advice on how to make a particular edit so I don't make any mistakes. Thank you again! Spf121188 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! Happy to help. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your comment at Ponyo
That account was just created, smells like block evade. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, for sure, but Ponyo is a CU, so I figured she'd have better avenues to explore that route than I. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Tag removal page tofan pirani
hi writ A mafia wants to delete this page For what they have taken Can something be done not to delete it? He is an Iranian-swedish boxer who also has Persian and French Wikipedia Amiir.masterr (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amiir.masterr. I'm not sure what you mean by "a mafia". AfD is a normal Wikipedia process, and so the normal Wikipedia thing to do is to participate in it; once it's over, an admin will decide the consensus about whether to delete the article or not. (It is not at all guaranteed that the article will be deleted, by the way; AfDs can and frequently do end in a consensus to keep the article.) I see you've already contributed to the AfD; in that case, the best thing to do to help the article be kept is to edit it to address the concerns of the people who are !voting delete. As a side note, each language Wikipedia is its own project with its own rules--whether a person has an article on another language Wikipedia is not relevant to whether they should have an article here. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't do much to help you; MMA and other sports are not something I know much about. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

thanks Amiir.masterr (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Liz, I really appreciate it. Honestly, when I saw the Orange Bar of Doom, I was half-convinced it would be someone coming here to yell at me to stop proxying for a paid editor. But I feel that at least in this case, everyone can walk away happy, and if what it takes for that to happen is for me to put a little elbow-grease into it, well, is that not why we became admins in the first place? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Name of the Jack Russell
I randomly came across the Jack Russell picture that you uploaded in 2012 and I am now curious to know its name. Please share it if you are fine with it. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogatorp (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, I'm not comfortable sharing that. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem at all! Just thought it was really cute :) Ogatorp (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 '''Wishing Writ Keeper a very Keeper happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU''' (T) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Pull request for cuStaleness
Hey, WK! Something interesting came up at Sockpuppet investigations/Grbfly. The filer, the responding CU, and I all failed to notice that one of the alleged sox had been created by the other. I only noticed after having already reviewed the case, when the existence of an older exonerated sock plus the fact they'd been created on the same day forced me to not be lazy and rely on your script to figure out which was older, and when I opened up their logs to see creation timestamps, I saw that one had created the other.

I realized I almost never check for this, even though I've seen it at least once in the past; and I mentioned it to another clerk, who admitted they don't check for it either. I'm guessing most people don't build it into their worklfows since it'll only pay off ~1% of the time. Which got me thinking, something like that could perhaps slot in nicely to cuStaleness. (At this point of writing this message, I started sketching out how one could go about that, and then realized I had a good enough idea of it that I could just try it, so...) I barely know any JavaScript, but I forked your script to User:Tamzin/cuStaleness.js and made these changes. I've checked at the aforelinked[word?] SPI and a few others and it does behave as expected.

(Then I realized that while I was at it I could address the issue that had caused me to check these users' logs in the first place...) So I added some code to give second-level-precision timestamps through  attributes, which I think should be intuitive behavior to people since sites like Reddit and Discord use it.

So, well, started writing this message as a feature request, but then I made that feature and then made another, so I guess this is a pull request! Like I said, I don't know much JS, so if you're interested in pulling but there are changes I'd need to make to conform to best practices, please let me know. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 08:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Strike that, temporarily. Figuring out a bug.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tamzin, good to see you (so to speak)! What's the bug? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the first set of changes works fine. The second also works fine, except when it doesn't, instead giving that super long-winded date format that we saw in . After lots of pulling my hair out trying to figure out the intermittent failure, I asked TheresNoTime, who said it's a race condition having something to do with how promises are set up. One change I'd made was to move the datestring generation into  as a bit of DRY, and I'm guessing that's what introduced the bug. So in a bit, once I can stomach looking at JavaScript again, I'll see if restoring that duplication fixes the bug.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh also good to see you too!  I think you're one of the people I've known longest on Wikimedia, so always nice to have an excuse to say hi.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, this seems to have fixed that... Except now instead of intermittently showing the long dates, it's intermittently not applying the title attributes, with HTML like  (as if the function were set to return  . And given that I haven't even added a line to , I'm confused why this is happening on my fork but not at master. (Or maybe it is sometimes happening at master, and the ids are getting garbled, but no one's noticing because there's no outward effect?)  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the problem, Tamzin. You (and I) have both the cuStaleness and the sockStaleness script, and the dateFormatter function definition conflicts with each other, since they use the same name. It didn't matter before, since they were identical, but now they're not, so whichever one loads last wins teh race, and when that's the sockStaleness script, bad things happen. You think I'd know better, but IIRC, I made both of these scripts in kind of a fever dream. I'll rename the functions to be unique; let me know if that fixes the issue. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ohhh. That... simultaneously makes a lot of sense to me and no sense at all.  Well, rolled back to my first attempt and mirrored your unique function names, and it works perfectly now. Picked a few SPIs, refreshed a bunch of times, no intermittent error (well, unless it's become wayyyyy more intermittent). Also, I don't know why this would have changed this, but NavPopups now works on the "Created by" links, where it didn't before. So, yeah, zarro boogs found.Also, you can probably guess that I know a thing about coding fever dreams from the tone of my first message here.  So, yeah, thoughts?  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 05:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LGTM, thanks! I did a brief test and it looks okay; merged. Let me know if you have any issues with it, and I'd be happy to help investigate. I'll probably look into doing similar changes at the sockStaleness script, too; it's a good idea. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for merging it!  I'm happy to help with sockStaleness if you'd like. The only reason I didn't handle it now is, I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the difference between it and cuStaleness is.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does basically the same thing, but on Category:(Suspected_)?Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of... pages instead of SPI cases. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Addendum: GeneralNotability noticed that the account creator check was throwing false positives if the specified username doesn't match the MW-normalized format. Sorry 'bout that. Special:Diff/1053962703/1055081498 should do the trick. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done and done, thanks! :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible sock
Hello Writ! Just thought I"d let you know that I think the user you blocked is a sock of another user (who was blocked for WP:LTA according to their block reasoning). ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, probably. I normally don't bother tagging accounts that look like LTAs; I just block 'em as VOA accounts and forget about them, per WP:DENY. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just figured I'd let you know as another user (who was also a sock of the LTA) had basically the exact same behavior (other than the personal attack on the talk page). ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sighhhhh. One more
Forgot to throw a  in the username normalizer, which was causing false positives for cases like , since it was comparing   to. Then also found a case where I'd somehow gotten a  in there, and in fact it seems MW will accept an arbitrary number of non-printing characters in the parameter and still work fine, so for full compatibility I had to add a regex-replace. Oh and I also fixed a little paper cut where "created by X" still had underscores in it.

Diff. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks, as always. Ah, the joys of manually debugging the edge cases of string manipulation. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

EasyWikiDev
Hi! I'm User:Ed6767. I'm probably best known for founding and developing RedWarn, which is now one of the most used user scripts on the English Wikipedia. I couldn't help but notice that you also develop user scripts, so I was wondering if I could ask you to try and give me feedback on my new tool called EasyWikiDev. It's a new way to develop user scripts quickly and easily using Visual Studio Code, and only takes a few minutes to set up and install on your computer, whilst saving you the headache of constantly having to save edits and reload the page for every single change to your script you'd like to test. EasyWikiDev makes it so you can develop your script locally, on your own computer, and only publish the changes to your users when you are ready to - and unlike other solutions, EasyWikiDev reloads the page right away when you make a change, so you always see the latest version of your script. Plus, by using Visual Studio Code, you have access to some of the most extensive and helpful extensions and tools available to developers right now.

If you're interested, you can find the GitHub repository here and a video tutorial that shows both how to set up EasyWikiDev and how to use it (which you should watch) here. When you have tried it and would like to give feedback, or just need help, please let me know by pinging me - you'd play a big part in my goal to make user script development easier for all Wikipedians. Thanks again for your consideration, ✨ <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;color:black;">Ed  talk!  ✨ 12:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback
If you have a spare moment and are able to take a look at the Teahouse talkback script your wrote some while back, I'd love it if the "Invitation posted!" message would automatically disappear after 4 seconds or so. At the moment, clicking 'OK' is obligatory before one can do anything else, and it would be a small but welcome improvement if that were not necessary.

Of course, if you're busy just ignore me. I can cope! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look when I get a moment. Those scripts are ooooooold, so they're probably due for a look anyway. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New message from Vanjagenije
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Writ Keeper/Scripts/markBlocked.js.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)