User talk:Cabayi

Short URL

w.wiki/4Gpo

Abnormalcy333 name change

Dear Cabayi, thank you very much for executing the name change that I requested to protect my identity. As I am not very acquainted with name changes from before, I was wondering if it would also be possible to remove any traces of the previous names I have gone by on Wiki? I can see them in my edit history as well as some redirections made for the sandboxes of the username I had. Looking forward to hearing from you. Abnormalcy333 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormalcy333, it's possible to remove some but not all. I can delete the sandbox redirects if you like. If your need for privacy goes deeper a WP:CLEANSTART is your best option, but that would need to to edit on entirely different topics & offer no hints to your previous persona in order to be effective. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Cabayi, it would be great if you could delete the sandbox redirects. I think doing a cleanstart would not be required yet. Abnormalcy333 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 1.Paper Mario (character) remains deleted

Well, the outcome was it remained deleted because it was a copyright violation but did you know that you need to respect Fandom because circa all content from it is licensed by CC-BY-SA? Also, some content are licensed under other ones like CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA licence and the CC BY-NC-ND licence. Thanks. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Rjsb0192, if you're going to lecture me about fandom's licensing please take the trouble to get your facts right. CC-BY-SA requires attribution, that's what the -BY- part of the license means. You did not give that credit.

Pretending that someone else's work from fandom was your own work on Wikipedia is plagiarism. Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I will think of another method to write an article without plagiarism. I will also give attribution to the copyright holder the next time I copy text from a page. Thank you. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better than that I am Rjsb0192, would be to NOT copy from other websites. Write in your own words. Cabayi (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time to create an article by doing that. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. On the other hand, you'll have an article to show for it instead of just copyright warning notices on your user talk page. Cabayi (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2.By the way, I have Twinkle on.

Is it proper for me or not? I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It helps you to do the kind of wiki-work that you don't yet have the experience to do successfully. Your efforts woould be better spent in content creation (not copying) for the time being. Cabayi (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is it proper to turn on Twinkle for me or not? I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody could care less whether you do or don't. It all depends on what you do with it, and you're not yet ready to perform the tasks it helps with. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 3.Sandbox

I put two unblock templates and they have both similarities and differences. What do you say about this? Go to my sandbox via search to find out! Here's the word: User:I am Rjsb0192/sandbox. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before that, here are my badges from TWA:

Do you like them? I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked, so you have no reason to be posting unblock templates. I didn't earn those badges, they don't belong on my user talk page. I've fixed your attempt at archiving your user talk. Cabayi (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to see the differences between accepted and declined unblock reviews. That's why I did that. Anyway, thanks for fixing my attempt at archiving my talk page. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when did you archive my talk page? I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved it to User talk:I am Rjsb0192 (new) which would be the talk page of a non-existent user. I moved it to User talk:I am Rjsb0192/Archive 1 which is a subpage of your talk page. If you look at the page history you can see when. Cabayi (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ping at UAA

Sorry, I didn't get the ping as it was later removed. Aren't "bot" and "script" related terms and thus shall be blocked? IMHO they both show a clear threat of non-authorized automation. What's your opinion? Thanks, A09090091 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A09090091, my opinion is pure shame that after years of looking at the username policy, and being fully aware of the restriction on "bot", the companion restriction on "script" had totally escaped my attention. I can't even say I'd forgotten, there's not even one neuron of headspace registering "script".

While I've seen BOT suffixes used on many accounts, and regulated by the Bot Approvals Group, I can't say I've ever seen SCRIPT used with an on-wiki username meaning associated with it, nor a mechanism for regulating its use. Pinging Xaosflux, one of the longest serving BAG people, who may be able to shed some light?

JULLY SCRIPT (talk · contribs) hasn't edited yet, so there's no need to react urgently. Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about "*script" in this specific username being confused for a bot - if it was "JULLY (SCRIPT)" maybe, none of our major bots are called that here. It's worth it to mention it to that user, as other projects may have issues with it. If it is actually being used for bot-like edits w/o a BRFA we can deal with that then. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi Cabayi, I had apply for username chang it cancelled, now have applied again. Now accept the new username, Zoe3572 (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe3572, all-numeric usernames are not allowed. Deepfriedokra already explained this when your request was declined two hours before you wrote here. Cabayi (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, I had apply back, now username has been changed. Thanks a lot. Zoe3572 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Do we need to suppress all that stuff? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the reminder Deepfriedokra I got distracted while mulling over what might need doing. Have I done enough? Cabayi (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it. No prob. I figure you have enough to think about. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 4.Red link

When I opened my archived talk page, I see that there's a red link that brings me to a uncreated user page archive. Why does this happen? I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I tried signing my posts by typing four tildes. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above. Cabayi (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BKots

Hi Cabayi. I don't know any details here, but I don't know if you know that you can always find the relevant information at this place. They've recently changed the naming convention to this style. This account has lineage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302:. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip zzuuzz.

BKots-WMF (talk · contribs) was editing content talk and was reported on UAA. I can't find Kots on the staff list. I alway assumed WMF staff got The Talk on what you can and can't do with a staff account. I guess Joseph2302 had the same assumption.

The lineage you point to is MRamirez (WMF) whose credentials are only found in the Office IT group on central auth. Perhaps assigning the staff usergroup rather than relying on a naming convention (which can be spoofed), or relying on the usergroup of the next editor in the lineage who created the account would help. Ping JSutherland (WMF) (who does have the staff usergroup). I'll unblock. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had assumed two things: that the 'staff' group provides superpowers which we don't want widespread, even if they're not supposed to use them, and we are able to filter or titleblacklist the (WMF) usernames - although I've never actually checked that. BTW one of my best ever edits was this - highly recommended. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying- it didn't fit the normal (WMF) format, so it looked dodgy to me. But happy that that is cleared up. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If JSutherland is going to turn up here, let me also add that a user group, perhaps 'WMF employee or contractor', would help with not only local checks, and meta checks, but also keeping track of and removing deprecated accounts. These things seem to multiply like rabbits, and I do wonder how many are still with the WMF, or how anyone can tell. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address some things:

Yes, the global "staff" userright is basically superpowers not unlike the rights Stewards have. We don't give it out to many staff without an extremely good reason for it.
Yes, the staff designation is switching from (WMF) to -WMF mostly because the former doesn't really work in RTL. Both of these conventions are impossible for normal users to circumvent since they're covered by the global Title Blocklist.
I would agree that it would be good to have a user right to flag staff without assigning them any rights, but our offboarding process includes the locking of these accounts, so I generally wouldn't worry too much about that part.
I'm a little confused why BKots wasn't dropped a note or something rather than being immediately blocked. I don't think their edits were especially disruptive? Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got that wrong. However, a WMF tagged account leaving comments such as I agree and Okay on content issues implied WMF intervention in content (rang alarm bells), from an individual who doesn't appear on the staff list (more alarm bells). I wasn't aware WMF was protected by the title blacklist. Cabayi (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :) The staff list is a bit out of date now, for sure. Thanks for the ping here, appreciate it, and always happy to shed some light where I can. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]