Mdaniels5757

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

Archives Pre-2022 2022 2023 2024 2025

Request for a report to be updated by your MDanielsBot

Thanks a lot for making the bot update Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with only infobox categories. Could you make it also update Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats (as previously requested here)? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective I don't think so, this query is too slow for the bot (even with my optimizations). Sorry. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion Notification Bot 2's headers

Hello, see Special:Diff/1070788540/1071006923, your bot put the URL between the brackets in the header instead of the filenames. I don't know why but perhaps it's a bug. Jonteemil (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil Thanks for reporting, should be fixed now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Protection circle around a function page for (un)protection requests

Hello Mdaniels5757, I want to request unprotection of the pages Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections and Commons talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. I think, there is a problem with protecting the two only pages in this wiki, where IP users (or temporary accounts in the future) can request unprotection of protected pages, the talk page as fall-back of the protected function page. Now there is a circle of protected pages, so that it’s not possible to request unprotection of any page anymore on a Commons function page and I have to do it on your talk page instead or I would have to use any other unprotected Commons page for that purpose which has nothing to do with unprotections.

On Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, I should be able to request protection or unprotection of pages, but this page has been protected by Yann already 3 years ago (without given reason in the protection log). His talk page also is protected since many years, so it’s neither possible to ask him to unprotect that page. And that can’t be requested on the Commons talk page either, because you protected that page 2 years ago already. You wrote, there would be no reason that IP users could edit that talk page, and that it should be unprotected, "if an actual discussion occurs". Ok, here is one about the two protected pages which link to each other for unprotection. It can’t occur there because of the protection, so the protection reason shows that the discussion then takes place on another page.

Where should I request unprotection of any page now? There’s no other page for that purpose than those Commons pages. The Commons page says: "You may request unprotection of the page." But it doesn’t say, where I could to this and I don’t know, where could be the right place for that. And it also says before that sentence that I could start a new section on the talk page, "if you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change" (but not, if I should request unprotection there or elsewhere). But the talk page also is protected since years and it says:

• „You may request unprotection of the page.“

With link to the main page of the talk page which also is protected since many years. Thus, since many years, both are protected and link to each other for unprotection requests or a talk about that. That’s a bit funny, but the effect of that link circle is that there’s no page at all anymore to request unprotection for IP users (or temporary accounts). And that’s not funny. There should be at least one page, where unprotection of pages can be requested. And it’s also not good at all that admins who protect such a page, can’t be asked on their talk page to unprotect it. That completes the protection circle for many years and leads to more protected pages for longer periods of time than necessary.

I hope that admins understand that there should be at least one unprotected page, where all users always can request unprotection of any protected page. And that this one page never should be protected for all users for a long period of time, and that one year is much too long for a protection period there, also one month would be too long for such a page. Admins could split the blocks and protections page into two pages, if they want the blocks page to be protected, but one page has to be left unprotected for unprotection requests. If such a page is protected for years, many other pages will stay protected for years and can’t be used anymore, because for all of them no IP user can request unprotection anymore. That’s not good at all. Sorry for the long explanation, I just thought, it should be made clear, why such a protection circle around an unprotection request page is very bad. Kind regards and thanks for your help with other things, —176.1.18.204 08:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, There are good reasons for these pages to be semi-protected. However, you have a point: there should be a page where IP can request unprotection of some pages. I suggest to create a new subpage of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. That would be less a target for LTA. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Yann, I’m sure that there have been reasons for the protection of those pages in the past and there has also been abuse of that page, especially because the page is also about user blocks (but for vandalism, I've found another page, so IP vandalism shouldn’t be a theme there). But as long as the page is there for any (un)protection requests and there’s no other Commons function page for that purpose than this one, it should never be protected that long. It can be protected for short terms (let’s say hours or a few days instead of months or years) only in actual cases and after a while again instead of longer terms. This applies especially to such main function pages like this.

And maybe those pages really should be re-organised. As for a new subpage, I’m not quite sure, if you really mean, what you suggest, but how would admins find a new page which isn’t linked anywhere and where no admin watches the page? Those pages which aren’t found by abusing users, aren’t normally neither found by established users or admins. I don’t think that’s practicable in any way.

And, above that, I also think that some IP users who abuse such (or other) pages for whatever purpose should never be able to invalidate such a page for a whole user group (all IP and new users). If those pages are protected that long, then it’s a disadvantage for every other IP and new user and also for the wiki as a whole. Those abusing IP users shouldn’t be given that much power to be able to invalidate such a page for a whole user group. They should not have the power to have such a big effect on the whole wiki. Have you ever thought about this? —176.1.18.204 16:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well the subpage would be linked from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, and could be found there. Let's see what Mdaniels thinks. May be other admins have another idea? Yann (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I think, I misunderstood you here, sorry. I thought you meant I or other IP users should create a new subpage on their own or new subpages for any new requests which then wouldn’t be linked anywhere and they couldn’t link it on those pages. I already thought about pings to a few admins on such a new subpage, so that they could find it and about involvation of admins by pings or how that should be archived.

But a new function page only for protections and unprotections of pages in the admin page system is a completely other thing. Yes, that’s what I meant above by splitting the page between the (un)block function for users and the (un)protect function for pages which are completely different things. If this should be a subpage of the existing function page or another new function page besides the other ones, I’m not sure. Why should a (un)protect function page be a subpage of a (un)block function page? Those things are different from each other. But it surely can be linked from any other of those admin function pages. This would be very good and this proposal maybe could better be discussed further on a main talk page for new proposals with link to this discussion. Such a new page could really help a lot. But ok, let’s first see, what Mdaniels thinks about that. —176.1.17.42 17:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yann Honestly I'd be more inclined to simply remove the edit-protection on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections: it's been 3 years, and given that it seemed to be protected for what I'd consider shorter-term reasons and the importance of the ability for unregistered users to use the page, I think giving unprotection a chance would be worth it. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That’s what I meant above with giving those abusing users too much power, if they are able to render such an important function page unusable for years with only some edits. I think, whether there should be a split of the page or not, the page should be unprotected after such a long time. And it would be better to open also the discussion page. The same applies for the main function pages Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its talk page Commons talk:Administrators' noticeboard, the latter has been protected by you for the same reason years ago. At the same time, the noticeboard already had been protected, so that also those 2 pages are out of function since years for every IP user. Therefore, I request unprotection also for those long-time protected pages. People could neither use those ones as fall-back for unprotection requests since years nor request unprotection for them.

What I really don’t understand, is the double function of the blocks and protection page. There are already pages for blocking requests of users that vandalize and for user problems. Why can’t all problems with users and blocking requests be requested on the other two pages? Why does it need such a double function page also for user blocks, as third blocking request page? How do people find the correct page for their blocking request between 3 different pages now?

In case the user blocks would be left out there, then only the (un)protection function would be left for the page and no new page would be needed. Every blocking request could be moved to the other 2 function pages, so that it will not be archived there anymore. The (un)protection function of that page is too important that every now and then the page will be protected again for longer periods of time because problematic users which perhaps shall be blocked there, make problematic edits. It would be better, if there really would be one page only for the (un)protection cases. Then the probability to really be able to use it, would get better. —176.1.17.42 10:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done OK fine. I can always be protected again if vandalism occurs. Yann (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Maybe the splitting of the page or whatever else can be done with it, so that it will not be protected too long in the future again, can be discussed on another page. And also the unprotections of the other 3 function and function talk pages. —176.1.12.108 10:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User rights manager

Is this only bankrupt for me? It is bringing some weird interface errors when I click on "assign permissions". _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi Is that only for Koavf? If so, it's probably due to there being two requests of his on the page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Mass Rev Del

I saw that you mass revdeled the latest ChanComThemPho account. Is there a tool that does all of them at once, like Special:Nuke, or did you have to revdel edit by edit? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy I use w:en:User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js (see also my common.js, line 12). It's undocumented, but reasonably intuitive: install, then go to the contribs page, check what you want to revdel, and submit. The one thing to be on the lookout for is that the order of the Hide Content/Username/Summary checkboxes are different than Special:RevisionDelete; sometimes I catch when I mess this up before deleting, sometimes not. :) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)