Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-07

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in July 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.


Please block this user for creating out of scopes pages after warnings and explanation. Huib talk Abigor 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection of archives

In a few days, unless someone objects, I'm going to unprotect the 700 archive pages listed at User:Nemo bis/Preventive protections. Preventive protection has no basis in policy or logic: pages should normally be protected only for a specific reason, to avoid the continuation of vandalisms, edit wars etc. Protection of archive pages has never been applied consistently on Meta; most of those pages (even the oldest ones) have been protected only a couple of months ago. This allows also to easily prove that no disruptive editing happened on such pages for years even without protection, while constructive editing (such as categorization or typo fixes, with consensus when needed) is always possible and shouldn't require sysop flag.
And here's the request: please temporarily add bot and sysop flag to AnankeBot. I'm placing the request here and not under Meta:Requests for bot status because it's just a temporary transfer of rights I already have and I make it just to avoid cluttering my logs, but move it if you wish. Thank you, Nemo 08:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam logs really should remain protected - they have been frequent targets for people trying to remove records of blacklisting for example. On the odd occasion they have not been protected that have almost invariably been edited when they should not have been. There is no valid reason to edit these log pages and they are a record valuable record of sysop actions. Please do not unprotect them without true consensus. --Herby talk thyme 10:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Spam logs must remain protected for the reasons Herby said above. I strongly object to it's unprotection. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
And the same goes for the title-blacklist. However, the steward requests archives were never protected and I don't see a need for it since there's an automated log that we fill with diffs, etc. I see no objections in unprotecting those, but, if you don't mind, for that bot/sysop request please go to Meta:Requests for adminship and make a formal request there :) -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dferg and Herby about the spam logs. But I see no problem in unprotect all the other pages. Béria Lima msg 10:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

For further clarity for those who don't know Meta/the SBL well - requests to blacklist domains over all wiki are made on the SBL talk page. Once it is established that the requests are valid they are blacklisted by an admin and recorded in the SBL log. Given the importance of such actions there must be a valid audit trail. Equally if a request to remove a domain is received again there must be access to the request and the log. Without that the domain must be removed from the SBL. Given this it is vital that this audit trail is complete and secure - hence my strong wish to maintain protection. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Herby, i edited the page (with Nemo's permission) and placed in two lists. Can you check and see if is ok to you? Béria Lima msg 19:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, why do we debate about unprotecting archives? Archives shouldn't be edited anyways as they're just keeping old talks etc. ... And if an archive is protected there must have been a reason to do this. Yet there hasn't been anyone who wanted to edit those archives, and if there'll be someone someday he can request the unprotect. But this request is "blinder Aktionismus" (doing things just for the sake of doing things ...)! a×pdeHello! 23:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: To put in a nutshell, please answer this simple question: How do we benefit from this labour to unprotect all these pages? a×pdeHello! 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The protection isn't needed. Sometimes maintenance needs to be done on archives, and it's nice for non-admins to be able to do it. Protection should be used to prevent vandalism on pages that will certainly be vandalized, but not to prevent vandalism which could, or could not (and most likely not) happen. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Please read my logic above - the SBL pages are required to establish that a domain is validly blacklisted and to trace the request etc. They have always been a target for drive by folk who think they will be able to get their domains removed if they blank or whatever the request. It has been like it for years. --Herby talk thyme 07:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I disagree that preventive protection is needed: dozens of such pages have been protected after years and in that time no vandalism happened. But I see your points and I won't unprotect them. I've opened Meta:Requests for bot status/AnankeBot as requested. Nemo 06:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello, please change Wikipedia T-Shirts into Wikipedia-T-Shirts. It's a comparative special grammar rule in german, cf. de:Durchkopplung (literally through coupling) and the interwikis there :-) Greets, Hæggis 13:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Trijnstel 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You're too bloody fast. Yeah, done. Thanks, Hæggis. Courcelles 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Pawan paagal

Please block User:Pawan paagal, as the username means Pawan Mad in Hindi, which is against the Username policy. Vaibhav Talk 11:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... Specifically which section of the username policy does that name violate? Jafeluv 11:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Usernames can't have offensive words. Vaibhav Talk 11:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, is an offensive username and looked like cyberpesting imo. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Trijnstel 12:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Vaibhav Talk 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, how exactly is this offensive? There is no evidence that they were attacking someone called "Pawan", right? This should have been a soft-block at most imo, as the username was hardly offensive (and I understand Hindi btw). Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it to a softblock and unblocked the underlying IP. Trijnstel 14:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm 8 days late in commenting here, but that username is in no way against any username policy; paagal is an everyday-use word, and does not always mean mad (indeed, we have tons of Bollywood songs on that subject). I don't think any block is warranted for that username (unless of course, it needs to be blocked for a totally different reason). Lynch7 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
@Mike, paagal is recognized as a abusive word and a sign of disrespect and household abuse by the Government of India. Wikimedia does not runs on countries's constitution, but still as this is sometimes regarded as a sign of disrespect, I think this is probably not matching with the Username Policy. Regards, Vaibhav Talk 16:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What does «recognized as a abusive word and a sign of disrespect and household abuse by the Government of India» mean? Is there a governmental list of abusive words? Is it considered a crime? Or what? Nemo 16:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Paagal means mad (in Bengali it pronounces like, pagol by the way), and mad is not a word which goes against username policy here. Besides, I am not clear, how does this word go against the Government of India? — Tanvir | Talk ] 16:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Indian Government (in other words, law or police) mostly recognizes the use of this word as household abuse. I just gave an example, however Paagal is not recognized as a very abusive word, it is mostly recognized as a sign of disrespect. Vaibhav Talk 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather silly discussion. As a native speaker, this is really not an offensive word. This name does not warrant a block under any circumstance, this discussion seems very silly. Theo10011 17:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Comment I just unblocked the account, as there seems to be a consensus to do so. Trijnstel 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Resolved. Resignation accepted and administrator tools removed by WizardOfOz.
Originally posted here, later moved to Steward requests/Permissions but later moved here since it's a bureaucrat task.

(Not using a template because not sure if it is necessary) -- I am requesting self-removal of my adminship on Meta due to having limited internet connectivity for the next 2 years. I cannot guarantee I will be able to continue my work on Meta, which was relatively sporadic anyway. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done Flag removed. In case you need it again, plese left a note on here. Thanks for your work. --WizardOfOz talk 18:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong userfication

User:Manning_Bartlett/A_pome_of_sorts_in_narrative_style... - Another of the 'lost logs' inheritances. I never wrote this or ever had anything to do with it (apart from a single minor edit 10 years ago), but because the logs erroneously list me as the 'first' editor, it was moved to a user subpage of mine. Can someone make it go away please? Manning 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Nemo 05:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)