Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-09

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 September 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.


Please consider blocking DerpaDerpaDerpaHurpa (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser), which is an account used for vandalism. Striker talk 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv 03:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Block (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS) as open proxy. IP-address is already globally blocked as part of and has now started to create off-topic pages at Meta. -- Tegel (Talk) 06:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. — Tanvir | Talk ] 06:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Delete User: as a page not used for IP-addresses. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Mathonius 15:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to import or continue local disputes on Meta?

I've asked here if it is appropriate to import or continue local disputes from other projects on Meta-Wiki. I really don't know, but I expect that it is not.

If it is not appropriate, please advise User:Mbz1 accordingly [1] [2] [3]. In my opinion, any concerns Mbz1 has regarding should be raised via dispute resolution processes. –xeno 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the above post that was made because of my question. Although Xeno is partly right and some part of my question contained some elements of an old dispute, my main concern was about this In the edit summary admin Gwen Gale stated: "22:17, 16 July 2011 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Wyss/a4" ‎ (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: user thought this had been done years ago)". en:User:Gwen Gale and en:user:Wyss is the same user. The admin deleted her own talk page history citing "a user request". It is a violation of the talk page policy and abuse of administrative tools.So I decided to ask about this here on Meta This particular deletion has nothing to do with me, and is not a part of my dispute with Gwen Gale. Another concerns I raised also have nothing to do with my personal dispute with Gwen Gale, and were about misleading and false statements she made in her RfAs that probably made her second RfA successful. I did not vote on neither of her RfA. --Mbz1 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I listed some more, but not all of my concerns here (scroll down to the last post please)--Mbz1 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Though I'm not an admin, I can tell you with 100% certainty that enwiki drama has no place on meta. I would thus recommend that you stop leaving people messages here which are related to enwiki, and to not continue to fill up this section with info on the enwiki drama. Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, this isn't the place to be chatting about it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not about drama, it is all about policies with some specific examples. It was my understanding that Meta is the right place for such discussions, but thanks anyway. I had a nostalgia about En. Wikipedia AN/I. I do not anymore :-) Warm regards.--Mbz1 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Meta is the place for discussions of a global scale - your case is very clearly limited to enwiki, and even if it does happen on other wikis, it is not global policy and should not be discussed on meta. The main reason for this is that discussion here can't do anything about it, since global policy is never above local policy. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It is generally not appropriate to continue local disputes from other projects on Meta. The only exceptions are requests suitable for the Meta requests pages, or general discussions about cross-project policies. Mbz1, please do not import any specific incidents from en:wp into this wiki. SJ talk | translate   01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If the dispute could not be solved locally, a request can be filed at Requests for comment. So yes, in such cases it is entirely appropriate. Be aware, however, that it rarely leads to anything. The idea was that experienced users would take a fresh look and help out. In reality, the local combattants will show up, re-iterate their pov and perhaps gather some new buddies, and that's about it. Regards, Guido den Broeder 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please close. This is not a request for this page. Xeno's actions are multiplying discussions, this is now not only in the history of User talk:Gwen Gale (blanked by Gwen Gale, where Mbz1 was a bit insistent but did not violate the ultimate request by Gwen Gale to stop, and User talk:Xeno (blanked by Xeno), plus User talk:Mbz1, but also now here and at Meta_talk:About_Meta#, attracting wider attention and inviting Mbz1 to defend his action. Mbz1's comments here were unwanted by the two users, which is the real issue. Had Mbz1 continued comment after a request to stop, then a warning would have been appropriate. Neither did he continue, nor was he warned. Instead, Xeno started this request and the one on the About Meta talk page. The Meta talk page discussion is more relevant than this. --Abd 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed Closed: per the aforementioned comments. There's no real need for administrative action. Please continue any further discussion about this on the relevant talk page. Thanks, Mathonius 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing of RfA

Hi everyone. Just a notice: the votings for this RfA ended on 09:09 (UTC) today. Perhaps a bureaucrat could close it? Thanks in advance! Face-smile.svg Regards, Trijnstel 09:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking care of it. -- Marco Aurelio 09:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
:) --M/ 09:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
xD -- Marco Aurelio 09:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both! Trijnstel 09:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

urgent: user creation limit

Dear stewards, right now I'm running a training for Sundanese wikipedian which require user creation from one IP address in an instance. Could anyone please remove the limit (the trainee are at least 50 person). --Kandar 04:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not something a meta sysop or crat could help with. (in that capacity at least) This is already being discussed @ Stewards' noticeboard#Urgent: user creation limit; let's keep the discussion in a single place, please. --Jeremyb 07:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remove

Please remove Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians#Deletionist at work on the Sydney Wikipedia Article which is an uncivil personal attack and includes comments which were copied and pasted without my permission. I wasn't the only person to remove the internet radio station as it wasn't notable however the Anon keeps attacking me over it. DobryDamour on the other and can't handle the fact that they included too much copyrighted text in a quote (It is well known by many editors that a sentence is enough any more then a sentence is problematic). It seems to me that they are not clear on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Bidgee (Talk) 01:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: I've removed that text, because I think any discussion about this topic should take place on the project(s) concerned and not on Meta. Furthermore, I think it's inappropriate to discuss something like this in such an uncivil way. Thank you for reporting this. Mathonius 02:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock User:Sterkebak

Huib Laurens is a member of the language committee and does good work. It is really welcome for this and one other reason for him to be unblocked. We found at Wikimania that there was activity that was to indicate that he was sockpopping. This was not possible as he was not at even close to the Netherlands; he was in Haifa. As a consequence he asked at the time for a check user. Consequently these facts have been established. Given that the block on the Dutch Wikipedia happened when Huib was not active there for the last year, it is quite clear that some people are creating mischief.

For all these reasons it makes sense for him to be unbanned on Commons and Meta. Huib indicates that he does not care for the Dutch Wikipedia any more... Thanks, GerardM 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The subsequent discussion(s) have been moved to Talk:Requests for comment/Abigor by Mathonius 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Deblock under conditions

  • I have moved the active poll, showing substantial consensus, back here. Please respect desire to keep this page free of extensive back-and-forth. Please review the full discussion where moved by Mathonius, Talk:Requests for comment/Abigor#Unblock_User:Sterkebak, before closing. --Abd 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

After whole discussion above, I would be prepared to deblock him but only under following conditions:

  • All CU who have made the investigation, or have take a look at the log (think about those three who have commented), can confirm that findings are inconclusive or there is doubt about them.
  • Abigor will not request any kind of local flag here for next two years (after this time we can discuss about that).
  • Even if he gets a global flag, such as GR, GS or any other (about steward flag we should discuss, as there is no way not to use it on meta), he will promisse not to use it on meta.
  • Only LangCom related edits are alowed.
  • One more Sock and the block is for infinite (even if he create it on another project and than come here).

If so, I would deblock him. --WizardOfOz talk 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Support The Wizard's proposal. SJ talk | translate   03:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Strong Support--Email Vaibhav Talk 12:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Works for me: with or without a mentor, but I think a statement by Abigor himself is necessary (see my previous comment). Mathonius 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Support BTW, there should be a note that, let's say, after six months his case would be reconsidered and if he proves to be constructive, it is possible that the limit on editing just LangCom pages could be lifted. --Millosh 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Comment Sorry but 6 months are not enough for me. That´s why I wrote 2 years (in best case I would say let us discuss again after a year). BTW what about Bot accounts? I didn´t thought about that but would say they should be not allowed. --WizardOfOz talk 16:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, two years. If the bots are not used on Meta (and why would be used on Meta?), then there is no need for him to use them. --Millosh 20:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Support unblock, with conditions per closing admin discretion and Abigor formal acceptance. Support mentorship as a condition with clear mentor agreement allowing mentor to obtain fast block if needed, without requirement to prove abuse. See proposed agreement. However, this does not and should not depend on further checkuser comment. --Abd 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay with Wizard's proposal. But mentorship is also needed as he accepted. — Tanvir | Talk ] 13:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Seems obvious. No good will ever come of this. Guido den Broeder 10:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't see this as "a vote", but well. Abigor has had enough chances. And this has nothing to do with me being Dutch. Trijnstel 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose as already stated elsewhere. --Brownout(msg) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Proven sockpuppeter, absolutely nothing beneficial will come from opening this can of worms again. Courcelles 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Since the discussion appears to still be going, oppose per my personal belief that people who have done what he has shouldn't be on any committee, and by extension I do not see a valid reason for unblock. Also, it's been months now - checkuser data will no longer be conclusive no matter what. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Abigor has accepted the monitoring agreement.[4]full text as accepted. This agreement incorporates and enforces whatever restrictions are placed by an unblocking administrator. --Abd 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done As we can see, the last input in this discussion is dated on 5 September. Even if I don´t count Guido´s oppose, there is no clear consensus to deblock under those conditions. Also, the discussion on the RfC talk page has show that there is no consensus. I would sugest Abigor to search other areas of work outside of this project as the community here don´t trust him anymore. Sorry but this unblock request is declined. --WizardOfOz talk 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why my oppose should not be counted and would like to see you refrain from making such remarks. Guido den Broeder 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Request review by an uninvolved administrator

I consider WizardOfOz involved. The full discussion showed rough consensus for unblocking with conditions; even with this reduced set of comments here, where it is 6:4 for unblock, higher consensus for unblock if involved users are set aside (with history suggesting possible prejudice from other-wiki involvement. Wizard's proposal was in itself prejudicial. Maintaining a block should require consensus, not the reverse, the position that consensus is required for unblock establishes and maintains control by motivated factions. Any admin may unblock, given this discussion. --Abd 13:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with Abds sentence that maintaining a block should require consensus, since everyone has the right to edit the projects, an active majority of the community should support a block for it to stand. 6 support and 4 opposes would in my view be a consensus to not have a full block on him. My view on the discussion is that consensus is to allow a conditional unblock. Laaknor 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but AFAIK this is the other way 'round. The user has been blocked before, in this talk we discuss the deblock ... and there is no consensus to do so! a×pdeHello! 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote, and an admin who feels strongly about this can close the discussion. Combining the comments above with the general unblock discussion on the RFC, I see fair points made that Abigor has a specific reason to want to edit, and 13:8 11:9 in support of an unblock under strong conditions (next infringement leading to an indef block). Some people have changed their minds in each direction about whether this makes sense (Mathonius, Ajraddatz), it is a judgment call. Wizard: have you changed your mind about your proposal, or are you simply observing too little support to feel comfortable implementing it? Updated with the Wizard's opposition, below. SJ talk | translate   02:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
For: GerardM, Abd, Herby, Millosh, Vibhijain, Melos, Mbz1, Fontes, MGA73, Mathonius, Tanvir
Against: Trijnstel, Brimz, Courcelles, MADe, Guido, Béria, Brownout, Ajraddatz, WizardofOz (against, though the proposer). List added by Sj 02:09, 9 September 2011, sig added by Abd 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
No I didn´t change my opinion. But as it looks noone of those three CU are prepared to comment on this. So, not even the first condition can be fulfilled. And 8 opposers (even if i forget Guido), where 4 of them are elected sysops on the project, doesn´t realy looks like aconsensus in my eyes. But any other sysop can feel free to review. --WizardOfOz talk 04:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
"Consensus" generally refers to the community of users, not to the community of sysops. Whom does meta serve? Meta sysops? --Abd 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, stop making such remarks about me. You have been harassing me before, this needs to end. Guido den Broeder 09:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can close it again if anyone wants a neutral sysop. But It's not a matter of opinion when the opposes are so clear, just counting. I would arrive at the same conclusion as WizardofOZ does, and would back him- There is no consensus to deblock in this case. The votes are too divided. Abd, I do not like your accusative tone however, alleging that WizardofOz is not neutral in this case. You are talking about blocking policies and making things on a whim, there is nothing in the discussion to support your conjectures. Theo10011 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
WizardOfOz set up an almost impossible standard. The basic request and other comments supporting unblock don't depend on checkuser revisionism, difficult at this late date. The actual conditions of an unblock would depend on the decision of an unblocking administrator. WOO's personal conditions were excessive.
There is no blocking "policy" at meta. It's widely understood, cross-wiki, that any admin may unblock a user, on their own initiative and judgment, absent a clear, established consensus to maintain a block -- which is also called a "ban," and which can change. Here, there is discussion with substantial participation showing majority support for unblocking, so the idea that the block is supported by consensus would be preposterous. It is not uncivil to note possible involvement or bias and to request an uninvolved decision; however, if this is closed, as it stands, any admin could then use this discussion, as-is, to support an unblock. Should we have an RfC on this issue? I'm concerned that we have local admins here who don't seem to get this. This isn't just my personal opinion, see the comment by steward Laaknor above.
I'm puzzled by Theo10011's "just counting." Just counting, unblock is supported. Considering issues of possible involvement, it is even clearer. It would still require some admin -- or steward -- willing to act. Why a steward? Because one of the most important functions of meta is for transparent access to stewards. Abigor is an admin on two projects. He may still email individual stewards, but stewards may prefer service requests be open. (So editing should not be limited to just LangCom matters.) The Abigor account, in fact, had no history of disruptive editing here. Not using undisclosed socks would be an obvious unblock condition.)
As to Theo10011's suggestion that he could close as a "neutral sysop," I'm concerned, as well, about [5], wherein he presented himself as "The Management," stopping discussion. Are meta sysops "managers"? --Abd 20:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First, lets get something straight. This page is for help from Meta sysops, correct me if I'm wrong- You don't happen to be one. Now, I don't know how you can speak from years of experience about blocking policies on Meta but I'm really beginning to find your tone questionable when you start schooling every other admin here on how meta works. I am not happy with your general lack of good faith and your accusative tones towards several long-standing community members here and my friends. Now, let me reiterate what I meant by "just counting" and No consensus - Courcelles, Ajr, Brownout, Trijnstel and Guido make 5 opposes, you know 1, then 2, then 3 and so on vs. 5 or 6 supports again 1,2,3 and so on. That leaves with a final tally of 6 support vs. 5 opposes, at least 2 of those opposes come from admins on Meta since this page is "Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat". I know Beria opposed as well when this was last voted on and moved to another page, another Meta admin. That should bring it to at least 50% support vs oppose ratio. That in no way, means consensus on Meta. Let me address your concerns about my neutrality, I haven't voted on the entire issue once or gotten involved, Huib himself would probably agree, I can however get much more involved and address all your concerns individually but that wouldn't make me neutral. I am required to look at this page as a Meta admin and address these requests, I and several others, have been nothing but bystanders watching this bickering. Please feel free to dispute my neutrality and complain to whoever you like for using the term "The Management" in response to the constant discussions and arguments on this page, it is not the venue for it. Might I suggest creating a page for Request for help from Meta users and pedants and taking this there. I am tired of pointing out that this page is for request for help from Meta admins, I am one, you are not. Dispute away. Theo10011 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Theo, you are only looking at the poll here, you should examine the full discussion which was moved, mid-stream. The full discussion was examined by WMF Board member/meta administrator Sj, above. That's where 13:8 came from. --Abd 02:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
My last two cents on this issue. SJ has counted, but he has left my nick under supporters. I´m against a unblock, but have made this proposal to end the whole thing. Abigor knows my opinion, as I expressed this quite clear on IRC as he was blocked. I also contacted him before I made the proposal. And it´s true, sysop and crat´s opinions does have more weight for me, because this is a page for Help from sysop or crat. If I´m honest, I also counted the opinions of three CU who didn´t comment here. I know that all of them mentioned above are watching this page, but don´t see it worth of answering. So in fact, there are 8 sysops against unblock. And that can be declared as consensus not to unblock him. As this is not a voting, I would see it as consensus if 70 or 80% would support a unblock, in this case I wouldn´t even count my opinion. Abigor is a sysop elsewhere, he is not a newbie, he knows what he has done and he knows what consequences are. --WizardOfOz talk 05:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I've changed your position. It is true that the original crats and CUs involved have simply stopped commenting on these threads; I am no longer pro or con myself. We should close this and move any further discussion to the RFC page. SJ talk | translate   06:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the intention to punish Abigor for what he did for a short time, rather than concern for the welfare of the projects, which would be protected by the proposed unblock? If my impression is accurate, it's unfortunate. I also see other problems here, about who is serving whom. --Abd 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

When the checkusers are in doubt we shouldn't block. Abigor has shown that he does good work the last 5 years, He must have the chance to come back, I guarantee you will no longer create problems ;) You can not change the foreseeable for the doubtful. And since there was no consensus, so there is no guarantee that Abigor is guilty, then innocent, you should do the predictable, not doubtful. I remove it. MetalBRasil @ # 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There was no doubt at all from the CheckUsers - three of them were able to tell us very clearly that Abigor was using multiple accounts, and had made the one with the bad username. There would be doubt now, since IPs aren't stored in the system for more than 3 months iirc Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There is hardly any such thing as a "no doubt" checkuser report, though it could be possible, we were not given enough information to know that. Abigor consented to disclosure of this supposedly conclusive checkuser information, as allowed by policy with the user's consent, but that disclosure was declined, on the grounds that it would violate the privacy of the vandal, if that should turn out to not be Abigor, one of the strangest arguments I've ever seen around here, and completely contradictory to the claim that it was completely conclusive. The point here has been generally that the identification of Abigor as the vandal should be irrelevant. I supported the original block because of that ID, but vandals like that don't give up when blocked. I've concluded that there is a very real possibility that Abigor was framed. But it doesn't matter. Suppose it was him. It wasn't a pattern, it's not likely to repeat if he's unblocked. It was only WizardOfOz that made it a big issue by insisting on checkuser retraction. Red herring. --Abd 20:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked again by Huib to post here. First of all, Abd, stop spreading missinformation and assuming bad faith from everybody. You were told several times why that disclosure didn't happened. Yet you fabricated all kind of conspiracy theories and a buch of other nonsenses. On the vandal account: check, again, my comments there. This is my last and definitive comment on this issue. Dot. -- Marco Aurelio 20:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Independant review

I have reviewed this request and I decide that there is no current consensus to unblock the user. fr33kman 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User name abuse by sysop on


It might have seemed a great idea to have one's user name reserved on a multitude of Wikimedia projects. Nevertheless, this has caused havoc on at which Wikipedia I had never contributed. Someone found it necessary to create my user discussion page there. Obviously, I do not understand that WP's language and it makes no sense to have my own discussion page. I had blanked out the apparent 'Welcome' box and left a note (of course in English) on the creator's own talk page:

Descusión usuario:SomeHuman

You created a user discussion page for a on this here "Biquipedia" non-existing user name, which happens to be mine on several other Wikipedias. Please delete, or at the contrary: also create the user page and put a link (behind a simple explaning text in your language that should specify that I hardly understand Spanish or its regional languages), to the corresponding user page and to the user talk page on the English language Wikipedia — en:User:SomeHuman en:User_talk:SomeHuman 01:15 25 set 2011 (UTC)

Another user, an:Usuario:Cembo123, found it necessary to undo the blanking of "my" user discussion page — thus ridiculously again "welcoming" me.

Instead of writing the very simple text in the WP's language with the link(s) that I showed, the creator of "my" user discussion page found it necessary to add a section on "my" user discussion page with a political statement about the nature of the 'aragonés' dialect, language or whatever it might be. (You might be aware of the phrase "A language is a dialect with an army and navy".) That creator had apparently understood my English but made the statement in this 'an' that I had declared not to understand.

The only solution for me, was to create a 'redirect' to my :en:User talk:SomeHuman, since I can not provide an explanation in the WP's 'an'.

The creator then re-inserted the political statement and added some more 'an' in which I spotted "creyata automaticament", apparently indicating that my user discussion page had been created automatically. In fact, it had been created by an:Usario:Manuel_Trujillo_Berges:

13:29, 22 September 2011 (diff | hist) N Descusión usuario:SomeHuman ‎ (Pachina creyada con '{{bienplegata}}')

in a series of such user discussion page creations at a rate of about 4 per minute.

I can't understand the statements properly, let alone answer these. I don't want comments on "my" talk page that I can not reply to, and I do not want my user name to be abusively represented by appearing insensitive to attempts to discuss: Other users can not assume that I never worked at that WP and I can't explain it to them: many might not understand English. Hence, I did the best I could and replaced everything on "my" discussion page with:

in which the red baulk actually attempts to take the remaining page height, to discourage a user to add something. At the bottom of the source text, I added the hidden comment:
<!-- NOTHING HERE !!! -->

But to no avail: underneath that, the aforementioned an:Usuario:Cembo123 again put the earlier deleted unintelligible comments and added some more.

Sorry, but this is antagonizingly stupid. I undid his latest edit with my capitalized edit summary "NO COMMENTS HERE! USE YOUR OWN TALK PAGE IF YOU LIKE."

The original creator then reverted my revert.

And I was blocked for a day.

There are three options:

  • My user page and my user discussion page on are utterly destroyed, though it would remain best not to allow creation of a user with my pseudonym.
  • My user discussion page becomes reinstated as I had last edited, without any further addition, and it becomes permanently edit-protected: It is unacceptable that my pseudonym can be addressed on a Wikimedia forum in a language I can not comprehend, in which I can not make a statement, and on which forum I can't even figure out how to ask for advice (e.g. 'Rfc' is not a term in 'aragonés').
  • A template is created on the, which politely makes an NPOV statement in 'aragonés' like:
Descusión usuario → This user does not usually or not ever work on this here Wikiproject, and may hardly or not at all understand Aragonés. If you wish to contact this user, please consult the user page on his/her main Wikiproject (linked) where you might find which language(s) are welcomed on the user's discussion page at that Wikiproject. (linked)

A call to such template can replace everything on my 'an' discussion page. It might become handy for many other users on most other projects. And it would no longer entice users to go and look for user discussion page changes by automated e-mails as had been the cause of my finding out its creation (and modifications). The template should be 'automatically' put on user discussion pages of all Wikiprojects with no (or only extremely few) edits by the user.

As it stands now, I would have to go along all projects and one-by-one find my 'preferences' (on pages in Chinese, Korean, Arab, ...) and figure out how to cancel sending an e-mail. It's simply impossible. And it would still appear as if I were a 'regular' user on each project, who does not at all attend to messages dropped on his talk page. This insults me.

Regardless the chosen option, all traces of that block have to disappear even for the eyes of sysops from all Wikimedia projects.

Kind regards,
SomeHuman 00:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is not the page to make such a complaint - I've made a request for comment on the matter for you. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. A Rfc had not appeared obvious as it may require action across Wikiprojects. I'll wait and see. Kind regards. — SomeHuman
Yea, things aren't really advertised well here in terms of where to go with crosswiki issues. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Solved --WizardOfOz talk 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

This user keeps calling other users pedophiles and also shows a bad behaviour outside of that. The user is apparently known for being a really big vandal and already banned on the English Wikipedia indefinitely, but still vandalizes discussion pages on Meta Wiki like this (just look at the long discussion surrounding it... he was told to stop calling other people pedophiles, but still went on with this!). Could you do something against this, please? At least taking back those accusations and a public apology would be in order. -- 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have indef blocked him, as he should know better. He has been blocked on meta before and the same happened now again. Now he is blocked for three days. -Barras 20:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the indef, Barras, second time down the personal attacks road, our patience should be at an end. Courcelles 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not his first such action. There is still the same behavior so i support a indef block. --WizardOfOz talk 20:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I would likewise support an indef block, as after multiple chances he still seems to be unable to interact with people without insulting them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with indef blocked because repeated personal attacks on other people should not be tolerated in any Wikimedia project. Once he has been blocked on meta before and the same just happened again... Ruy Pugliesi 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
+1. Beria, you can block indef ;) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced he ment it offensive as you understood ... I'd might give hime another chance ... a×pdeHello! 20:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not the first time. And there is surely a reason why he is blocked elsewhere. -Barras 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Structural continuous project disruption. Indefinite suits best here. User can reflect and perhaps return once his behaviour no longer interfere with the wikimedia goals and no longer harm others. MoiraMoira 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Consensus si fairly clear. The block is now indefinite. Courcelles 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Vandal" was excessive polemic, and this decision was unseemly quick. What was the hurry? He was blocked for three days. Be that as it may, I'd seen the problems and tried to warn Ottava, he removed my comment. Two days ago, I made a self-reverted edit to his Talk page, addressing issues, warning that, in the end, he was heading for a block, hoping he'd take the hint. I saw the stuff he was blocked for, it was beyond the pale. He's not banned, he's indef blocked, and his Talk page access remains open, as it should, unless he abuses it. I and others will be watching that page, in case he comes to his senses, and can realize what he did, such that we could feel safe in supporting unblock. He's passionate about certain things, and he loses balance and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being ... something awful, it varies with the issue. He's been a highly productive user in the past, and seems somewhat bewildered by the response he gets. But, as I wrote in that last bit, enough is enough. --Abd 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add that he still removes posts on his talk page without comment. In my opinion, this is nothing but censorship on his side. I do see that vandalism on talk pages may be removed without comment, but that? That is abuse of his talk page right there. Don't know if it is wise let him use that talk page, since he apparently only leaves comments that he likes, but (as usual) no criticism. --11:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)--, note by --Abd 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Users have the right to remove comments without response. I've mentioned removal because it might be better for Ottava to respond to criticism, even uncivil criticism, by trying to understand what might be meaningful about it. Such a removal, in itself, is never an offense. If there is removal with incivility, maybe. [6] was complicated. The question asked by the probable sock puppet was legitimate, even friendly. However, Ottava ran with it as vandalism and a threatened outing. In fact, the reference to his dissertation was legitimate, because it was covered in what he had linked from the Talk page.
  • There are people attempting to harass Ottava. I have attempted to offer Ottava some good advice. He might not take it well, and he has the right to reject it civilly, which would include removal without comment. It's still his Talk page, and I fully support leaving it open if he does not abuse it to attack others. He should be protected there. Semiprotection?
  • An account was registered with an abusive username for the purpose of harassing Ottava, that's been RevDel'd.
  • filed this report. We should generally be careful about anonymous users who seem to have a sole purpose of trolling a user like Ottava into excessive response. This IP seems to have edited here only to provoke Ottava, and then to request sanctions.
  •, who made the comment above, was provocative with Ottava from the first edit. Notice that this user is really asking for Ottava to be banned from his own talk page.
  • The harassment should not be tolerated. It is my hope that Ottava can come to understand his part in all this, because when he does, and can state it, he would then be unlikely to continue to repeat the problems, and he could safely return to being the fantastic content creator that he was, the helpful administrator on Wikiversity, and the rest. --Abd 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I am not in support or opposition of the conduct of Ottava himself as his conduct is not presented in a neutral and unbiassed manner. I just do not see the evidence either way as indef block gun was reached FAR too quickly.
I am sorry but indef blocks are reserved as an extreme action generally to deal with vandalism. Has there been any discussion where the accused was allowed to defend him or herself from the accusations? You should not be indef blocked so casually. People have called me all sorts of names, none have been indefinitely blocked over it - at least not for that reason alone. There is no point for us to have meta wiki if people are not going to make community decisions on matters such as this. I am under the belief that indef blocks for cases aside from obvious cases of vandalism would be more fruitful if based on discussion. If the rationale is sound enough the discussion would reach the same conclusion. One concern I have before such a discussion even starts is the possibility of canvassing - that is something we ought to look out for.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Abd, could you please tell me what exactly in my first edit is provocative? I asked a sincere question and presented my point of view. I agree though that asking for Ottava to be banned from his own talk page is too extreme; I was still a bit furious when I wrote that since I am deeply opposed to censorship. Sorry. :/ -- 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks as though there is a denial of natural justice here, and a quick declaration of guilt, evilness and execution, without a discussion with the editor. That is neither the role of an admin or a steward. To my look at the link, it does not seem that was the claim it was a generic statement about the statements that child abusers do make, so while it may be a careless statement, it is neither an accusation nor factually wrong. Plus when there are two parties going at each other, one should look at both sides of the arguments made, especially when one is an IP address. billinghurst sDrewth 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the other direction, Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. I was, from different causes than the Ottava comments that led to the block, preparing to add new material to that RfC. There is no question, for me: Ottava was baited in the subject discussion. However, there is also a long-term problem. This may be why this discussion went so quickly to indef block. --Abd 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment With all due respect to my fellow community members here, I would suggest reconsidering their opinion on an indef block. Ottava has had similar issues elsewhere, he can be a bit too passionate while debating but there are ways he can be reasoned with. There wasn't a warning given in this case and he might have listened. The other facts of this case also need to be considered, the complaint came from an IP address, whose sole contribution was commenting and then asking for a block against Ottava, I don't want to go as far as calling it baiting, but it does have to be taken into consideration. Since Meta is non-content project, and has no internal dispute resolution/deliberation body, I would ask for a bit more leniency than an indef. block against him. We still have our fair share of issues, looking at the evidence and comments on the issue below with Huib, Ottava doesn't have as much interaction and support on Meta (like LangCom work) but still deserves a chance and his voice to be heard. Indef. block should be reserved for really problematic users, we should not use it for users who are rude, and argue aggressively. With all that said, I do have a condition that Ottava apologize(which he sort of did) and give his word, to avoid polemics and an aggressive debating posture on Meta. Theo10011 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Theo. From a fundamental standpoint, there are very few reasons to indef block people on meta, mostly limited to blatant vandalism and spamming. The OP's characterization of Ottava as a vandal shows a lack of research, and perhaps good intentions, and I'm not comfortable banning someone on such flimsy grounds. A few days to get the point across, sure; indef is excessive for no good reason IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To say that there was just a comparison of Ottava - saying that my viewpoint was the same as that of pedophiles - is utterly untrue. Let me just quote this sentence: "without any logic or reason behind you, you bad mouth and attack in hopes of bullying people into letting their guard down so you have access to children. That sickens me." Ottava explicitly writes that I take part in that discussion so that I have access to children. It's right there, an accusation that I want to groom children. So stop saying that "it is neither an accusation nor factually wrong", Billinghurst! That is a lie and you know it. Don't protect Ottava by trying to interpret his accusations much more positively than they are. I also want to add that I warned Ottava about his accusations way before. He knew that he should watch his language for a while.

Additionally, I am sorry for using strong language myself; it definitely did go out of hand, but I felt very, very stronlgy provocated by Ottava as you can guess. Note that the first accusations came right after the very first post I made: Ottava wrote that I should be banned for my opinion (!), although I had just joined the discussion and stated a completely non-provocative opinion.

I wanted to take part in a discussion here on Wikipedia and didn't know Ottava before *at all* (nor any other participants of the discussion). This was not baiting, although I think the block is the right decision since the discussion really seemed like a dead-end with the kind of extreme overreactions and ignorance Ottava was showing. During the whole discussion, Ottava completely ignored all facts that were thrown at him, and just kept making his claims and accusing others - implicitly and in the last case, explicitly - of being child molesters. Even when assuming good faith, you can only come to the conclusion that accusing people with a different viewpoint than his was all that he did, and now that I read a bit about the problems people had with him previously (also surrounding warnings and bans on the English wikipedia), this seems like it is very much "his style" of discussion. Such a style of discussion is unacceptable absolutely anywhere, wether it is on the internet or not. In my opinion Ottava must learn that he is not the least bit welcome here if he keeps going on with this style; but all warnings and past bans seem to have hit deaf ears. So the indef block is justified. Also, I still await a real apology from Ottava for his accusations; I doubt I will ever get one, however. -- 09:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose the block, support unblock. The post that made Ottava blocked was made in response to this post by IP "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this. Since you simply ignored the real content of my comment, because you don't have ANYTHING to say against my arguments, I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response. Well done! Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. " So, let's see "you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this","I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response" "Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world:ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world." May I please ask you to note that IP using "you" all the time:"you are too stupid or ignorant";"you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world" and so on. That IP was not even warned for the above personal attacks. On the other hand Ottava was blocked indefinitely and even after he apologized he is still blocked.This was one wrong block, and should be undone immediately.Thanks.--Mbz1 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly, I have not been warned before - while Ottava was warned many, many times before. This is just one more reason to block him, in my opinion. He apparently had a hell lot of second chances. Me? No kidding: I was a total dick right there, I was very aggressive at the time, and I already apologized for it just above. When the whole atmosphere inside a discussion gets heavy like this, when someone constantly ignores any points you are trying to make and always tries to put you in the same boat with child molesters, it's very hard to keep calm. It was wrong of me to write all that and I apologize. Words that you will, sadly but undoubtly, not read from Ottava. This is why I believe that this indef block is justified: I learned something from this, and I certainly will be much, much more careful with my language in the future - even though I was never warned. Ottava did not learn anything, he doesn't even see what he did wrong, although people have warned him a thousand times over. Unblocking him would send the fatal signal that his behaviour of constant provocation is justified. -- 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      Who are you?? you are an IP with no edits before this. What do you mean you have not been warned before?? Please either identify or we should CU. Those are 2 different IPs so far, one made the complaint and now this. Theo10011 21:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I am an occasional (German) Wikipedia editor without an account. I learned about the image filter referendum, the German poll against it, and that's how I ended up here on meta and took part in the discussion. I have no idea what "CU" means, nor am I linked to the IP that made this complaint. "I have not been warned before" means that nobody threatened action against me for my offensive writing in the discussion with Ottava. I hope I was able to answer all your questions. -- 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block, oppose ban.
    1. Ottava has not actually apologized. He made what is recognizable as a conditional apology -- "I'm sorry if ..." -- that shows no awareness of the actual offense, and that thus provides no assurance that problems will not repeat.
    2. Ottava's recently renewed activity on meta is not related to or necessary for any specific project work. He's project-inactive. His participation here, since he came back, was almost entirely disruptive in some way or other, arguing for blocks or bans of other users, for example, or complaining about steward actions, etc., when it was pure criticism, about "being right," with no respect for differing points of view.
    3. If Ottava returns to positive wiki activity, and needs something done at meta, I'm watching his Talk page and will assist. Maybe it's time to make the self-reversion suggestion here. If he IP edits something, identifying himself in the summary, and self-reverts "per block," that isn't disruptive and does not complicate block enforcement (if anything, it makes it easier). Anyone may then see that edit and revert it back in, on their responsibility, and he could diff such edits on his user talk page to get attention. He could do this when it is more cumbersome to describe something than to actually make the edit, more cumbersome both for him and for someone assisting. I oppose blocking IP or sanctioning a user for making harmless self-reverted edits. That's no guarantee: if he abuses this to suggest abusive edits, all bets are off.
    4. If he establishes a need, I would have no opposition to unblock. But someone should supervise, given the history.
    5. Unblocking without addressing the problem, which is long-term disruptive activity, through tendentious argument that easily falls into personal attack, would be asking for continued difficulties and waste of time.
    6. If he actually apologizes, which requires that he recognize and acknowledge what he actually did -- and not just this one time -- I would support his return to normal editing. Ottava was a highly useful content contributor. --Abd 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Abd, Just a couple of points. Ottava was actually pretty active when the controversial content study was put on Meta. His debating posture might have been a bit aggressive at times but he nonetheless, was a very active participant, calling all of it entirely disruptive sounds a bit hyperbolic. Second, his constant arguments, complaints, and criticisms don't justify any admin action at all, we can't silence out dissenting or aggressive voices. I know several dozen users who are far more critical and argumentative of everyone and everything on en.wp but have always been productive members of the community - they are entitled to their opinions, most times there isn't anything that particularly requires any corrective measure. What I am trying to say is, calling his contribution here entirely disruptive isn't exactly fair and a few people above disagree with that, even if you agree, that alone is not a reason for an indef. ban without some form of warning/discussion and Meta-wide consensus. Thanks. Theo10011 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not silence aggressive voices? I believe that any opinion - as opposing as it may be - can be formulated with respect for everyone involved. Heated discussions and aggression are a very different thing. Why should it be wrong to ban users that disturb a peaceful style of discussion? It's not about silencing opinions but preventing disruption. I would have never insulted Ottava like this if at any point during the discussion, I would have felt that he has the least bit of respect for me. After my first post which was completely harmless, he already suggested I was in the same boat as child molesters and should be banned. Do you truly find that an acceptable style of discussion, especially towards someone that just joins in? Aggression just leads to counter-aggression, so an aggressive style of communication must not be tolerated. I'm a pretty good example for this: a peaceful user that got completely enraged by what Ottava was throwing at me. I know I am still responsible for it, and again: I'm deeply sorry that it got out of hand like this. But anyone should see that with Ottava's style of discussion, this will happen again and again. Not helpful at all. How hard can it be for a person to learn how to properly respect another on the internet? This seems like it has been going on for years! -- 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, Who are you???!!? You seem to display keen knowledge of what's right here and what "signals" this will set off. It's hard to take your words honestly when you choose to hide behind a random IP address and accuse others of not being honest. If you are so aware and have had these problems "again and again" with ottava, please tell us who you are. So far, There is no proof that the 2 IPs on this issue are even linked, even if we believe that, there are no edits on Meta before this issue, I'm thus inclined to believe that this is a logged out user who is on Meta or a banned one. Before you start arguing about whats right and wrong, kindly be honest and say who you are. How would we even know if a third IP shows up tomorrow arguing on your side? I'm inclined to disregard all statements coming from IPs on this discussion until you clarify, and I would ask others to do the same. You keep talking like you have dealt with ottava over and over again, please be honest and leave your username. This isn't my idea of properly respecting another on the internet either, you should start and clarify first how you're jumping in the middle of this like you're a veteran on the projects. Theo10011 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not hiding; in fact my IP address gives you more knowledge about me (e.g. geolocation) than an anonymous username would. Plus it rarely ever changes, as you can see this IP has been the same for days. Since I am an occasional editor - I fix things in articles that I read on the German WP - I have never bothered to make an account. I'd just forget my password with the few times I would use it. :P I assure you that I merely stubled into this discussion and didn't have any prior knowledge about Ottava. Read my post again: I am aware that other people - not me! - have had these problems "again and again" with Ottava. This should come as no surprise from what Barras, Courcelles, WizardOfOz, Ajraddatz, Ruy Pugliesi, MoiraMoira etc. wrote just above.
Please don't misinterpret me there: I have never written that I have dealt with Ottava "over and over again", nor do I see myself as a veteran on the projects - again, I'm an occasional WP editor that is certainly surprised about the strong reactions from Ottava and you others on here. All I learned about Ottava happened the past days, when he got blocked and I read the above posts that clearly stated that these problems have existed way before, and then I read some other stuff, discovered that he was blocked on the English WP, read some more posts there etc. - it gives a very consistent image of Ottava being a troublemaker because of the exact same attitude that Ottava showed in the discussion with me. I never said otherwise. Again, please re-read my posts, I think you misunderstood a lot. If there are any further questions, I will gladly answer them.
Also, It is new to me that it is important on WP to have an account, and I don't like the attitude of disregarding statements just because I didn't make one. If you want me to create an account, I can certainly do that. I don't see why it should be important though. Please tell me if you want me to, I want to be polite here. -- 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block and ban for "you are a pedophile"-comments. --MGA73 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ottava never said: "you are a pedophile". He said: "You claim that children are abused because of "puritans", but it is those who make claims like yourself that are the ones who have been revealed as pedophiles on Wikipedia" and it was a direct response to an absurd claim made by IP: "you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world". In any case I am sure Ottava learned his lesson, and will watch his language. There is no reason to keep him blocked. He has been blocked long enough. Please unblock him, please.Thanks.--Mbz1 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Bad sign, no ability to engage in civil discussion when offered. No, Ottava has not learned any lesson. He may show that he has, at any time. He just hasn't yet. --Abd 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not a bad sign. If Ottava were not blocked, then we could be talking about "civil discussion", but Ottava is blocked, while IP who was much more uncivil is not. I am sure Ottava will be an example of civility as soon as he's unblocked, but for now I believe IP should stop commenting on Ottava's talk page because no matter how "civil" IP comments are they look as grave dancing. --Mbz1 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"Grave dancing" certainly was not my intention. Indeed, I wanted to see if the difference between me and Ottava could be sorted out like this, and I think my post was quite obviously intended that way. I don't see why a civil discussion should be any more possible when Ottava is unblocked; for all I know, he sees me as a child molesting bad-mouther that carries the whole fault for him being blocked; not a word of him doing anything wrong on his talk page. I also don't understand how you can call Ottava more civil than me, especially seeing how I apologozed for my behaviour multiple times already while he didn't do it a single time, but whatever... -- 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
No, you too are at fault of him being blocked. He responded to your comment, and it is what made him blocked. Yes, you apologized, but it is much easier to apologize, when one is not blocked (and never was blocked) while the other one is.
You're arguing that Ottava should be kept blocked, and then you come to his talk page (the only page he's allowed to edit, and start a "civil" conversation). Please try to put yourself in his shoes. Your rights are not equal now. He's in a corner, and you are free. Let's unblock him, and I am sure he'd be much more willing to have a conversation, and sort out the differences. Thanks.--Mbz1 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
What the...? Of course I am not the least bit at fault about what he said. He completely owns all and any fault in every single word he wrote, the same way that I do for my own words. Why do you see it any differently?
You really are taking a stand for Ottava here, but after you see me at fault for *his* bad behaviour, I must sadly admit that I'm not very much inclined to believe you when you talk about Ottava... what makes you think anyways that he will respond in a civil way all of a sudden, when he apparently never was able to do so before, from what we've read here (check Abd's links)? I'd be happy if you posted a link here where we can see Ottava disagree vehemently, but completely respectfully with somebody, instead of it turning into one big argument. --01:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)added by, note by --Abd 15:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Ottava reached me on the #wikimedia IRC chan this evening to complain about his treatment and the resolution of the above discussions. He made a few statements that misrepresented my comments here (similar to those noted above), and misrepresented a brief communication he had with me in private. (I would discourage others from having private discussions with Ottava, since they may change rapidly in recollection. I am limiting myself to on-wiki discussions!)

He claims to be showing excerpts from recent controversial content discussion (particularly the parts that led to his block) to "a few politicians" in an effort to bring the projects into disrepute and somehow bring about change through censure. It is not clear to me if there is specific change he wants - is this simply a desire for a strong bright-line no-pornography policy for Commons based on a particular definition? for something related to the recent referendum? But he seems to be increasing his efforts to make this a flashpoint within the community. SJ talk | translate   04:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, welcome to the club! The whole range of trolling could be studied on Ottava's example. Just to confirm that private any discussion with Ottava is usually useless, at the best. --Millosh 05:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Mbz1

I am not sure what happen on IRC or via emails but for what I see here I still disagree with the indefinite block of a valued contributor and here's why (Sorry, I will repeat a few of the points I made above)

  1. An IP made this personal attack: "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this. Since you simply ignored the real content of my comment, because you don't have ANYTHING to say against my arguments, I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response. Well done! Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. ", saying "you are too stupid or ignorant", "you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world:ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world (In both cases highlighted by me)
  2. Ottava responded: "You claim that children are abused because of "puritans", but it is those who make claims like yourself that are the ones who have been revealed as pedophiles on Wikipedia",saying "but it is those who make claims like yourself that are the ones who have been revealed as pedophiles on Wikipedia". A grammar question: does it equals to saying to somebody: "You are a pedophile"?
  3. Another IP made a report on this board:"The user is apparently known for being a really big vandal and already banned on the English Wikipedia indefinitely". A vandal, really?
  4. None of administrators who acted on the request had anything to say/do about personal attacks of Ottava by two IPs. Ottava was blocked, none of IPs was even warned. Later one of IP apologized, but it is a different story apologizing, when you are free, or when you in a corner for everybody to see.

I'd like the admins who commented on this request to think what Ottava has felt, when he was indefinitely blocked, and personal attacks against him, including the one made on this board, went unanswered.And before you are to respond I'd like to refer you to this thread and and this one. Do you believe that any of you who could be banned tomorrow would get such amount of support :-)

If you still see nothing wrong with the indefinite block of the valued contributor, I'd say you and me came from a very, very different cultures :-)--Mbz1 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Support indef block. — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose indef block, per Mbz1 Guido den Broeder 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Commenten:Special:Contributions/ – I know that it's late in the discussion, but I see that some of the users here suggested that the anon was a troll, so I see a need to keep the anon's record straight. Here's a link to the anon's enwiki contributions. Judging from his enwiki contributions, the anon is most likely a "noob" (unfamiliar with wikis and Wikimedia). "[…]already banned from editing articles indefinitely, but still vandalises discussion pages like this." The anon doesn't seem to realize that Meta is a separate wiki from enwiki, and the anon mistakenly believed that Ottava was only blocked from editing articles and had the technical ability to edit discussion pages (he or she probably believed that the discussions on Meta were a part of enwiki). His or her attempts to revert a bot ([7], [8]) also display a certain noobishness. He or she had to be told to go to Meta. The user is most likely German, and dewiki users passionately oppose the Edit Filter. --Michaeldsuarez 00:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose indefinite block. The anon is unfamiliar with wikis and discussions on wikis. As I've stated above, the anon is most likely a "noob". The anon didn't understand the difference between passionate comments and vandalism. The anon's own comments are extremely passionate as well, yet the anon wished to impose politically correct Newspeak on his or her opponents for some reason. I also agree with what Mbz1 has to say. Now that the drama on the Image Filter discussions has faded, what sort of protection does keeping Ottava blocked have to offer now? The block has fulfilled its usefulness. --Michaeldsuarez 00:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed close

No action. This discussion has not demonstrated that unblocking Ottava would be productive. No need for Ottava to edit meta has been shown, and he's inactive elsewhere. He has not responded satisfactorily to concerns about incivility. However, he does have a history of productive editing in the past, and if he chooses to address the concerns, any meta administrator could, being informed by this discussion and others linked to it, decide to unblock. He is not banned, he is merely indef blocked pending a resolution. On the other hand, administrators should be careful, given the history, about unblocking based on private or shallow assurances that do not show an understanding of the problem. It would be likely to lead to future disruption and wasted debate. --Abd 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification. Some users seem confused about what has been proposed here. The proposal is only that this discussion be closed without action, to prevent the continuation of useless discussion. Ottava is indef blocked, that's now the status quo. This is not a proposal to close with a "ban." Opposition to this proposal is support for keeping this discussion open, yet there is inadequate support here for an unblock, and it is unlikely to appear while this remains open. Closing this does not determine that an administrator cannot unblock Ottava. Many of us would support an unblock if Ottava were to show understanding of what he's done. Probably, though, given this discussion, such an unblock should not be without a new discussion, which might be at Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. A closure here does not prohibit any other user from requesting unblock here, or, for that matter, Ottava himself, since his Talk page access is not blocked. It simply closes the original block discussion, which became a train wreck. --Abd 02:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Support (as proposer) --Abd 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
What a strange proposal, afaik I see an huge consensus for the lock and I don't see any reason to don't block him, he had *many* second chances and Wiki*edia's scope is not teaching civility. Frankly I don't understand why you are acting such as a sort of public defender, to me this shows a serious misunderstanding of Wiki's principles, we don't have to set up a perfect virtual World with its own Law and rules, we have just to work out.
--Vituzzu 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Vituzzu has not understood the proposal. It keeps Ottava blocked, that's the present situation. "No action" means no change. Indef blocked. --Abd 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I messed around with two different statements by you, I give you my apologies.
--Vituzzu 21:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I completely disagree, there is no consensus. if anything I see you arguing against him over and over and a multitude of voices in his favor- some who think indef. block as excessive, some who think he was baited, some who are willing to give him a chance. I would favor an unblock on Meta if others wish to overlook his sometimes acerbic tone. I would rather reserve decision to a consensus among admins here than regular user. Theo10011 09:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Support Consensus seems to be oriented towards an indef block as disruptive behaviour. — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose There is clear evidence of baiting, with some likelihood of sockpuppetry, too, as well as canvassing on IRC. I also do not like banning long-time users without hearing them. Regards, Guido den Broeder 01:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Guido, Ottava is not banned. He's blocked, that's all. What you have opposed is simply a close of this discussion with no further immediate action. As long as this remains open, unblocking Ottava is probably less likely, rather than more likely. --Abd 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding pointless comments to everything I say. Guido den Broeder 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban, oppose indef block. Ottava may have a way of grating people, but his points usually have a valid base. Killiondude 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no ban, no ban proposal, and "indef" merely means "until the problems are addressed." Killiondude, if you don't want Ottava blocked, help him to understand why he was blocked. He still has Talk page access. If he shows an understanding, and a willingness to use meta for meta's purpose, instead of only to carry on endless and disruptive argument, (making his "points" but with no purpose) and especially if there is any reason for him to be editing meta, such as being an admin on a project, or even just an active user helping with maintenance and dealing with spam and vandalism, I'd support unblock myself. I didn't block him -- I can't, I'm not admin here --, and I thought it was too fast. But this had been a long time coming. --Abd 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


I am totally neutral here and having read the above it is clear that in the first instance not enough time was allowed in order to reach consensus on Aug 28th 2011. Later more editors came and opposed an indef, but supported a block. As such I have unblocked the user as "time served", with a warning to be civil. fr33kman 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. And had he not been indef blocked, maybe more would have come and supported the indef. This is a guy who is indef'd on other projects, and this was his third block on meta for civility issues - and it wasn't exactly a mild breach, it was about as far as you can go according to many societies. Rich Farmbrough 20:15 24 September 2011 (GMT).
The consensus was simply not there. Simple. An indef block on meta should be an extremely rare thing. We are where people come to seek help, coordinate xwiki issues and ask stewards to do stuff. I have warned the user about civility issues and hope he'll stop. If you want to stop Ottava in a WMF-wide manner then start a global ban discussion. Regards fr33kman 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I was blocked only once before and that block was heavily opposed and overturned as improper. Furthermore, I am only "indeffed" on one project, which a one year ArbCom ban. It is incivil to make false accusations like you did above, Rich. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. Please continue arguments on a talk page elsewhere. fr33kman 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing two protected templates

  • Template:Other languages/link
    • -->{{#ifexist:{{{page}}}/{{{1}}}||{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|en||&action=edit&preload={{urlencode:{{{page}}}}}}}}}<!--
    • -->{{#ifexist:{{{page}}}/{{{1}}}||{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|en||&action=edit&preload={{urlencode:{{{preload|{{{page}}}}}}}}}}}}<!--
  • Template:Other languages
    • {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{Other languages/link|{{{1|}}}|page={{{page|}}}
    • {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{Other languages/link|{{{1|}}}|page={{{page|}}}|preload={{{preload|{{{page}}}}}}
      • that change on Template:Other languages

This will add additional functionality to the templates allowing a custom "preload" page. Currently {{{page}}} is the default and only means of preload which does not always work well. -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily unprotected to let you do the edits! Inform us when you are done. — Tanvir | Talk ] 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Done! Feel free to protect again! -- とある白い猫 chi? 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, thx fr33kman 06:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)