Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2012-04

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 April 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

April 2012's removals

I have started the Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2012 inactivity procedure. For now, 3 administrators (Juliancolton (talk · contribs), Finnrind (talk · contribs) and Az1568 (talk · contribs)) had their rights automatically removed as they failed to make 10 edits between 01/11/2011 and today. There are 17 administrators that have more than 10 edits but less than 10 admin actions that are given a week to sign otherwise they'll loose their adminship; as per existing criteria. I hope everything is fine and there are no mistakes. Notwithstanding please feel free to fix any mistakes you've noticed and accept my apologies. Best regards and happy Easter. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators

Hi. Is this where one requests closure? If so, consider this a motion to close it's been open just over 30 days. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But there are still new comments. Finally the original proposal has been made too hastily and for that reason there (setting apart a block of supports which a particular, non-representing, origin) proposal for improvements in the lower part. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No comments for quite awhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It still needs to be closed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A more developed explanation would be helpful

Mathonius has indefinitely blocked Mbz1 [1]. I have looked through what is in Mbz1's talk page edit history, and see some explanation from Mathonius, but I still do not understand why there was a block at all, much less why it is an indefinite block. Perhaps other sysops could review that block, and either explain the action, or remove the block. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised after last month's fiasco that she wasn't indef'ed already. All this user does is claim to retire or leave, repeatedly, spit on people on the way out in massive spam campaigns (talk pages and e-mail), and then come back again to post images or "quotes", treating the user page like a martyr's wall. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, if there had not been the massive influx of en-WP users into Meta (including yourself), and the concerted attack on the proposed RfC, the whole issue could have been handled more quietly and rationally; and there would have been no "fiasco." It would be pleasant if now this particular discussion could proceed without the further efforts at payback directed against Mbz1. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm just seeing 'talk page venting' here. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Reduce block term, allow access to talk page. Act with some humanity. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am always open to a review of my actions. I'll describe this situation from my point of view:

  • Mbz1 (talk · contribs) used Meta as a battleground; she kept complaining about issues on the English Wikipedia and kept trying to blacken the users from that project. I explained why this was behaviour was unacceptable. She said she would stop and leave Meta. However, she returned to Meta and continued her detrimental campaign. Adding this text was part of that long and tiresome campaign. I finally blocked her indefinitely to put an end to this disruptive and abusive behaviour.

I'd appreciate it if another administrator would review this block; please let me know if a more detailed explanation is needed. Mathonius (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that text. Users are allowed to come to their own conclusions about Wikipedia, even if it's negative and you don't agree with it. Many Meta users have made a similar analysis, me included, and none were blocked for it. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You have to look at the bigger picture: the addition of that text is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Regards, Mathonius (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Mathonius. I do not, however, agree that the text she added to her talk page, and that you blocked her for adding, "blacken the users" from en-WP. There is no mention of individual users, not even indirectly. It is certainly very critical of Wikipedia, but there is nothing in it that would shock any experience WP user, as similar criticisms have been made many times. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I would agree with you if that edit was the only thing she did, but I think Mbz1's behaviour in general should be taken into account. Mathonius (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Information: Mbz1 has requested an unblock. Mathonius (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment CommentThere were much worse things from others and those blocks were lifted. And if you talk about meta as battleground, or do you not remember other sysops calling others asshole and the whole meta "animal farm" Mathonius? I´m now doing the same as you have done as I blocked that time: Would you please reconsider your decision and lift the block? It is a kind of punishment and not a block because of recent edits. Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz talk 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason was clear enough and clarifications on blocks must be requested to the blocking admin, while the blocked user can request unblock (as happened here). Nemo 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened this because 1. matters like this do not get closed when seeking uninvolved statements from admin here and 2. Nemo bis is clearly involved. It seems from discussion on Nemo bis's talk page that not only do they not care that they were involved, but they are purposefully using the block tool directly in contradiction to standard practice on Meta. We have always allowed for people to voice concerns about other projects and consensus is against any changes to this standard. There have been people recently from that seek to undermine and destroy the legitimacy of this community in doing what it has been standard for a very long time. That is incredible sad, and I would like someone uninvolved to take immediate actions to address Nemo bis's clearly stepping out of line. This has not been the first time he has acted in an inappropriate manner lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Nemo bis changed an indefinite block into a six month block [2]. When Mbz1 requested a review of that block, Nemo declined the request [3], thereby reviewing the block he had imposed. It seems to me that Nemo has shown unusually bad judgment in this, and related actions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Closed Closed: this user has been unblocked. Mathonius (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For God's sakes, meta. Killiondude (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Interface edit request 2

Could an admin look at MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext? Thanks. -- 11:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It is there, what specifically are you trying to draw our attention? billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
See this edit request. Mathonius (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting the oversight access back

Hi folks! Some users, including several oversights asked me to request the oversight access back: User talk:DerHexer#Meta OS. Several requests appeared on IRC when no oversight was available. I'm quite often there and willing to help again if nobody complains about me requesting it back. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) P. S.: The sysop tools would be useful to have being an oversighter.

Support Support I've got a pending oversight request at this very moment! The Helpful One 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course the sysop tools should be restored too! :) The Helpful One 15:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I went ahead and mopped him as we really just needed one now. -Barras talk 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

SUL problems

Please unify Special:MergeAccount claims that I have the login for, sl.wv, and xmf.wp, but they don't work properly. Can someone please unify these three to my global account? If you really want to go the extra mile, you can Special:EmailUser/Koavf e-mail me once you have... Thanks. Koavf (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Via IRC. Thanks. Koavf (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Global Blacklist

Sorry if I'm posting this in an appropriate place. Could you please add [] to global blacklist. An anonymous user insists on adding this website to multiple Persian projects and also Meta-Wiki. Meta1, Meta2, FA.WB1, FA.WB2, FA.WQ1 and various other places that I can't remember now. Thanks. Americophile 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) Requests for global blacklistings are made on WM:SBL. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Americophile 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to close an RfCU

It's nine days ago now since Fr33kman began his RfCU. As all earlier RfCUs were closed after a week, now my question: could a bureaucrat please close it? :) Trijnsteltalk 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Closed. The Helpful One 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Common.css upgrade request

Meta's MediaWiki:Common.css is outdated and missing styles available on Wikipedia to support ambox type templates. Thus it is not possible to upgrade these templates. Please upgrade the css or copy those styles so that wikipedia templates can be reused in discussion on meta OrenBochman (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse by administrators on Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia

In short, I have been blocked on a wikiproject for complaining that an admin who

  • deleted a page I wrote (in my userspace),
  • lied about deleting it, then
  • reverted it when I showed how he was violating new "terms of use" [4].

When he reverted it he said my evoking of the terms of use was "madness" and said my writing was a "blog" when it was framed as scholastic research. (I have a 3.9 GPA in my masters program and will go on to becoming a Dr.)

He then blocked me for a week when I told him of my intention to "do something about him."

  • did not put appeals material on my page, said I was a
  • prime candidate for permanent blocking, and
  • called me a "troll."

Obviously, anyone with "rights" can find out who is involved and where this happened, but I rather not "name names." As I stated in my writing to the admin, I have no desire to "hurt" him, but I want to know that he understands that mutual human respect, honesty, and self-accountability. I have, in fact, studied abuse on the Wikipedia, especially abuses of the system itself (both socially and technically), and frankly, I believe this new "terms of use" policy will be a "tough row to hoe" if these wikis are to in fact meet the new criteria (and hence reverse the flight of creative editors.)

I am not certain where to post this, actually, so here I am. --John Bessa (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This page is for requesting help on metawiki only. As for your problem on enwiktionary you will need to request help on that project; we have no power to override their actions. fr33kman 19:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
... and it was a second sysop (me) that called you a troll. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Terms_of_use/Banner/uk activate

Please, activate / set on Terms_of_use/Banner/uk for Thanks, --VolodymyrF (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thanks for translating! If you have a bit of time then translations of the Introduction, Summary and Terms of Use itself would be appreciated. The Helpful One 17:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank You very much for fast response and proposal. I will try to find this bit of time. Best regards.--VolodymyrF (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)