Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2013-03

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 March 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Backlog

Hi. Can a neutral admin please have a look at Meta:Proposed page moves's "expired" requests and close them? There are also some backlog at WM:RFD which may use some admin eyes. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I see some movement in PPM (thanks). Regarding RFD, the following sections are longer than a week:
  • 1 (May 2012)
  • 2 (+ 7 days)
  • 3 (+ 7 days; although this one seems to need more discussion)
Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Administrators' abuse of authority in Russian WP

I am probably biased here, but am I the only person who feels that this page is too close to being a personal attack on certain administrators? I believe such pages got deleted in past, but I leave this question to more uninvolved people. vvvt 16:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the same sort of situatiuon that caused a fight between Meta and en.WP around this time last year. Ru.WP has their own arbitration committee, so there is basically nothing Meta can do about problems with admins there, and having an RFC open here which names specific admins there is decidedly counter productive. Someone should explain that to the filing parties, they seem to be under the mistaken impression that this RFC could actually result in someone from here stepping in and desysopping ru.wp admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually the "fight" was not between "meta and en.wiki" but between you and some other users vs. some users from meta (with a certain bias against everybody on meta actually).
@vvv: I preferred to give an answer to the rfc. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators

I would like to request that an uninvolved administrator undo the close of this discussion and then take whatever action they deem appropriate. The irony is hard to miss here, Nemo has a personal grudge against me which they have made abundantly clear in the past, so making a rather rude close for a discussion I opened, which later led them to troll my talk page when I asked for some help with it[1] is obviously wildly inappropriate. This sort of snarky, sarcastic closing of a serious policy proposal is unbecoming for an admin and part of what drives users away from Meta. . I would also suggest that there is clearly a very strong majority in favor of the proposal. I know I am not a real popular person around these parts, but I think the proposal deserves a little more respect than to just be shut down without action based on a grudge. Please and thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That proposal was not withdrawn, in my opinion. The close should be reconsidered. --Rschen7754 02:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how consensus is judged here, but it seems to me that even if I had formally withdrawn the proposal (rather than Nemo making what seems to me to be a bad-faith mean spirited interpretation of my remarks and closing it based on that) what of the twenty or so others who participated in the discussion in good faith, believing a responsible admin would at some point appraise the consensus and take action? Apparently Nemo believes those users opinions are less important than trying to score points against me. When you use your administrative status as a weapon instead of a tool, you're doing it wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Nemo to explain his closure, as it seems to me that the preponderance of respondents approved. -- Avi (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this particular close underscores why such a policy is needed here. 28bytes (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31492#p31492 – Nemo bis recently blocked an user that he or her has a history with. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • And now Nemo has the nerve to actually defend his actions instead of admitting he made a mistake. [2][3] Meta, get your house in order. If you actually care about this project, don't let abusive admins get away with this sort of thing. This is the reason so many feel that this website is severly disfunctional and innefective, the reguars are far to willing to shrug off gross abuses of power like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nemo bis' closures have been called abusive in the past:

Nemo bis has also caused problems on itwiki:

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Beeblebrox has now kindly notified me of this discussion. On the specific point, I've replied to Avi.[4] I know that for some reason B. thinks that the proposal in question affects me in some way, although it doesn't at all because it's just a (more or less poor) attempt at a specific wording of an obvious principle that we (and I) always practise: for this reason I was and am not going to give the RfC a proper closure by weighing the specific comments, which could be considered not neutral, but I just acknowledged its inactivity.
    As for what B. says here, I'm sad (but unsurprised) that he still thinks for unknown reasons that "Nemo has a personal grudge against me" and that "I am not a real popular person", both definitely false. I was just trying to do my duty by reducing the Meta backlog (of rotting RfC, in this case), and I did so by following a suggestion he made, precisely to show that we don't Ignore Beeblebrox (and assuming it was a sincere suggestion). He still feels ignored and the RfC was reopened, so success was partial for Meta, and B. still is in his hater attitude: Im Westen nichts Neues...[5] too bad for us and for him, but I considered my duty to try. --Nemo 21:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you honestly expect that anyone in their right mind would believe you were acting in good faith when you made that close? You were not. You are defending an indefensible action, and lying while you are at it. You were not trying to reduce any backlogs, if you were I am sure there are plenty of other places you could have done so. You saw my edit to the one RFC and you closed it and then added your bullshit close to the other one. You know that is what you did, so stop feeding us lies and half-truths. You did something thoughtless and mean spirited, you know that even if you won't admit it to your peers who are mostly smart enough to see it anyway.
The "unknown" reasons why i think some admins here, especially you, don't care for me are not unknown at all, you are certainly perfectly aware of them. My actions last year led to series of events that took down the most abusive, unethical admin I have ever encountered on a WMF site, but for whatever reason a lot of admins here thought of his horrible behavior during that incident as nothing but a minor hiccup not worthy of sanction and he had to practically beg to be desysopped before someone actually did it, and proved his own cluelessnes by socking and then trying to get adminship back as if noine of it ever happened. In the first glimmer of hope from that hopeless situation his request was strongly rejected.. I count that as a win, not for me but for Meta as it removed the worst actor in the situation from being able to continue to misuse his status. I proposed the involved admin policy since it was clear that some admins here did not have the sense to know where the boundaries are (which you perfectly demonstrated a year later) and that many other admins were unwilling to do anything without a spoecifc policy in place despite how obviously inappropriate it is to act in such a manner. But sure, you love me, I'll swallow that along with all the other garbage in this utterly ridiculous explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hm, interesting stories, but perhaps we should stop before this RFH becomes an attack page that you'll then have to ask to delete as per the section below. Is there any other open request on this section or is it resolved? Your first request looks fulfilled. --Nemo 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Setting apart famous Beeblebrox's civility and his long-time quarrel with Nemo bis, the proposal itself and other stuffs this is a simple request to re-open a certain proposal, someone should decide whatever fulfil or reject this request, any other comment is, here, an off-topic. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Proposal_for_a_policy_on_involved_administrators&diff=5292175&oldid=5265262 – PeterSymonds already undid Nemo's closure. Nemo claims that the closure was a result of a misunderstanding, and there haven't been any objections to the undoing of Nemo's closure. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I know this is probably expecting to much, but I suppose I was hoping that someone might indicate to Nemo that going out of his way to score points against me a year after that whole affair was a tasteless, nasty, bad faith thing to do. However, at least that mean spirited close was reverted and it appears the more responsible admins here are dealing with it now. It's a shame that you all are still obviously willing to wink at this sort of abuse and act like it is no big deal even in the face of Nemo's continued smarmy unhelpful remarks defending what was obviously an indefensible action. Trying to paint this as a simple misunderstanding when it is painfully obvious that it was a bad faith close is not something that should be tolerated from an admin on any WMF site, let alone the one that aims to set the example of best practices for other sites. But since nobody appatrently cares about that I'll leave it alone. I thought I'd give this site another chance to show some backbone when one of it's own is acting like a petty bully, but clearly nothing has changed since last year. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Whether right or not, Beeblebrox, posts such as the one above do not serve to move anything forward. Moreover, such posts are more likely to trigger defensive responses. If you are interested in helping Meta, could you do so in a non-antagonistic way, please? -- Avi (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh? I don't know what you want from me. This site makes my head hurt. I don't know how you people just shrug off stuff like this and try to blame the inconvenient person who points it out. I've got a steward calloing me troll on the page referenced in the next thread because I committed the horrible sin of telling the people who filed the RFC the truth, that there is no possibility that a discussion on Meta will lead to the desysopping of admins they don't like at ru.wp. That's not trolling, in fact there is no doubt that it is the absolute truth. I only did so because nobody else seemed to care. Of course as soon as I dared to dsay anything they cared enough. Funny how that seems to keep happening to me here. I get that if I call someone an asshole there are a few admins just salivating at the chance to block me again, so I won't be doing that, but I also won't pretend that I believe what anyone can see is a lie. That attitude is apparently not compatible with Meta, which is sad and alarming. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Beeble. If you are referring to me, please point out where I used the word "troll". Please do not say it was implied, as it was not. Asking someone to tone down rhetoric is not equivalent to calling someone a troll, at least in my experience. -- Avi (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No, not you, I was referring to this [6] and i would note that it was also Vitizzu who told me last year that it was ok for Nemo to troll me because showing up to belittle someone when they ask for help is a normal and acceptable response. And yes. i have a diff of that as well. [7]. (See the bottom section to see our exchange, and some morre reasonable admins stating that it was in fact trolling) This is the troubling trend i am trying to shed light on, one admin does something wrong, and another is there to sweep it under the rug. It's itonic that he would accuse me of trolling after defending someone who trolled me. I don't wish to re-ignite the unpleasantess of last year, I really don't but I feel persecutedand by these two admins, who seem to have decided that any idea I have is automatically wromng just because it comes from me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it's obviously a plot. Putting it mildly it seems everyone who doesn't say you're always right makes an abuse. I already said Nemo misbehaved but your was an overreaction, then you went on saying it's a plot, meta is a cabal, the war is at the hand and similar stuffs, you were also able to contest this bloc. Seriously it's time to find a new enemy to fight or insult, I'm definitely bored, this is a page for requests not a place for dramas. Some sysop will consider your request, though if his answer will be unfavourable you'll probably attack him as a new member of the plot. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually do not think it is a plot at all. I'm sure you are a fine steward, you certainly got a lot of support from a lot of people I respect in your recent reconfirmation. But here, at Meta, you seem to be an enabler, defending an admin when they did something that was very clearly in bad faith and accusing me of trolling when i was honestly trying to help some folks avoid wasting their time. This is not so much a problem with you or nemo or me as it is a problem of a culture where admins are not held accountable for their actions. That needs to change. I don't recall saying a war was at hand, nor do I want one. I don't know where you think I have personally insulted you, but yes, I did point out that you defended trolling from one user then (admittedly much later) turned around and accused the aggrieved party from that episode of trolling. I hope you can see how that might create the impression that you have a grudge against me. Anyway, discussion on the proposal's talk page is now leading in interesting new directions and I sincerely hope that at the end of the day we can bridge this gap and create a culture of accountability here without changing the fundamental purpose of the site. I'm saddened that Nemo apparently still feels he did nothing wrong here, but if the proposal is approved his feelings on the matter will no longer be relevant and one would hope that codifying these ethical principles will act as a deterrent to similar situations arising in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I never "defended" Nemo bis but actually I told him he shared being wrong with you. I told yours were definitely personal attacks and, finally, I told you if a sysop doesn't fulfil a request from you then you can simply ask other sysop to do it. Feel free to deal with accountability, cultural heritage and any other theme, but none of them is by far related to what did happen to you here. (PS: it's untrue RfCs are always useless) --Vituzzu (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to comment here when the immediate situation has been resolved, but the fact that Nemo thought that it was appropriate to close this himself seriously concerns me. Nemo, do you understand why people are objecting to you trying to close this discussion? Can you please give a substantive explanation for why you thought closing this discussion yourself was a good idea? And for clarity: I didn't come across this thread from reading Wikipediocracy. I have had this board watchlisted for more than a year. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually you'd better ask him directly, this page is for requests and we're making a big off-topic here. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Questions for Nemo should be asked to him directly. Let's focus on the proposal, and whether or not it has consensus (which, in my biased opinion, it does, with my adjustments). -- Avi (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Since there's an ongoing discussion about the proposal to me it is de facto not closed. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion: Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal). Discussions about Nemo bis' alleged misbehavior should continue there, not here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Block user E_THP

Hello,

please put someone a stop to user E_THP. He vandals on page CentralNotice/Generic_maintenance_notice inserting x-es in Esperanto and Maltese translations. Besides he inserts an additional "translation", may be it's Azeri in Arabic script. He over and over again reverts my reversions of his vandalizm. Thanks, --Michawiki (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he has a technical issue that is causing him to do so. Maybe it has to do with that Esperanto gadget? πr2 (t • c) 05:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, he inserted x-es into Maltese translation as well, for Maltese the Esperanto gadget is not used - I think you mean this gadget that converts words where the Esperanto characters have been written with x (cx, gx, hx, jx, sx, ux) into those with the proper Esperanto characters (ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ). Beisdes it is not necessary to use the x-writing. There was no reason to change those both translations. And he always reverted without giving any reasons. No, for me that was vandalism. Regards, --Michawiki (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of CentralNotice for an editathon

Hi! I want to add a Centralnotice banner geolocated in the city of Puebla, Mexico, for support the first editathon in this city next March 24th. Someone can support me? Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Centralnotice can not geolocate that closely. It's nationwide, only. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Translate

How can I translate this http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/CentralNotice2013-1 to my language (Macedonian)? --M4r51n (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here. --MF-W 19:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can translate them with this interface. Regards, Vogone talk 19:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also about translate: please, update Russian translate of new banner (about Commons), older version isn't correct. Saint Johann (ru) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello M4r51n. On the left, in the sidebar, you will see the link Сите преводи where you can find all texts to be translated. The message you requested is behind WMF Grantmaking. --Michawiki (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the Russian version of the FDC community review banner to your translation. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also about translate: please, unprotect pages MediaWiki:Centralnotice-2012translations-facts-1/uk, 2, 3, 4 for me to update uncorrect translation. -- Ата (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not possible to unprotect the MediaWiki namespace. You may want to see Talk:FDC_portal/CentralNotice2013-1#Marathi (mr) translation errors for how to get it updated. --MF-W 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion opened

I would like to get the attention of my fellow bureaucrats that I have opened this bureaucrat discussion. Your comments will be most appreciated. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Move pages with their subpages (move-subpages)

Please

  1. move Wikimedia Thailand (with all its subpages) to Wikimedians in Thailand.
  2. move category Wikimedia Thailand to Wikimedians in Thailand too.

The name can't be used until it is legally registered. --Taweethaも (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really have to do so, anyway Yes check.svg Done; categories can't be moved, please add pages to the new category and put {{delete}} on the old. --Nemo 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have changed the category and put delete tag on the old one. --Taweethaも (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please see Meta talk:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Header. Thank you in advance. πr2 (t • c) 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Template talk:WPSPAM. πr2 (t • c) 18:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done x2 :) micki 19:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :) You might want to do the others in Category:Meta protected edit requests, but those templates seem abandoned anyway. πr2 (t • c) 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Also Yes check.svg done. micki 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
And Template talk:Title blacklist log instructions. πr2 (t • c) 04:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Meta talk:Central notice administrators ... I don't even know why that's fully protected. πr2 (t • c) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext#Edit_request. πr2 (t • c) 23:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
3x done. --MF-W 00:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please close Meta:Babel#Give bureaucrats the ability to grant the flood flag to non-admins

Please can someone (admin or crat) close the above discussion so that a bug can be filed? I'd rather not do it, given that I proposed the idea in the first place. Thanks. Thehelpfulone 02:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Although it seems there's support for the idea, how users will be granted the right? An "ask and be given" system for a flag that hides edits would not be optimal. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why would that be? Given that it would be for temporary purposes, I don't see the need of having an extended discussion for granting this flag if the task will be a maintenance task that will be uncontroversial? Thehelpfulone 14:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no. No need for extended discussion but at least a request in this board should be done, with an explanation of what the user wants to do. I expect that folks wanting to hid their edits from RecentChanges will have a valid reason for it, and posting a request here that everybody can see improves transparency; which IRC don't. Discussion is closed now. Is the bug filled for the change already? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please protect

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Please protect Template:Ll, because it is very highly visible. The same applies to Template:Translatable navigation template (and the redirect Template:TNT). πr2 (t • c) 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection is optimal, because User:Kaganer will want to edit these. πr2 (t • c) 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Template protection request

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Please set "semi-protected" level for next widely used templates (at the translateble pages - rules, policies and guidelines, etc.), and for his shortcuts also:

Thanks! --Kaganer (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my small mistake. Should be {{Localized link}} instead {{Lang links}}. Also please rename {{ll}} to {{Localized link}} (over redirect). As common way, abbreviation shortcut should be a redirect to "full named" template. --Kaganer (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Kaganer (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete User Page

Delete User:HrAd/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js, wich I created in a test.--HrAd (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; you can use {{delete|Reason(s) here}} for future speedy deletions requests. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion culture

Is this really the kind of atmosphere you want to have here: [8]? --88.70.67.73 14:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

CentralNotice for Contribution month in Canada

Hello! In April, Wikimedia Canada is organizing a "Contribution month" and we would like to have a Central Notice banner active. I was wondering if a Central Notice Administrator can give us a hand with this. I like the current FDC banner, is this template is only available for this purpose, or anyone can reuse it?

So are the details:

  • Dates: March 31 to April 10, 2013
  • Projects: All projects (since this event will involve WPedia, Commons, WNews, WSource)
  • Languages: English, French
  • User type: anonymous & logged-in users (both)
  • Geoloc : Canada

We made templates in both En + Fr languages. If you have any suggestions or comments, please feel free to do so. This is my first request of this kind, I'll might need guidance! Thanks a lot for your help. Benoit Rochon (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Is this request has to be done somewhere else? Thanks for your help. Benoit Rochon (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the slow reply. Any admin can do it, but I seem to recall I already told you, per guidelines, that you have to first add the planned campaign to CentralNotice/Calendar, to check what else is going on in the same period and get feedback. I was going to check the calendar and create the campaign given that there were no opposes, but now I can't; please do it now.
On the actual request: we have had a precedent just a few days ago, so I suppose the request should be accepted, but a month is a lot; the only precedent would probably be WLM. I understand it's a "contribution month", but the initial period is often enough to inform people (unless the project page has a title very hard to remember). I suggest maybe 2 weeks or 4 at 50 % (I've not checked the calendar though). --Nemo 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nemo! I don't remember having a discussion with you about this, but thank you very much for your feedback! I wasn't sure what was the time limit, but I think 10 days is enough. I checked the calendar, and I think from March 31st to April 10th should be good enough, and there's no banners overlapping. What would be the next step? Thanks again for your help. Best regards. Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you added it to the schedule correctly. Working Waiting for admin comment. πr2 (t • c) 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can give me a help with this banner request please? (Unfortunatly, Nemo is desysop) Thank you. Benoit Rochon (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Update?

Would an admin like to comment on this? πr2 (t • c) 14:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The communication campaign starts tomorrow; it would be great if the banners could match it! Thanks for your help. Regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What's needed? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this is/was being handled below (#CentralNotice by tomorrow please?). --MZMcBride (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

CentralNotice by tomorrow please?

See #CentralNotice_for_Contribution_month_in_Canada and #Update? above. It seems to me that no admins have noticed this request. πr2 (t • c) 16:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's more the unfamiliarity with CentralNotice.. at least for me it is. I'll try to set this up now. --MF-W 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I guess I shouldn't have created this section at the bottom, but I thought the section above was overlooked as being an old request. πr2 (t • c) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, it won't harm your RFA :P --MF-W 17:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite the opposite in fact :-) It is all in his honor! I'm also in this proccess on frwiki! Thanks guys for giving me a hand with this request. Regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have now created [9] but the notice does not yet look exactly brillant, because for some "reason", the idiotic software does not accept normal wiki layout. I will try to get this fixed later on. --MF-W 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is right, but I think it should be HTML since Wikitext is not managed outside of MediaWiki software. Also I left "id="FDCpropreview20132v2-logo"" as it is, because I'm not sure where the logo & gradient is really located, but it's the same for my banner anyway... Let me know if this is working... Benoit Rochon (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put this in. (By the way, only one version is needed, the translation is done separately). See [10] for how it looks now. --MF-W 18:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the banner it not appearing correctly. BTW, I also chaged text2 a little: Not sure why the gradient is not showing... maybe my cache? Benoit Rochon (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

One last thing, the campaign starts in 4 hours and I made 2 mistakes : If an administrator can correct my mistakes, it would be awesome...
1. Remove the <pre> on the very last line of the code.
 
2. Find : participer un and replace it by participer à l'un
Then it will be perfect. Thanks guys for everything! Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I made those changes for you. :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
PS - if you haven't already, please check the preview of the banner to be sure it looks right. Do that by going to any page on a wiki and appending "?banner=WMCAcontributionmonth" to the end of the url string. For instance, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat?banner=WMCAcontributionmonth. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove flags from User:Gmeijssen

To crats: please remove local flags from the account, which is locked (alternate account of former WMF contractor). The translation admin bit also clutters the list of translation admins one can ask help to. Thanks, Nemo 10:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nemo, removed both. Thehelpfulone 11:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)