Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2014-02

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 on 01 February 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Request for global Massmessage right

I am requesting permission for MassMessage sender rights. I already have this userright on the English Wikipedia and have made some documentation improvements on that site regarding this tool. I would like to be able to expand the documentation more on other wikis and be able to send interwiki messages using this tool. Thank you for your consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking the stewards? O_o Perhaps you meant to use WM:RFH? I must say this is not a good presentation for someone asking rights on Meta. :) --Nemo 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Please request it on WM:RFH. I could grant this permission if you do so, since you seem to know how it works. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Will do... How to request this right isn't very well documented at this point (which is part of what I hope to rectify). Thanks. 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Technical 13 (talk • contribs) .
And here it is... Technical 13 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I think it's documented enough Meta:MassMessage senders, which is linked from the main MassMessage page, specifically says to request it here. So does WM:RFA#Other access. How else can it be documented? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a few <big></big> TAGS are missing. Vogone talk 17:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a Bad Idea to request or grant advanced permissions without a demonstrated need, even setting aside the possible inadvisability expressed above. Rather, Technical 13, write a specific mass message you want to send and request it be sent. That can be done here. You should handle and give specific instructions for all the needed details as explained in MassMessage documentation. If you have a history of successful requests, showing that you understand and can properly set all that up, it could then be considered giving you the right, but it may be bundled with other administrative rights (I don't know). To send a reasonable number of Mass Messages, you don't need the right, just like I don't need sysop tools to get files deleted. --Abd (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
In all honesty Abd, the right is given purely on a as-needed basis. The amount of requests you make is irrelevant really. Plus the tools are separate from the admin package. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. What I suggested can still stand. A need can be demonstrated in more than one way. Given the environment here, I suggested an easy way, that would, meanwhile, get the immediate job done. But that doesn't mean that it's the only way. This right is a dangerous one, it could be seriously abused, which is why it is limited to trusted users, that's all. No comment on the trust or lack of same. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Meh. The right really only need to be present to those who have an active use not a 'I can do it if needed' also, I don't see how the right can be easily abused more than sending messages to people. So I wouldn't say it is 'dangerous' since spamming someone with messages is not a 'omg abuse!!!' case. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Spamming someone with accidental messages on hundreds of Wikimedia projects is one of the most annoying things which do exist, not sure if you'd like to clean-up after such an "accident". Vogone talk 21:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, what I thought. Is there a technical limit to the number of messages that can be sent as one batch? To the number of times a user with the right could send messages before someone with the ability to revoke the right does so? The user could have this queued with a computer and send *many* messages before there would be time to stop it. This is not an argument against the right being granted to this user, just that the one making the decision should properly be careful. A user might be disruptive in some ways, in some places or contexts, but extremely unlikely to offend as imagined here. --Abd (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I need to send User:Technical 13/SandBox/Mailingcontent multiple times to User:Technical 13/SandBox/Mailinglist adjusting block, protection, and opt-out category messages on target pages to write comprehensive documentation on how to use this feature. I want to find out if the opt-out category properly adjusts itself for each individual wiki as well as if placing the opt-out category on meta will opt-out of all wikis or just meta. If just meta, then I need to see if I can submit a pull request for an alternate category for a global opt-out option. Technical 13 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That seem to me like you're requesting the rights so you can send a test message to yourself... am I missing something here? I do not believe this constitute a valid reason for granting the right. Snowolf How can I help? 23:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    You could just request admin access on test.wikipedia if you don't have it already. I don't think you need this just for a test. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I am marking this as not done after a bit more of investigation on the matter. Technical 13 has above suggested that the reason for why they seek the right is to do a test run. They say they hold the right on the English Wikipedia, which is true, but they have only used the right yesterday, doing a run for Wikiproject Poland which showcased their lack of familiarity with the MassMessage system (the first run didn't work because the page wasn't properly formatted). Until such time as a clear need is established and proper experience with the system is gained by this user, I do not feel it is wise to grant this right, given its global repercussions and the aforementioned lack of need and experience. Snowolf How can I help? 01:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please correct mistake in banner displayed in el.wikipedia

Hello, there is a mistake in the banner which is currently on display in el-wikipedia. The banner reads:

Η πρώτη φάση του διαγωνισμού Εικονά της Χρονίας των Wikimedia Commons έχει αρχίσει.
Πάτησε εδώ για να μάθεις περισσότερα για το διαγωνισμό και να ψηφίσεις το αγαπημένο σου αρχείο.

The words "Εικονά της Χρονίας" have accents in the wrong places. The right version is "Εικόνα της Χρονιάς".

Please correct it as soon as possible. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thanks (also thanks to @Glavkos:) PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please block Miriam Hondjo

For stubborn vandalism in the Wikimedia Forum [1] after warnings, obstinate shouting and ad hominem attacks («WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU???!!!???»). --Nemo 16:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) P.s.: Add read-only edit warring.[2]

Also now on this section. Blocked for 6 hours. --MF-W 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
And now block extended and talk page access revoked, for cause. User is either a troll or amazingly clueless. I will warn on Talk page more specifically. User is attacking those who attempted to help. Not a good sign. --Abd (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Abd, but I didn't extend the block duration, only revoked the talk page access. Mathonius (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The block was a short, preventative block. It has now expired. I hope the user has learned from her mistakes. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

POTY CentralNotice

According to CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines, A Meta administrator will actually implement and enable the banner, checking that it works, it respects guidelines, practices, consensus etc., applying the commons sense he or she is bound to have and so filling the gaps of this non-formalised process. so I am not going to activate POTY2013-R1-1 myself. Please review and correct it, if necessary - this is the first time I made such a banner - and enable the campaign. I am going to holiday now and won't be around for the next week. In case of complaints, please notify mono and/or deactivate it. Thanks in advance and kind regards -- Rillke (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a special approval by a meta admin is needed here. I think that guideline was written when we had no special CN admin group. I've never seen or heard from a case where someone with the ability to change/use the CN banners actually asks another admin to approve it. I think that you can simply enable it. -Barras talk 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Rillke is taking a holiday, so could someone please turn it on? Mono 23:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you turn the number of impressions down to 40% of the time so we don't annoy people? Thanks, Mono 23:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mono: I think I did so, can you check the campaign? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @all; PiRSquared17 looks good. Let's see how the voter curve is developing at commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2013/R1/Stats. I wasn't sure whether I'll get to a WLAN HotSpot in time. I regret the inconvenience but this vacation wasn’t planned and I got them by luck. -- Rillke (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17: or @Rillke: would you mind changing the English test for the banner to the following (to mark the end of Round 1). Thanks, Mono 23:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Round 1 of the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition ends February 7.
  • Click here to learn more about the contest and vote for your favorite image.
Yes check.svg Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
We are getting complaints about English banners showing up in non-English wikis. Could you please disable the banner on all the sites for which it has not been translated? (This is a recent issue, so I'm not exactly sure what is wrong.) Mono 01:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done and sorry, this was my fault. I thought it was unintentional to skip certain languages. Forgive me please. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Central notice POTY in Catalan

Please, update MediaWiki:Centralnotice-POTY2012 R1-poty2012-text/ca with the text fixed at commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Banners/ca, that is "Imatge de l'Any". --Vriullop (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, MediaWiki:Centralnotice-POTY2012 R1-poty2012-link-text/ca should be updated as well. --Vriullop (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Central notice POTY in Ukrainian

If a) pages with "2012" in their names are really used in this year contest central notice, b) it is still normal situation to hide translatable text into MediaWiki ns then
Please create pages MediaWiki:Centralnotice-POTY2012 R1-poty2012-text/uk with the text

Перший раунд конкурсу Зображення року у Вікісховищі закічується 7 лютого.

and MediaWiki:Centralnotice-POTY2012 R1-poty2012-link-text/uk with

Натисніть тут, щоб більше дізнатися про конкурс та проголосувати за своє улюблене зображення.

Or point me other place to do this :) Thanks -- Ата (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for review

Per diff can an administrator review my comment and determine that it is offensive? If it is, I would like to sincerely say sorry for having had a poor choice of words in that moment, and request that an administrator block me for a day or two, and as a secondary request I would also like to disengage myself from Meta-Wiki for a short while. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is possible TCNSV should be warned, though not for that comment. I said it was offensive, I did not say it was blockable. However, he has, today, reopened two RfCs. One I had closed, and, again, I wouldn't bring that here, it will be resolved routinely, that was a fresh close. Closes can be reverted, though, when they are, the comment made in the close should be copied to the RfC. It is then converted to a request to close. He didn't do that, so I fixed it.
However, he had been claiming that if one has any question or new related comment about an RfC, one should reopen it. Apparently even if it is years closed.
Demonstrating this, he reopened Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons, which had been closed over two years ago by Tiptoety. I reverted it and moved his new comment to Talk, which is common practice. But I also looked at Bugzilla:4676 and pointed to this. He then showed [3], where he requested of Tiptoety that the closure be "undone," giving an argument referring to John Vandenberg. Tiptoety granted permission, February 4. However, if Tiptoety had concluded that the close was improper, it would better have been undone directly, or at least with a pointer to the permission. The close was not improper, it was clear consensus at or near 100%, with many editors commenting. I would understand, however, Toptoety's response to mean, "You may reopen the issue." He did not examine the issue, obviously. As it happened, on February 2, John Vandenburg had already responded on Bugzilla:4676 showing that there was no issue with conflict with hiwiki, about which TCNSV had dramatically complained. Presumably, TCNSV would have seen that before reopening the RfC, which was a bad idea in any case.
We are working on RfC process, the goal is to set up guidelines to avoid needless wasted time and controversy over procedure. TCNSV made some good suggestions, on Talk:Requests for comment, but has some strange ideas about closure, and he takes criticism or opposition very personally, hence his request here. --Abd (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Closed Closed Blocking is preventative, not punishment. Best review is honest self-reflection. Any other comment can be provided to your talk page, rather than here. Taking time away from meta and administrative tasks is always a good idea, get out and do some good editing and remember that not all are about to abuse the system. Have some fun edits for a few days.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I poked @Vituzzu and Billinghurst: about reblocking DanielTom as his unblock reason is no longer valid and his previous imposed blocked was indefinite for good reasons. Since neither have acted yet and Daniel is editing as normal, I am poking here asking that an administrator please reinstate his block with the same reason as originally blocked. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Opposed. From the user's behavior when unblocked, there is no need for the block. Vituzzu did state that the block would be reinstated, but that doesn't really matter, it was his opinion at the time he stated it; technically, it should be Billinghurst who would do it, to avoid the appearance of wheel-warring. This request is a time-waster; JFL, having wasted the community's time requesting a global ban (contrary to policy), and having failed to find support for that, is now fishing for, at least, a renewed block on meta. Meta blocks are often "indef," which simply means "until it is no longer considered necessary." If DanielTom becomes seriously uncivil or disruptive, it's trivial to block him, and there are many administrators aware of his activity. JFL seems to have the idea that a block is a punishment, that there needs to be some "time served," or even permanent exile. I hope he revises that opinion and stops attacking this user without necessity. --Abd (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment While I haven't looked at the reasons for the block yet and whether or not he merits another one (he probably does), it does not look good for you, John F. Lewis, when you seemed to have made multiple requests in a short timespan to ban DanielTom, wherein you made an erroneous request to globally ban him followed by a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. I would like to see some actual evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, before making such claims. Further fishing for an administrator to do your dirty work for you does not bode well on your record. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Telecom and Abd. John, I really can't believe you that only the one time you encountered with Daniel, you go ahead and beat him with a hammer. This was your response (I expected better from you)

Just shut up about god damn editing of articles. I am not violating policies by not doing it. Last comment here. Future comments I'd like at my talk page. If not, I'll just move them over. Peace.

Before this comment, I told you to stop, both of you in-fact. And corresponding with w:Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please leave Daniel alone. --Goldenburg111 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Closed Closed Fully aware of your commentary and position @John F. Lewis:, and at this point of time, maybe you should walk away and keep away from DanielTom. Vituzzu and I are both experienced administrators. From my last sighting of edits by the user they were within scope for meta.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for answering so late here @John F. Lewis: but I was pretty sure I already clicked "save" until I found a filled edit tab on my ff :| In short I "forgot" to reblock @DanielTom: for experimental purposes. By now I don't see any need for reblock though it could be easily done if necessary. On the other hand I must, again, underline how "enthusiast" are always damaging. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Gadget's translation

Please move this page from "MediaWiki talk" to "MediaWiki" namespace. Thanks, Rzuwig 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also MediaWiki talk:StewardVote/fi to MediaWiki:StewardVote/fi. Thanks! --Stryn (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Both done. Thank you, Savhñ 20:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Steward vote banner needs update

Hi. Banner for steward elections in pt-br is still stating the '2013' election has started. I tried to change this page, but I am not sure if that is the right page.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That page works, but you need to set the translation status to "published" (only admins may do this). Alternatively, edit MediaWiki:Centralnotice-stew2014vote-vote-invitation/pt. Snowolf and I changed the dates (e.g., here and here. I mostly did non-Arabic numerals, Snowolf did the rest), but we missed this one somehow. Perhaps someone else wants to check each banner? After this SE we should really discuss better systems for organization and translation for SE2015. I will be willing to accept the blame responsibility for this and will fix it immediately. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It works now.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That was one of mines, I missed it, sorry :( Snowolf How can I help? 01:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Workflow states in Khmer

  • In progress: ក្នុង​ដំណើរការ
  • Needs updating: ត្រូវការ​បច្ចុប្បន្នភាព
  • Proofreading: កំពុង​ត្រួត​ពិនិត្យ
  • Ready: រួចរាល់
  • Published: បាន​ផ្សាយ​ចេញ

--ទេព សុវិចិត្រ (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thanks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

CentralNotice banner for a local survey

Hi, everyone. I'd like to ask for assistance in setting up a CentralNotice banner for a survey being executed by some students at a local university in the Philippines, which is being done in cooperation with Wikimedia Philippines. The survey is about the significance of Wikipedia's editing process as perceived by local editors, and it would be really helpful if we can help them disseminate the survey to as many Wikipedians as possible.

Here are the parameters for the banner:

Thanks again! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhm I'm not sure it wouldn't better fit on relevant local wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
For one, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors in the Philippines edit the English Wikipedia. Also, this campaign is specifically targeted only to logged-in users in the Philippines, as I mentioned earlier. Restricting it to sitenotices on Philippine-language Wikipedias (which is what I believe you're implying) drastically reduces the reach of the survey. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to create this, if Vito thinks it's okay (don't want to "override" their decision). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: Sorry for the delay; I was honestly expecting Vito to respond by now. Anyway, I was wondering if you really want this enabled on all projects and mentioning specifically Wikipedia with the Wikipedia logo. Is that okay even on Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Commons, etc.? Also, can you translate "Hi, Wikipedian! You are cordially invited to answer a survey on the significance of Wikipedia's editing process" into Tagalog/Filipino at least? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: if you're okay with this, I'll create and enable a campaign for you ASAP. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry @PiRSquared17: but I didn't read before, nulla obstat for me, mine was a question/though rather than a strong feeling or decision. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia-related survey, and most Filipinos edit Wikipedia first before moving to the other projects. The coverage of the banner is to ensure that as many Filipino editors answer it as possible, because the students commissioning the survey have a target number of respondents (at least 100). This way, at least no user who is interested in answering the survey is left behind.
Also, the banner would be translated in Tagalog as: Kumusta, Wikipedista? Inaanyayahan po kayong sumagot ng isang survey (sa Ingles) tungkol sa kahalagahan ng proseso ng pamamatnugot sa Wikipedia. However, the survey is in English, so technically the banner doesn't need to be translated, but this is a matter of courtesy as far as I'm concerned rather than one of real need.
(On the logo: I'd use the logo of Far Eastern University, but the logo's copyrighted. Also, this is not a WMPH-commissioned survey, so it's also inappropriate to use the WMPH logo.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: Yes check.svg Done, is it good? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done, PiRSquared17. I just hope it's up now. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sky Harbor, if you're in the Philippines and logged-in, can't you see it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently not, since the banner is drowned out by the banners involving the stewards' elections and Wikimania. Perhaps they should have the same priority level? --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot all about this, sorry. Sky Harbor: has the issue been resolved? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Thanks again. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Emergency deflag of Verdy_p

Please remove translationadmin flag to Verdy_p immediately. He completely disrupted the page Wikimedia Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo with a number of edits and actions, I was fixing it but I found it moved and suppressed and he refuses to stop and talk, instead continuing in write only mode.[4] I need him to be deflagged so that I have some minutes to fix the problems and then explain him. --Nemo 10:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there have been many other instances where he has refused to listen to concerns about his use of translationadmin, noting several threads on his usertalk page. --Rschen7754 10:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
For the record, you should read these: it's a portuguese women that did not understand anything, and also used an automatic translator to submit changes and introduing English words.
She has been corrected not just by me. Most of her texts are needing corrections. She does not know or understand the basics of Wiki syntax found in pages she operated on.
This is the only issue I had with someone. verdy_p (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have asked him to stop until there is a resolution, and if he doesn't we can block and take to his talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have absolutely not broken the page.' Nemo just look for the page for one minute during the edits, as I had not synchronized the versions with a null-edit. This is fully OK. now. He asked this too fst to you. And Nemo has NOT corrected anything in what I did. Removeing the flag for a single bage being actively edited for a couple of minutes is an extreme solution. verdy_p (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Rschen7754, I'm not aware of a general pattern, discussing that would be better suited for Meta talk:Babylon. --Nemo 11:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Closed Closed All by-the-by. The rights have not been touched, and you are directed to take your battle to meta talk:Babylon  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
With the closure above and as it seems that this isn't that much of an emergency: If you want a right removed, please go to RFA and fill a request for de-translation adminship. -Barras talk 11:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, seems the emergency has passed: thanks billinghurst for making him stop. --Nemo 11:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I had stopped. The "emergency" above was absolutely not justified, and I have not refused to talk, in fact I was not even contacted before it was sent here by Nemo (first sentence of this section). He just saw a page renamed and certainly saw notifications of this and reacted immediately here, he could opposed to that and explain. I have never deleted any page, the page was only moved in a single action, the only one for which he reacted immediately here.
That author even finally admitted (in its own edits) that my edits were correct ('see its comment "can"t believe it" in the page, then finally he sees that the link is effectively broken, and finally choose an other link though my suggestion of replacement was correct). I have fully accepted the reversal of the renamed page and that was the only issue. I have not abused it, I thought it was OK becuse the parent page itself had been moved too (also with the same "Wikimedia" prefix I used) ! I acted under good faith.
The emergency measure was clearly abused here. (byt someone whose adminship was removed due to various conflicts Meta:Requests for adminship/Nemo bis (removal) an his continued practicing of owning pages for himself). Even if he's no longer an admin, he continues acting as if he was owning pages. He never negociates, and in fact he is the only one that refused to talk (and he never talked to Babylon as instructed here...) Nemo has also deleted one of my responses here (see the history of this page), when trying to hide the one to which I was replying.
And about the other comments on my talk page, I have defenders against the same new Portuguese women that ignores repeatedly al what I (and others) are saying to her and that uses Google Translate (there are very visible proofs of that, including the way Google Translators converts the double or triple quotes found in some messages containing bold or italic, because Google Translator ignores the Wiki syntax, but also in the way it breaks source HTML tags like &lt:br /> by inserting extra spaces or dropping the slash or moving it elsewhere in the sentence, or how some template transclusions get also broken, also Google Translator transates the template names or parameter names...) to submit everything she sees, without understanding any word of what she "translates" (by evidence she does not understand English, doesn't understand the basic Wiki syntax, and had never read anything in the doc about translation). Only another Pourguese-speaking contributor will attempt to stop her and explain things that she clearly does not understand. May be she's good in Portuguese Wikipedia, but not here as a translator if she does not understand English. verdy_p (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Your counter-deduction here will be lost within some weeks, setting apart from personal considerations (basically you should care of behaviours rather than people) you'd better explain your action on the babel tp. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Closed Closed Issue managed  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for adminship/Nemo bis (removal)

Triggered by some recent publicity I finally remembered to break, as I announced almost a year ago, some external links pointing to blatant insults/harassments, someone didn't like my horrible censorship so I think the drama could end with a PP. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Barras protected the page. @Barras: There was already a discussion, and there wasn't any consensus to censor those hyperlinks. Those hyperlinks led to evidence that I listed and explained on a forum. It isn't harassment. Vituzzu is the only user that was involved in that discussion that desired censorship. None of the discussion's other participants complained about the links or desired censorship. Those links had been on that page uncensored for nearly a year without causing any issues or incidences. This changed today, and it wasn't because someone complained about those links recently; it was because I mentioned the discussion in an opinion that I offered during Vituzzu's Steward confirmation discussion. Those links had been here for nearly a year without hurting anyone, so they shouldn't be censored. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Uiiii linkspam to, nothing really new; at Commons we even considered blacklisting them. -- Rillke (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
+1, it looks like a anti-wikipedia troll blog... --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "troll blog". As with many other online forums, Wikipediocracy simply allows its contributors to exercise free speech. Some users there dislike Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Some of them are or had been banned from enwiki. Some users there love contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, including some enwiki sysops. I don't see anything inherently wrong with linking to a website that contains some "anti-Wikipedia" sentiments. Criticism exists, and I don't believe that we shouldn't deny its existence or suppress it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Since I only just happened to see this, I only protected it because I saw the reverts on my watchlist for whatever reason (no idea why I was still watching the page). I've no real opinion on what was going on there I was just the one to stop the edit war and to encourage the involved parties to discuss it rather than reverting each other over and over again. Whatever the result will be, I don't really care, I haven't checked the links or whatever. Just don't go on with the edit war and find a solution. -Barras talk 22:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Rillke: I wasn't spamming. "Considered"? Yes, but the blacklisting attempt failed by a landslide. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Closed Closed It is dead and irrelevant issue at this page, please take the battle elsewhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Can an administrator please warn Abd not to harass Miriam Hondjo? This was a brand new user who originally wasn't very aware of general wiki conventions and repeatedly tried to bring her post to the top of the page despite being warned not to do so, which led to her nasty comments and personal attacks resulting in a short block to get her attention and calm her down. Presumably, she did this because she was understandably upset people were moving her comments. After the block she stopped most of her behavior, but while she was still under block Abd taunted her implicitly saying she was a hypocrite and not smart enough to be able to listen to others. I've tried to help this user in the process, the result was she removed my comment from Wikimedia Forum then Abd again believing he had total knowledge of the situation resumes taunting her with comments like "if being blocked is what you want, carry on, you obviously know how to make that happen". Please tell him to stop, toxic comments like that is what drives new users away. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

New users can make some errors, but harassing/insulting them is not a solution, notably when doing that during a period where she cannot even reply due to her temporary blocking. May be she was upset seeing her comments moved down some talk page. On many other places on the Internet, new comments are posted at top of pages, not at bottom. We may assume good faith for newcomers, that this is the right place to do that also in Wikimedia.
We can explain things, and give time to the newcomer to read (the small break of the tempoaray blocking should be used to explain things.
However if she want to see comments on her own talk page posted at top, we should not forbid it; just like we allow everyone managing his/her own talk page to create archive subpages, close discussions or performing some clenaup there... His/her talk page is the space where he/she will want to see the last conversations in priority, and if for him/her this means placing them at top, it's OK there (even if it's not in other talk pages, where one's own priority does not matter). Keep this freeedom in user talk pages for their owner to manage their own priorities and sort the discussions as they want. verdy_p (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Miriam's control of her own Talk page. It has nothing to do with the old "top posting" issue. It has to do with TCNSV removing comments. I warned Mirian, because her behavior could easily get her blocked. I do not want her blocked. I do not want her harassed. I want her treated with respect, which includes frank and straight comment, and clear warnings when warranted. --Abd (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You could issue a proper warning without this comment: "if being blocked is what you want, carry on, you obviously know how to make that happen" and if you still think you are in the right and continue this disruptive behavior towards her, this could all end very badly. The "top posting" issue is mostly irrelevant in light of the more pressing issue, which is your harassment. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I question the wisdom of this TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Vituzzu ran with that one. Jimbo Wales is not like Miriam Hondjo. She may not know she can read diffs in her page history, and nothing was removed from User talk:Jimbo Wales that was not archived, with an explicit link to the archive.[5] --Abd (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I left Abd some advice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) If anyone else has issues with me over this, please raise them with me; TCNSV has attempted to control her talk page with removal of comments[6] or deflecting warnings,[7] (as she has removed his comment from the Forum.[8].)
  • This filing appears to be a response to [9] a warning on his talk page, confirmed by a steward.
  • I am known for reaching out to disruptive users, to honestly and frankly engage with them, and it works sometimes. TCNSV's work here may have been helpful to a point, but could end up helping get her blocked. At least he didn't remove that last warning, nor did he attempt to tell her "not to worry" about it. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer Abd be prevented from interacting with her at all until he can demonstrate a mature capability to calm someone down and not resort to taunts. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
(editconf tons of times)While Miriam Hondjo has a pretty weird pattern with unacceptable tones Abd closely followed her in worsening the overall quality of their talk. So I agree Abd must refrain from biting her/carrying on that polemic. Dealing with Jimbo's talkpage it is supposed to be managed by Jimbo himself. There's also no need for further quarrels. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo wrote on that page: Better to not leave messages for me here, because I don't always look at meta. Put them on en:User talk:Jimbo Wales. His page had turned into a coatrack for various complaints, and a flame war had broken out. So I whacked that, archiving the comments. If Jimbo is supposed to manage his own user page, why then does Vituzzu think he should? His revert and deletion of the archive. It is common for users to make helpful changes to user talk pages, and the user may always revert them. The community or Jimbo will decide if Vituzzu's intervention here is helpful or otherwise. --Abd (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that Vituzzu also just full-protected User talk:Jimbo Wales. Vandalism claimed, but there hadn't been vandalism in months. Is this related to voting in Stewards/Confirm/2014/Vituzzu, and a threat from Vituzzu about "ex-enwiki users" on meta? --Abd (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Look carefully. Vituzzu merely restored the "move" protection. That protection was there previously, but it was removed when Vituzzu deleted the page (deleting a page resets its protection level). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, Michael. Struck the claim about protection, I misread the log. It talked about vandalism and I didn't realize it was move vandalism, which didn't happen recently. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I've also left Miriam Hondjo some advice, since that's the user that all of us here wish to help. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael. That is how to handle a warning perceived as being too harsh. You did not deflect it. It may make no difference, but it won't hurt. --Abd (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Let's hope for the best. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost immediately before her block and throughout the course of it, Abd had called her out as a "troll" and that "checkuser might be in order" to imply she was a sockpuppet, a serious accusation leveled right on her very own talkpage with no evidence whatsoever. Things like "It...has nothing to do with the intelligence of participants here or others, including the administrators who blocked you. It does have do with your intelligence" leads me to believe that contrary to his claim of trying to help a new user, he is in fact driving her away.TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not "call her out" as a a troll in [[10]. I wrote that checkuser might be in order, "If someone recognizes the behavior." I said that I didn't. All those comments should be read in context, not only of what I wrote, but of what Miriam had written and done, to which I was responding. When I make a serious accusation, I don't do it on the user's talk page. I'd do it here. Who brought all this here? Hint: not me.
I am now making a serious accusation: TCNSV is falsely quoting what I wrote, taking it out of context, to shift the meaning. Please warn him. He has already been warned about removing the talk page comments of others. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You two have been arguing here long enough. Please leave each other alone, or try to make amends. Sorry, but this is getting on my nerves. I've tried to help both of you to do this for a while, but alas... PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Miriam Hondjo is now blocked for a week. From my experience, there was a thin chance that the user would engage, if frankly addressed, and no chance that she would engage with clueless "support," attempting to protect her from frank warnings and conversation. She was not "harassed" by anyone. The user was headed for a block early on, and has shown no sign of deviating from that path. I hope she continues with her talk page access, even if uncivil, she can do little harm there, and in a week, it remains possible that she will engage with this community. There is no need for action here, there never was, -- beyond the report above [11] -- the blanking on the Forum would be seen by many users, quickly reverted, and once it was clear that she had been thoroughly warned, and including offers of support, and was continuing, a block was inevitable. --Abd (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Taunting someone on a Wikimedia project like that is not acceptable anywhere on the Wikimedia projects, whether the person is underneath a block or not. Especially when they are underneath a block and unable to respond, you should not taunt them and make them more upset, more likely to repeat their behavior and cause more disruption. Your behavior has been uncivil toward her, and Vituzzu agrees and has warned you above. I doubt you can provide evidence to refute that claim, nor find many supporters to try to do so. And trying to deflect criticism toward me for some other matter does not provide you with a get-out-of-jail-free card either. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really like the weekly TeleComNasSprVen/Abd disputes, but I doubt blocks will help. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Closed Closed To what seems incessant bickering with each of you, try to separate, learn to appreciate difference, allow them to have an opinion, and stop arguing over over over and over again. If you need to say something, try to get it said once, and move on.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment

This page has really degenerated with editors not signing posts and removing and replaces other editor's comments. There are also numerous personal attacks towards other users. The page is so big I can't keep track of it. Could we deal with this? Techman224Talk 07:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And delete's translations. Techman224Talk 08:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Closed Closed appears resolve.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark for translation: Legal and Community Advocacy/Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline

I need from a sysop with translation-admin rights to mark for translation the protected page Legal and Community Advocacy/Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline, and also add a <languages/> in the beginning of the page. Thanks. --Zerabat (discusión) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done although the translation markup is not written as recommended. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark for translation: Wikimedia Argentina/Open letter regarding URAA

Hello again. I need a translation admin to mark Wikimedia Argentina/Open letter regarding URAA for translation. The page is stable and ready for translation. Thanks. --Zerabat (discusión) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Rschen7754 03:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ToU CentralNotice translations

What needs to be done so that somebody notices the list of translations of Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/ChangeToU2014_v1 waiting for approval, and replaces the English version with the long-waiting translations in those languages? Or, is there any CentralNotice admin noticeboard? --Mormegil (cs) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for a different CN admin noticeboard, this one works just fine. :-) I don't really want to mark each translation as published right now, as it is tedious. Maybe you can contact someone from the WMF (or a less busy admin) to help? Really, the person who creates the banner (WMF staff) should be the one to do this. Note to admins: You can go to Special:Translate, select the right group, set translation group status as "published", and it will automatically edit the MediaWiki messages with the Centralnotice-*. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I published all the ones marked "ready" except /bg which seems wrong. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
(As per the “contact someone from the WMF” – that was my point: is there a centralized place they watch? I would assume the author should always monitor “his/her” CN campaigns and manage them accordingly, but it doesn’t seem to be the case...)
--Mormegil (cs) 15:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Could you blocked user Russavia? [12]. Are the vulgarisms and obscenities accepted? Best wishes --Piotr967 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is no personal attack. It's like saying "Fuck yeah" or "Yeah, bitch". Certainly not enough for a block, IMO. Please correct me if I am wrong. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sporadic vulgarities are not worth any sanction, maybe just worth an invite to use a proper language in very public contexts but no sanctions at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by that sort of language. @Piotr967: In the future, can you please start a dialogue between you and the person who offended you instead of going straight to the "request for help" board? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming on a request for help board if you're requesting help, which this user was. Snowolf How can I help? 18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Piotr967 was requesting a block, not help. Russavia isn't popular among Polish users. Russavia was involved in the EEML dispute and the Polandball dispute at enwiki. Piotr967 is one of Russavia's enemies. Piotr967 is here to have someone that he or she dislikes banned, not to resolve a dispute. That is why Piotr967 came straight to this page instead of starting a dialogue with Russavia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not lead a dialogue with Russavia about vulgarisms or each over who use vulgarisms. I saw the obvious vulgarism by Russavia, so I submitted this vulgarism to sysops. I was sure that vulgarism or obscenities are not accepted in Wikimedia discussions (see [13]). Now I have read your opinions and I know that I was wrong. Vulgarism are accepted in Wikimedia. OK. that this is not a project for me. --Piotr967 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong but the discussion has no reasons to go on. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)