Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2016-04

My user page

Hi, could you please protect my user page from anonims. Cheers. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC).

Done Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 10:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange rangeblock fail?

Why can Special:Contributions/62.212.73.246 post vandalism here, when it should be covered by a global rangeblock "15:01, 18 November 2015: Pmlineditor (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 62.212.64.0/19 (expires on 18 November 2016 at 15:01, anonymous only)"? What am I missing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Global block has no effect on Meta-Wiki. Need to be blocked locally here as well. --Stryn (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Learn something new every day. Thanks to everybody who handled it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 11:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

RfTA closure

Hello. Can a bureaucrat close this RfTA which is more than a week old? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 09:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 23:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 11:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Mass Message Sender Right

I'm actively organizing annual online as well offline programmes in maiwiki and newiki. For examples: last month Women Edit-a-thon 2016, sampada-edit-a-thon, Wiki-edit-a-thon etc. and in coming 15 april 2016 Wikiproject Data-a-thon 2016 will be organized for whole month. So, This right helps me alot to deliver various news and updates of the events. I will inform u as soon as possible if i don't need this right anymore. Thanks, TBhagat (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tulsi Bhagat: Hi, you have sysop rights at maiwiki and newiki so you can to send mass messages on this two wikis, do you need sending mass messages on another wiki? Syum90 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Syum90: Hi ! Yes Plz, most of editors are active here on meta as well in other wikiprojects. They are interested to get updates from us there on other projects. I'll also invite editors from collabrative communities for eg: bhwiki, hiwiki, pawiki, etc. for online and offline workshops, edit-a-thons etc. --TBhagat (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please be careful when using this tool and let us to know when you no longer need it.--Syum90 (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

StewardVote

I did the translation of MediaWiki:StewardVote/en, but I don't have permission to edit Mediawiki namespace. Can any sysop help me :

1. Move User:Stang/MediaWiki:StewardVote/zh-hans to MediaWiki:StewardVote/zh-hans, as well as User:Stang/MediaWiki:StewardVote/zh-hant to MediaWiki:StewardVote/zh-hant;
2. Edit page User:Hoo_man/stewardVote.js from

// To add a new translation create a page like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:StewardVote/en and add the new language to the var below
   availableLangs: ['en', 'de', 'de-ch', 'de-at', 'de-formal', 'el', 'es', 'fa', 'fi', 'fr', 'it', 'bg', 'bn', 'id', 'ka', 'nl', 'pl', 'pt', 'ru', 'sr', 'ta', 'tr', 'uk'],

to

// To add a new translation create a page like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:StewardVote/en and add the new language to the var below
   availableLangs: ['en', 'de', 'de-ch', 'de-at', 'de-formal', 'el', 'es', 'fa', 'fi', 'fr', 'it', 'bg', 'bn', 'id', 'ka', 'nl', 'pl', 'pt', 'ru', 'sr', 'ta', 'tr', 'uk', 'zh-hans', 'zh-hant'],

Thanks in advanced.--Stang 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Done masti <talk> 12:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a task for local admins to me, but oh well, looks uncontroversial. Matiia (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of sockpuppetry

I would like to update the community about recent findings I have witnessed and I think are worth of community knowledge. Background of the case can be found here and here. I wasn't sure until Ktr101 mentioned yesterday that he suspected Arifys and AYST201 might be sockpuppets. Technical evidence suggest a relationship between Krisplumutan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate), AYST201 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate) and Arifys (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate), at least, if behavioural were not sufficient. Not only this user has tried to deceive us once, self-blocking his account and comming here to trigger the emergency switch while pretending to be a totally innocent user, but now he's trying to do the same. He's continued his hat-collecting spree with multiple accounts, requesting translation administrator rights and lately global IP block exempt, I think that the community should consider blocking Krisplumutan (talk · contribs) and AYST201 (talk · contribs) and also Arifys (talk · contribs), for this deceiving activities although I'd not object if Arifys is given another chance if he says the truth and discloses all the accounts he's used, refrains from further sockpuppetry in the future and restricts to one account, considers stopping his hat-collecting spree and of course, publicy apologies for this and previous incidents. —MarcoAurelio 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that we should block two of the accounts (and any other remaining ones for that matter), as this whole thing is a mess. I woke up this morning to see all of the messages and counter-messages that the user left on this site, and my first thought was, "What the heck?" I see no reason why they should be allowed to operate three (or more) accounts, as one account would suffice. Furthermore, I suspect that they will just create more accounts if one is blocked, so we should keep an eye on them in the coming months. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This was simply pathetic. Pretending to be two different persons still this very morning. I have indefblocked Krisplumutan and AYST201, and have left Arifys unblocked so he could comment here in case he wants to, unless the community desires something different. —MarcoAurelio 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As AYST201 is still active on some sites, it might actually be better to keep that one unblocked, but I'll defer to your judgment on this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I was on my way to block the lot of them after this nonsense on my talk page. Technically they are the same, and the behavioural evidence clearly confirms that. I have no qualms with one of the accounts being left unblocked. This case extends far past meta, so we should consider global action against them as well, or at least notifying the projects on which this user is active. I can look into this case in more detail later today. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already created a sockpuppet investigation here on the English Wikipedia, although it has stalled due to lack of evidence. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Is there any way we can revoke AYS's talk page access, per this? They are not only reverting us, but are denying the link we found, to the point where I think something is very off with the user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting ridiculous. I've changed the indef block to the other account, and re-blocked AYST201 for two weeks with no talk page access, given that is the account he is currently using. Maybe after that time, they'll come back and stop wasting our time. I've checked and re-checked to see if there is *any* possibility that these aren't the same people - there just simply isn't. They have checked every single box I would ever look for. Enough is enough, for now at least. Also, MA, please modify the blocks however you see fit. I technically did edit your action there, but I'm not trying to wheel-war I swear :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ktr101 and Ajraddatz: Thanks both. I see that Ajr and Az1568 took care of this. I agree on the switch of the indefblock as well from AYST to Arifys. I'm for as well for global lock of the other accounts. And of course Arj no issues with you actions, thank you for your help. —MarcoAurelio 12:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have alerted the Indonesian Wiki of this, so that they can take action as well. Not surprisingly, they are running for some right, so I guess they are a serial hat collector as well. I would also not oppose a global lock, if anyone wanted to propose doing that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted Krisplumutan global rename, performed by @Xeno (sorry). Same behaviour as Arifys performed when was desysopped and vandalized Meta. I have globally locked the account to prevent further disruption and I'd also suggest investigating this sudden increase of renames at map-bms, although it might be just autocreated accounts and we should not go fishing. —MarcoAurelio 12:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had checked the CentralAuth page. Must have missed it. –xeno 13:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And not only that, Arifys also made another account rename request a few moments ago. RadiX∞ 05:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Arifys (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) should be locked too, if he continues to abuse the rename system. —MarcoAurelio 07:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've left that account and the other unlocked on a talk page message, to make that clear to them. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that they left a message on Outreach indicating that they no longer want to be associated with Wikipedia because they view their name as being tainted. Regardless, I think this person is showing a concerning level of issues, to the point where they might continue to pop up and create new names in the view that they still would be able to operate under fresh names. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reguyla

Hello,

In an effort to prevent more abuse, I am requesting that Reguyla have his auto-patrolled right removed. He is using other WMF projects to get around his community ban on the ENWP. Per ajr, there is currently a discussion between the stewards regarding a global lock.

Thanks, TJH2018 talk 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Being banned from enwiki doesn't bar one from watching or commenting on ongoings at enwiki. Meta shouldn't punish people for expressing opinions about enwiki. In addition, I insist that any attempt to globally remove Reguyla be done through community processes, not through Steward-only discussions behind closed doors. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A removal would not serve any purpose. In my opinion, this request can be regarded as rejected (unless an other admin thinks otherwise). --Vogone (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, resolved. I left Reguyla a reminder yesterday that meta exists for reasons other than criticising his various bans. There is also no discussion among the stewards about locking him, but we are aware of the current cross-wiki issues. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Abuse? Really? What's revoking my autopatrolled really going to do? Nothing! It's a fairly useless permission but if you really want to revoke my autopatrolled right go ahead, It's not really that big of an issue frankly. The only abuse is being done by admins threatening and bullying editors without oversight.

It's also interesting to me that this new user who has only been editing the WMF projects for about 2 months, seems to know so much about Meta, Commons, Wikipedia and the autopatrolled right. In 2 months? Really? How is it they know so much about navigating these projects and these procedures in such a short time. My guess is, this user was previously someone else and came back...but that's my guess based on the DUCK test.

The reason I continue to complain about my EnWP ban, is because it was only able to get in place by people willing to violate policy to get it and has been kept in place the same way. I have been frustrated by the fact that so many admins are willing to look the other way at those policy violations to help silence a critic but are so unwilling to do the right thing and unblock me. My ban was done for the sole reason of silencing a critic because I have been advocating for years that the admins on the WMF wiki's should have to actually follow the same policies they enforce on editors. Some of them do not want that because, of course, it does not benefit them to have to follow policy and be held accountable. I will not, ever, accept a ban that was placed on me by POV pushers and corrupt admins who should have been blocked from the site themselves. I will not, ever, follow a ban that was only implemented by people who violated policy to get it so they could show the community what happens when they criticize admins. Threatening me into forcing me to comply with a ban that has violated policy since it was started, only proves my point, not yours.

I know the Stewards are secretly discussing a global block that I am not allowed to comment on. None have asked me for my comments or my side of the story because they do not care. The deck is as they say stacked against me. I am not allowed to comment in my own defense and even if I were they wouldn't include it anyway. It is nothing more than a kangaroo court to help a few problematic sysops and if the Stewards really wanted to do the right thing, which the majority obviously don't it seems, they would vote to revoke the ban that was placed on me in ENWP through lying and policy violations. If they do not have the authority to do the right thing, then they don't have the authority to enforce an unnecessary abusive thing either and I see no reason why I should follow it.

I know an unblock isn't going to happen however, because building an encyclopedia isn't as important as showing the communities who is in charge and what happens if they criticize abusive admin behavior. Behavior that has been allowed to continue unchecked for years because neither the WMF nor the Stewards have any desire to perform oversight of the admins on the projects like they should be. Editors, no matter how dedicated and high output they are, are viewed as expendable commodities and are second class citizens next to admins in the eyes of even the WMF and that is why there is so much trouble on these sites with recruiting editors, attrition, trust and respect. It starts at the top. If the Stewards and the WMF don't respect the sites editors enough to police the admins and allow them to threaten and bully editors, then they don't deserve to be where they are. They would rather allow admins the freedom to harass, insult or threaten users because it's easier than doing the right thing. Because showing leadership requires strength and moral courage and it's easier to allow the admins to function with impunity and without oversight than to do the right thing. Reguyla (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, even though things are not perfect, there is not a conspiracy behind everything and everyone. This section is resolved. I would appreciate it if the conversations are not being split and remain at a singe place. Thank you, --Vogone (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, how could I be another user? The only reason you are going after me is that what I'm saying makes sense. Just because I'm a teen doesn't mean I'm stupid. So don't go after me. Once you drag me in, I'm here to stay. If you can't accept the decision made by the community (and don't say the community is a bunch of POV pushers unless you have proof), then go away. Respect the authority, and then maybe we wouldn't be here. Second, in the six months since you've been blocked, how many times have you created socks and then gone after those who blocked you just because you don't accept their decision? This seems like a lot of abuse and disruption to me. Maybe you should wait a year and come back when you are less of a POV pusher. Please just leave the ENWP alone, and come back in twelve months. Please. --TJH2018 talk 18:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018 What your saying makes no sense at all unless you are trying to find petty excuses to harass me. You have falsely accusing me of vandalism multiple times when I haven't done any vandalism. You did that on three sites now. So either you really don't know what vandalism is or you are lying, so which is it? Every edit I have done for years has been positive. It's you and a couple others who don't know any better supporting admins like Courcelles and Favonian who don't think policy should apply to them that are creating the disruption. When you revert positive contributions out of spite because it's me it's nothing more than vandalism through policy.

it doesn't matter how many times I am blocked or reverted, I am going to continue to do what I have done since 2006 and what the projects are all about, which is to improve articles and the projects. As you put it, I am here to stay, whether you revert my edits or not, whether I am banned or not. I am not going to honor or respect a ban that was only created though violations of policy by people who don't care about those policies. Criminals don't follow the law and these admins aren't going to follow policy as long as the WMF and others let them get away with it. I am going to continue to edit and create new accounts if need be until my account is unblocked and then I will use it. I am not going to be bullied or threatened into submission by people who violated policy to get their way. That only enables their behavior and they'll do it again and again in the future. If I get globally locked for fighting for equal rights for editors and that admins should have to follow the rules they enforce then so be it. But I am not going to just shut up and go away because some admin violated policy to get a ban in place on me or because some new editor with a dozen edits who has only edited for 2 months wants to make a name for themselves. Normally I am the one fighting for better treatment of new editors but you are trying my nerves.

For clarification, my ban was initiated because a couple people who kept resubmitting over and over until they got one to finally stick, then the community overturned it and a couple people who opposed it decided to have a new discussion to undo the community decision, then I was unblocked again later and that agreement was undone by the same people that undid the second one after forum shopping and after blocking me so I couldn't participate in the discussion. And these people harass and intimidate and hound anyone who supported me in those discussions. Then there was the trolling of those discussions by admins and arbs and the DIVA quit by Floquenbeam to help sway it in favor of banning. Joe Jobbing, falsely accusing me of things I didn't do, and on and on. There have been so many policy violations to get and keep my ban, that I have absolutely no reason to trust they would honor it even if I followed it. They would just tell me no and come back in another year, then another and then another.

I am well aware of how socking is perceived, but if that is the only way I can edit because some bullies are trying to intimidate me into leaving Wikipedia because they don't want to follow policy, then that's what I am going to do. The very second my account is unblocked as it should have been years ago, I will stop creating new accounts to improve Wikipedia. Until then and as long as my ban is in place, I intend to continue

So if the Stewards, admins, Arbitrators and even the WMF want to create a disruption by keeping an unnecessary ban in place just so they can justify vandalizing my edits, support abusive admins and show the community what happens when they advocate admins be required to follow the rules then fine. But it should be pretty obvious just by looking at my edits on any account I have used for the last several years and by my record I am not just going to give up and go away even if they do global ban me. I'll continue to edit positively to improve the projects and if they revert them then they are doing so knowing they are reverting positive contributions that benefit the projects. Bans and blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. My ban on EnWP is vindictive! Reguyla (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you both please stop carrying your personal conflicts to this page? It's completely OT and talk pages do exist. Thank you. --Vogone (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I really have no desire to talk to them so if they don't talk to me I won't talk to them. They clearly aren't here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia so I have no time for their shenanigans. As Floquenbeam has told several users over the years, I recommend they STFU and go back over to EnWP. Normally I wouldn't say stuff like that but since that is how admins are allowed to communicate to annoying users and since things are equal as you indicated above it should be fine right? Reguyla (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TJH2018 talk 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Middle Ground

Here's something that methinks will please everyone. Block me and him for a week from Meta to let both of us cool down. I think that's fair and just. --TJH2018 talk 02:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How about you act like an adult and drop it. I'm only responding to you. And just FYI, it's usually considered bad form to Forum shop. Reguyla (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I hope you will be able to even without a block since this is not a matter of punishment. --Vogone (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that a block would end your obsession. It might even compound it. After that hypothetical week of being blocked passes, you'll likely still have Reguyla on your mind. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys may think that this is obsession, but it is doing what all the admins and ArbCom don't have the time to do...--TJH2018 talk 15:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please. That comment is all the more evidence you are a sock. A 2 month old editor shouldn't even know what the Arbcom is let alone know how busy they are. And I have done more to improve Wikipedia than you will ever do! The only thing you are doing is wasting peoples time. Reguyla (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TJH2018 talk 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Request Semi protect Wikipedia to the Moon‎‎

I recommend someone semi protect the Wikipedia to the Moon‎‎ page. It's a vandalism magnet at the moment. Reguyla (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you sir!Reguyla (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mass message from WMI

Hi y'all, On behalf of the Wikimedia Italy committee for the travel grant "Alessio Guidetti" I would like to send a mass message on different it-N platforms and also to it-N users on "meta" level platforms. I have prepared the lists in User:Alexmar983/MassMessageList, you can check the quarry sources too. Who can help me?

Some users will get the message two or even three times, I can fix that although if a user is more active there's no problem from my point of view of being informed more than once. And it is not an annoying spam.

I will also prepare a final list specific for itwikipedia users, but there are more names and it won't be today. If you are more comfortable with it, I can remove duplicates from that list.

Thanks in advance. I'm on line for the next 3-4 hours if you any question ping me. I am double checking the list to remove bots.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: What is the status of this? As far i can see it has been handled locally. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter I am waiting for the final answer from 2-3 projects (such as it.wikictionary, it.wikiuqote), but if they don't answer I will do manually. So don't worry, a biggest part of the work (data, commons, itwikipedia) is done. At this point it would just be confusing. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE

Hi, I would like to use the template {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for aesthetic reasons but it doesn't work. Is here some one to give me a hand ? Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie} 17:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to use it on this wiki or another one? Does that template already exist on that wiki? Reguyla (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You could try {{PAGENAME}} instead. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think $wgRestrictDisplayTitle is set to true on this wiki, so you can only make changes that don't affect the normalized page title, such as replacing spaces with underscores (_) or making the first letter lowercase. There may be a workaround using CSS. I don't remember. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)