Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2017-10

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 October 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

This section was archived on a request by: --Base (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this IP's translations are not helpful. Is there a way for me to quickly revert? Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems that Billinghurst has deleted them. Well, with Translate vandalism it is a bit tricky. In case of vandalism of existing translations all the edits in Translations namespace can be reverted and that's it, but in case of new "translations" created only deletion of those can help. You can substitute vandalism for English text or translation (if you have the command of the language in question) though. You should also prefix it with !!FUZZY!! so that it would be shown in translation statistics as outdated translation. --07:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

CentralNotice/Request/2017 Wiki Conference Russia

This is to request activation of three CentralNotice/Request/2017 Wiki Conference Russia related banners via Special:CentralNotice & a non-controversial minor tweak in case of WikiConferenceRussia2017_ru to set for all countries, except Ukraine (per discussion) or otherwise, as appropriate. Thank you. --Frhdkazan (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Base (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Report concerning Karll4718

Karll4718 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: continually removes correct information on election pages. Never gives reason. All edits are of progressive candidates.,_2018 Marym625 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Marym625, this is Meta-Wiki, Meta-Wiki admins cannot help you here, the user has 0 edits here. You need to report this on English Wikipedia (not being an active contributor there I do not know where the right place would be). --Base (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

IP created disruptive RfC, argues tendentiously, and reverted move of off-topic demand to Talk, demanding this be reserved for admins. filed a global ban RfC against a user, formerly a Commons sysop and checkuser. The user then argued tendentiously against contrary opinions, in one case demanding that a user supply evidence as to the (reasonable) suspicion voiced -- the IP is admitting socking for fear of retribution, a common excuse. The suspicious user had already declined to communicate further. So I moved that portion of the discussion to Talk, as it is largely irrelevant to the RfC itself, which is not an RfC on the IP. The user restored it, with this edit summary, my emphasis:

(→‎Request for speedy closure: Rv unsubstantiated deletion, please leave it to Meta admins to delete/manipulate comments of other contributors.)

Hence this request. Moving off-topic discussion to Talk is a common practice. Far from being "unsubstantiated," my edit summary was "moving off-topic argument to Talk" and the Talk replacement was simultaneous. It was not "deletion." If the move was improper, a user should discuss it on Talk, and/or someone else should move it back. This was an IP revert warring with an established user, adding disruption to disruption. The discussion is now possibly forked as a result, for (as the other user responded on Talk.). Please examine and act as appropriate. Perhaps semi-protecting the RfC would be minimally disruptive. A global ban discussion should not be founded by, nor based on anonymous arguments. The Talk page could remain open. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it is out of "jurisdiction" of Meta-admins and 'crats. Global RfC such as that one is something Stewards should decide about, ongoing page disputes included. I am not sure if all global accounts have an account on Meta. If they have than semiprotection might be a good option (though again I would leave it up to the Stews to decide whether anons are welcome there). If not, then that would mean that relevant users from invited communities might not be autoconfirmed on Meta yet. --Base (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Base. I don't know about autoconfirmation cross-wiki. If Talk page access is left open, any user (including IP) could comment on Talk and any other user, locally autoconfirmed, could move it to the RfC. The real issue bringing this here is behavioral, of the IP on the RfC, revert-warring without discussion. I was not about to restore my edit, insisting on the appropriateness of my own action. If I did that, I'd expect to be warned, if not short-blocked immediately. The projects are collaborative, and the IP is not.--Abd (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I have enough of this discussion in multiple places. You or may not like the process that has been undertaken. INC may have held those roles with positions of trust, the issue wold be that he trashed them, not us. He undertook behaviour that many of us found unconscionable, and he admitted to that behaviour. The user is entitled to make the request and the community will deal with it. It is not your place to ride another horse and turn this into a damn joust. Let it go, the community is wise and experienced enough to deal with its affairs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I'm disappointed. This request has nothing to do with INC. This discussion is not anywhere else. It is about specific IP behavior in the RfC, revert warring, behavior that might ordinarily be recognized as disruptive. The IP user essentially demanded administrative attention, so, instead of revert warring, I brought it here. I was done with it, but apparently you are not, I'm sorry to see that I'm led to repeat back to you, let the community deal with its affairs, and please don't confuse this request with more irrelevancies. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Your complete commentary would indicate differently. "disruptive", "tendentiously" ... Your actions after your commentary got the expected reaction. A neutral person doing it may not have got that reaction. I do not believe that there is anything to do here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for help for the following actions:

As proposed by @Mys 721tx:, I would request for the following actions being done in order to facilitate better structure of the problem currently.

  1. Delete Requests for comment/Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia
  2. Undelete all versions before 17307679 of the above-mentioned page.
  3. Move Requests for comment/Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia to Requests for comment/Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia/Previous Comments without redirection.
  4. Undelete the remaining versions (after 17307679) of Requests for comment/Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia.

Sorry for all the mistakes that I have made about links regarding this problem.--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 17:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Don't worry about the mistakes :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Meta:Example is linked from the site notice everywhere

Currently Meta:Example is linked from the site notice of every Wikimedia site.

Even though that's probably a mistake, it's making the page so highly visible that it probably needs emergency protection (as would be usual for other highly visible pages). ais523 (w:en:) 05:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Followup: it looks like the sitenotice has been "fixed" so that it acts like a link but clicking on it doesn't do anything. I guess that's an improvement, if not much of one, and means that protection is less likely to be necessary now. ais523 (w:en:) 05:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Foundation staff should be more careful when setting highly visible banners... The message came from MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-Genericmaintenancenotice. Stryn (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection request

for Enlightenement of Ybarro + Ybarro and their talk pages as well. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then the vandal will just choose other pages to vandalize. Better to place long range blocks for those Philippinese IP's as there is not coming more than vandalism. Stryn (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: This vandal fellow is My Royal Young (MRY), see this en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC has been open for 30 days

Wondering on next steps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Am I worth the patroller right? most of what I've done has been reverting stuff. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 01:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Granted :) --Base (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Patroller flag

I'm invited by Base at my talk page. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalization of en:Dagga Couple talk page to hide evidence of COI & Promo / Report concerning Robvanvee

Robvanvee (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: User with COI removes evidence of his deliberate WP-PROMO see MickeyDangerez (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

MickeyDangerez, hi, could you report this on English Wikipedia? This seem to have nothing to do with this wiki: Meta-Wiki. --Base (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


Spam?Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at this point, they have linked existing images at Commons on a subject to their meta page. Definitely would never rule it out.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to remove edits

Since the edits in question are of a slanderous nature, I would like to request that a Meta-admin emails me to discuss the matter. Best, Braveheart (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection 2

As promised by an LTA, attack on me and my user pages continues. See [1] for a granted semiprotection request on my user talk page. This sock family (currently there is a checkuser request) continues to attack study toward showing long-term abuse patterns, preparing for a global ban request and/or vandalism report. Many of these users are already locked. One active today has already been locked without any request. Please semiprotect, cascading protection to subpages if possible, and please include talk pages.

  • User:Abd/LTA; I am not listing the subpages, to reduce privacy concerns, but they should also be semiprotected. I may be pinged from other pages, but abuse will be reported and/or data collected. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • See revert warring (with a steward, even!) on this page history. (the latest user is complaining about what is not an accusation but a note that an account was not checked. If the user would slow down, I will confirm that removal, leaving that for later study to be included if appropriate. The account complaining, though, is almost certainly not that user -- or, in fact, that user was a sock -- or meat puppet -- as suspected on Wikipedia).

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (by me and a few others), though I am inclined to think there's no benefit in keeping any of those pages on meta-wiki. Prolific vandals do seek attention as a way of rewarding their disruption. You'd better deny recognition. Simple as that. RadiX 22:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This is not a simple attention-seeking vandal, this is a user with a long term content bias agenda, including related personal revenge against anyone who frustrates that agenda, and claiming affiliation with a large Wikipedia faction (which is not necessarily responsible for him). The user is attempting to prevent study of his behavior, through harassment on and off wiki, and has created massive confusion on Wikipedia (and some on Wikiversity) with impersonation socks leading to sanctions against other users, or long-term revert warring, again leading to sanctions against targeted users. I understand and generally agree with w:WP:Deny.
There can be exceptions and the study is little different from w:WP:Sock puppet investigations or w:WP:LTA, as the goal is to identify long term behavior (not, by the way, the real identity, which is irrelevant here). There are, in fact, other users who have been framed by this user's behavior, or trolled into sanctioned behavior, and the study may find these and thus, long-term, reduce damage. In any case, protecting the pages will likely reduce disruption, so that is greatly appreciated, and I apologize for the trouble, but this user is attempting to bully by creating massive socks. When the study is done (which will take time), it will be edited into permanent form and become a formal -- and open -- request or documentation supporting abuse identification. It will not remain in my user space forever. I am also open to assistance, correction and advice. Again, thanks.--Abd (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I would comment that Abd is a blocked user at English Wikipedia, and needs to divorce themself from the politics of that site. It is not healthy to have that level of involvement when blocked. Further, keeping of such pages is known to be problematic, especially where they are built by surmise and without clear evidence. False positives can cause harm to the mis-identified users. Do what you want at home on your PC, but metawiki is not the place for guess analysis. I believe that the pages should be deleted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Further to that, Abd is community banned at enWP. Reason: Community banned per [2] and I do not believe that we should be supporting Abd in this action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I said before, I think there's no benefit in hosting any of those pages on Meta-Wiki as they do seem to attract more disruption to the project. Further, it's worth mentioning that they may not comply with our inclusion policy, regardless of whether their author is under any sanction elsewhere. Also, I think Abd could consider storing that content at another place if he still wish to work on it. RadiX 19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection

Can someone semiprotect my talk page here, as it's under attack from the socks of Virajmishra (talk · contribs) whose socks have already been globally locked by Ruslik0, he's now using IPs on meta as we keep blocking him on en and Commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
:This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed status for bot users DschwenBot, QICbot, VICbot

Hi all. Could a sysop please give my commons bot accounts confirmed status so that I can get register them as OAuth consumers. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dschwen. I can take care of this. However DschwenBot is blocked at Wikimedia Commons, and nor QICbot nor VICbot are exists at Meta-Wiki, so you'll need to log-in to those accounts in Commons and visit Meta-Wiki to so they get autocreated here. Otherwise I won't be able to assign any permissions to them. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
QICbot reporting for duty! Beep boop! --QICbot (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
VICbot reporting for duty! Boop beep! --VICbot (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
DschwenBot is rolling over to maintenance to get its gears in order. --DschwenBot (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty. I fixed the issue that led to the DschwenBot block and I'm confident that the bot will be unblocked again soon. Thanks for offering to help MarcoAurelio! --Dschwen (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Bot is unblocked. --Dschwen (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Dschwen. Thanks for the above. I've flagged the three bots as confirmed for one week so you can register the OAuth consumers. Hope that this is enough time (until they get autoconfirmed automatically), otherwise feel free to ask again and I'll have no problems to regrant or extend the permission should the need arise. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Report concerning (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: excessive vandalism Esteban16 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

They have now stopped. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to start translation to Basque

Hi! I and another Basque wikipedian are about to start translating Training_modules/dashboard/slides from EN to EU, so I think I need a permission by a bureaucrat. I got to Translation_requests and saw the column with pages to translate, should I just go there and choose the Training module I want to translate? This was talked about between Theklan and @Ragepss in Phabricator. Could you guide me? Thanks --Iñaki LL (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Those pages need to be marked for translation first. Ruslik (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Is that enough then if they are listed in the table, if I understand? --Iñaki LL (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal information

Could a sysop or bureaucrat please close this RFC. It has been running for 3 weeks, which is long enough for most points of view to be expressed. Unfortunately it contains inappropriate personal information about the subject, and equally inappropriate comments about mental health. Given the context comments like this are disrespectful in general for mental health issues. In other circumstances, effectively badgering a user by expressing disbelief in their health problems, and then others using those supporting details as a justification to support a block, would be considered harassment and result in warnings for abuse. Though a subject may choose to disclose their health status, making public this level of personal detail about medical problems is inappropriate, and an irrelevant use of the project which may cause later distress or damage. Unlike a personal blog, the writer is not in a position to remove these details from the archives.

I suggest that as well as closing the RFC, it is blanked as a courtesy. Anyone wanting to research the RFC in the case of later disputes or unblock requests, will be able to review the history, but at least the personal details will have a reduced internet footprint. Thanks -- (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Closed, though I do not feel comfortable blanking the whole RFC without community consent. We could selectively blank personal components that do not specifically relate to the reason to ban or not ban.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see selective blanking, though this is the sort of thing I would expect as an administrative call, rather than yet another vote. There can be a note at the top to state it's happened. At the end of the day it's not suppression but a question of respect, so nobody need claim anything is being hidden.
By the way, given the circumstances, this is better done without it relying on a request from the subject (either way). Thanks -- (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If the commentary in question had not been from the protagonist as defence and in a plea for clemency, and had instead solely been user commentary, then my approach may have differed. On this matter, I am not asking for a vote, I am putting my thoughts out there, and waiting for any extreme/thoughtful statements, in either direction, or silence of indifference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand why you may have no sympathy for the subject. Please keep in mind that how this RFC is handled may be a case study for appropriate treatment of these issues on meta and other projects. No doubt you agree that respectful and cautious treatment of assertions about the mental state or medical history of contributors applies to everyone, not as a privilege for contributors in good standing. Thanks -- (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Autopatroller right for User:مصعب

Hi. I would like to request autopatroller right for مصعب (talk · contribs). He is a trusted member of the Arabic Wikipedia community with ~150k edits globally and adminship on arwiki, arwiktionary and arwikisource. Thanks in advance. --Meno25 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)