User talk:Snowolf/2014

Changing User Name

The following discussion is marked as answered (user was already advised by Glaisher to limit their requests to m:SRUC). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi I want changing my user name

Oldname = لطرش احمد الهاشمي

Newname = لطرش أحمد الهاشمي

confirmation = difference request

reason = i want the same name in all Wikimedia project except the active local bureaucrat in this page

here is a list of account:

1. ab.wikipedia.org
2. ace.wikipedia.org
3. af.wikipedia.org
4. af.wikibooks.org
5. af.wikiquote.org
6. af.wiktionary.org
7. ak.wikipedia.org
8. als.wikipedia.org
9. am.wikipedia.org
10. am.wiktionary.org
11. ang.wikipedia.org
12. ang.wikibooks.org
13. ang.wiktionary.org
14. an.wikipedia.org
15. an.wiktionary.org
16. arc.wikipedia.org
17. ar.wikibooks.org
18. ar.wikimedia.org
19. arz.wikipedia.org
20. ast.wikipedia.org
21. ast.wiktionary.org
22. as.wikipedia.org
23. as.wikisource.org
24. av.wikipedia.org
25. ay.wikipedia.org
26. ay.wiktionary.org
27. az.wikipedia.org
28. az.wikibooks.org
29. az.wikiquote.org
30. az.wikisource.org
31. az.wiktionary.org
32. bar.wikipedia.org
33. bat-smg.wikipedia.org
34. ba.wikipedia.org
35. bcl.wikipedia.org
36. be-x-old.wikipedia.org
37. be.wikipedia.org
38. be.wikibooks.org
39. be.wikiquote.org
40. be.wikisource.org
41. be.wiktionary.org
42. bg.wikipedia.org
43. bg.wikibooks.org
44. bg.wikinews.org
45. bg.wikiquote.org
46. bg.wikisource.org
47. bg.wiktionary.org
48. bh.wikipedia.org
49. bi.wikipedia.org
50. bjn.wikipedia.org
51. bm.wikipedia.org
52. bn.wikipedia.org
53. bn.wikibooks.org
54. bn.wikisource.org
55. bn.wiktionary.org
56. bo.wikipedia.org
57. bpy.wikipedia.org
58. br.wikipedia.org
59. br.wikimedia.org
60. br.wikiquote.org
61. br.wikisource.org
62. bs.wikibooks.org
63. bs.wikinews.org
64. bs.wikiquote.org
65. bs.wikisource.org
66. bs.wiktionary.org
67. bug.wikipedia.org
68. bxr.wikipedia.org
69. ca.wikibooks.org
70. ca.wikinews.org
71. ca.wikiquote.org
72. ca.wikisource.org
73. ca.wiktionary.org
74. cbk-zam.wikipedia.org
75. cdo.wikipedia.org
76. ceb.wikipedia.org
77. ce.wikipedia.org
78. chr.wikipedia.org
79. chr.wiktionary.org
80. ch.wikipedia.org
81. chy.wikipedia.org
82. ckb.wikipedia.org
83. commons.wikimedia.org
84. co.wikipedia.org
85. co.wikimedia.org
86. co.wiktionary.org
87. crh.wikipedia.org
88. cr.wikipedia.org
89. csb.wikipedia.org
90. csb.wiktionary.org
91. cs.wikipedia.org
92. cs.wikibooks.org
93. cs.wikinews.org
94. cs.wikiquote.org
95. cs.wikisource.org
96. cs.wikiversity.org
97. cs.wiktionary.org
98. cu.wikipedia.org
99. cv.wikipedia.org
100. cv.wikibooks.org
101. cy.wikipedia.org
102. cy.wikibooks.org
103. cy.wikiquote.org
104. cy.wikisource.org
105. cy.wiktionary.org
106. da.wikipedia.org
107. da.wikibooks.org
108. da.wikiquote.org
109. da.wikisource.org
110. da.wiktionary.org
111. de.wikipedia.org
112. de.wikibooks.org
113. de.wikinews.org
114. de.wikiquote.org
115. de.wikisource.org
116. de.wikiversity.org
117. de.wikivoyage.org
118. diq.wikipedia.org
119. dk.wikimedia.org
120. dsb.wikipedia.org
121. dv.wikipedia.org
122. dv.wiktionary.org
123. dz.wikipedia.org
124. ee.wikipedia.org
125. el.wikipedia.org
126. el.wikibooks.org
127. el.wikinews.org
128. el.wikiquote.org
129. el.wikisource.org
130. el.wikiversity.org
131. el.wikivoyage.org
132. el.wiktionary.org
133. eml.wikipedia.org
134. en.wikibooks.org
135. en.wikinews.org
136. en.wikiquote.org
137. en.wikisource.org
138. en.wikiversity.org
139. en.wikivoyage.org
140. en.wiktionary.org
141. eo.wikipedia.org
142. eo.wikibooks.org
143. eo.wikinews.org
144. eo.wikiquote.org
145. eo.wikisource.org
146. eo.wiktionary.org
147. es.wikibooks.org
148. es.wikiquote.org
149. es.wikisource.org
150. es.wikiversity.org
151. es.wikivoyage.org
152. et.wikipedia.org
153. et.wikibooks.org
154. et.wikimedia.org
155. et.wikiquote.org
156. et.wikisource.org
157. et.wiktionary.org
158. eu.wikipedia.org
159. eu.wikibooks.org
160. eu.wikiquote.org
161. eu.wiktionary.org
162. ext.wikipedia.org
163. fa.wikipedia.org
164. fa.wikibooks.org
165. fa.wikinews.org
166. fa.wikiquote.org
167. fa.wikisource.org
168. fa.wiktionary.org
169. ff.wikipedia.org
170. fiu-vro.wikipedia.org
171. fi.wikibooks.org
172. fi.wikimedia.org
173. fi.wikinews.org
174. fi.wikiquote.org
175. fi.wikisource.org
176. fi.wikiversity.org
177. fi.wiktionary.org
178. fj.wikipedia.org
179. fj.wiktionary.org
180. fo.wikipedia.org
181. fo.wikisource.org
182. fo.wiktionary.org
183. frp.wikipedia.org
184. frr.wikipedia.org
185. fr.wikipedia.org
186. fr.wikinews.org
187. fr.wikiquote.org
188. fr.wikivoyage.org
189. fur.wikipedia.org
190. fy.wikipedia.org
191. fy.wikibooks.org
192. fy.wiktionary.org
193. gag.wikipedia.org
194. gan.wikipedia.org
195. ga.wikipedia.org
196. ga.wiktionary.org
197. gd.wikipedia.org
198. gd.wiktionary.org
199. glk.wikipedia.org
200. gl.wikipedia.org
201. gl.wikibooks.org
202. gl.wikiquote.org
203. gl.wikisource.org
204. gl.wiktionary.org
205. gn.wikipedia.org
206. gn.wiktionary.org
207. got.wikipedia.org
208. gu.wikipedia.org
209. gu.wikiquote.org
210. gu.wikisource.org
211. gu.wiktionary.org
212. gv.wikipedia.org
213. gv.wiktionary.org
214. hak.wikipedia.org
215. ha.wikipedia.org
216. ha.wiktionary.org
217. haw.wikipedia.org
218. he.wikipedia.org
219. he.wikinews.org
220. he.wikiquote.org
221. he.wikisource.org
222. he.wikivoyage.org
223. he.wiktionary.org
224. hif.wikipedia.org
225. hi.wikipedia.org
226. hi.wikibooks.org
227. hi.wikiquote.org
228. hi.wiktionary.org
229. hr.wikipedia.org
230. hr.wikibooks.org
231. hr.wikiquote.org
232. hr.wikisource.org
233. hr.wiktionary.org
234. hsb.wikipedia.org
235. hsb.wiktionary.org
236. ht.wikipedia.org
237. hu.wikibooks.org
238. hu.wikiquote.org
239. hu.wikisource.org
240. hu.wiktionary.org
241. hy.wikipedia.org
242. hy.wikibooks.org
243. hy.wikiquote.org
244. hy.wikisource.org
245. hy.wiktionary.org
246. ia.wikipedia.org
247. ia.wikibooks.org
248. ia.wiktionary.org
249. id.wikibooks.org
250. id.wikiquote.org
251. id.wikisource.org
252. id.wiktionary.org
253. ie.wikipedia.org
254. ie.wikibooks.org
255. ie.wiktionary.org
256. ig.wikipedia.org
257. ik.wikipedia.org
258. ilo.wikipedia.org
259. incubator.wikimedia.org
260. io.wikipedia.org
261. io.wiktionary.org
262. is.wikipedia.org
263. is.wikibooks.org
264. is.wikiquote.org
265. is.wikisource.org
266. it.wikibooks.org
267. it.wikinews.org
268. it.wikisource.org
269. it.wikiversity.org
270. it.wikivoyage.org
271. it.wiktionary.org
272. iu.wikipedia.org
273. iu.wiktionary.org
274. ja.wikipedia.org
275. ja.wikibooks.org
276. ja.wikinews.org
277. ja.wikiversity.org
278. jbo.wikipedia.org
279. jbo.wiktionary.org
280. jv.wikipedia.org
281. jv.wiktionary.org
282. kaa.wikipedia.org
283. kab.wikipedia.org
284. ka.wikibooks.org
285. ka.wikiquote.org
286. ka.wiktionary.org
287. kbd.wikipedia.org
288. kg.wikipedia.org
289. ki.wikipedia.org
290. kk.wikipedia.org
291. kk.wikibooks.org
292. kk.wiktionary.org
293. kl.wikipedia.org
294. kl.wiktionary.org
295. km.wikipedia.org
296. km.wikibooks.org
297. km.wiktionary.org
298. kn.wikipedia.org
299. kn.wikiquote.org
300. kn.wikisource.org
301. kn.wiktionary.org
302. koi.wikipedia.org
303. ko.wikibooks.org
304. ko.wikinews.org
305. ko.wikiquote.org
306. ko.wikisource.org
307. ko.wikiversity.org
308. ko.wiktionary.org
309. krc.wikipedia.org
310. ksh.wikipedia.org
311. ks.wikipedia.org
312. ks.wiktionary.org
313. ku.wikipedia.org
314. ku.wikibooks.org
315. ku.wikiquote.org
316. ku.wiktionary.org
317. kv.wikipedia.org
318. kw.wikipedia.org
319. kw.wiktionary.org
320. ky.wikipedia.org
321. ky.wikibooks.org
322. ky.wikiquote.org
323. ky.wiktionary.org
324. lad.wikipedia.org
325. la.wikipedia.org
326. la.wikibooks.org
327. la.wikiquote.org
328. la.wikisource.org
329. la.wiktionary.org
330. lbe.wikipedia.org
331. lb.wikipedia.org
332. lb.wiktionary.org
333. lez.wikipedia.org
334. lg.wikipedia.org
335. lij.wikipedia.org
336. li.wikipedia.org
337. li.wikibooks.org
338. li.wikiquote.org
339. li.wikisource.org
340. li.wiktionary.org
341. lmo.wikipedia.org
342. ln.wikipedia.org
343. ln.wiktionary.org
344. login.wikimedia.org
345. lo.wikipedia.org
346. lo.wiktionary.org
347. ltg.wikipedia.org
348. lt.wikipedia.org
349. lt.wikibooks.org
350. lt.wikiquote.org
351. lt.wikisource.org
352. lt.wiktionary.org
353. lv.wikipedia.org
354. lv.wiktionary.org
355. map-bms.wikipedia.org
356. mdf.wikipedia.org
357. www.mediawiki.org
358. mg.wikipedia.org
359. mg.wikibooks.org
360. mg.wiktionary.org
361. mhr.wikipedia.org
362. min.wikipedia.org
363. mi.wikipedia.org
364. mi.wiktionary.org
365. mk.wikipedia.org
366. mk.wikibooks.org
367. mk.wikimedia.org
368. mk.wikisource.org
369. mk.wiktionary.org
370. ml.wikipedia.org
371. ml.wikibooks.org
372. ml.wikiquote.org
373. ml.wikisource.org
374. ml.wiktionary.org
375. mn.wikipedia.org
376. mn.wiktionary.org
377. mrj.wikipedia.org
378. mr.wikibooks.org
379. mr.wikiquote.org
380. mr.wikisource.org
381. mr.wiktionary.org
382. ms.wikibooks.org
383. ms.wiktionary.org
384. mt.wikipedia.org
385. mt.wiktionary.org
386. mwl.wikipedia.org
387. mx.wikimedia.org
388. myv.wikipedia.org
389. my.wikipedia.org
390. my.wiktionary.org
391. mzn.wikipedia.org
392. nah.wikipedia.org
393. nah.wiktionary.org
394. nap.wikipedia.org
395. na.wikipedia.org
396. na.wiktionary.org
397. nds-nl.wikipedia.org
398. nds.wikipedia.org
399. nds.wiktionary.org
400. ne.wikipedia.org
401. ne.wikibooks.org
402. ne.wiktionary.org
403. new.wikipedia.org
404. nl.wikibooks.org
405. nl.wikimedia.org
406. nl.wikiquote.org
407. nl.wikisource.org
408. nl.wikivoyage.org
409. nl.wiktionary.org
410. nn.wikipedia.org
411. nn.wikiquote.org
412. nn.wiktionary.org
413. nov.wikipedia.org
414. no.wikibooks.org
415. no.wikimedia.org
416. no.wikinews.org
417. no.wikiquote.org
418. no.wikisource.org
419. no.wiktionary.org
420. nrm.wikipedia.org
421. nso.wikipedia.org
422. nv.wikipedia.org
423. ny.wikipedia.org
424. oc.wikipedia.org
425. oc.wikibooks.org
426. oc.wiktionary.org
427. om.wikipedia.org
428. om.wiktionary.org
429. or.wikipedia.org
430. or.wiktionary.org
431. os.wikipedia.org
432. outreach.wikimedia.org
433. pag.wikipedia.org
434. pam.wikipedia.org
435. pap.wikipedia.org
436. pa.wikipedia.org
437. pa.wikibooks.org
438. pa.wiktionary.org
439. pcd.wikipedia.org
440. pdc.wikipedia.org
441. pfl.wikipedia.org
442. pih.wikipedia.org
443. pi.wikipedia.org
444. pl.wikibooks.org
445. pl.wikimedia.org
446. pl.wikinews.org
447. pl.wikiquote.org
448. pl.wikivoyage.org
449. pl.wiktionary.org
450. pms.wikipedia.org
451. pnb.wikipedia.org
452. pnb.wiktionary.org
453. pnt.wikipedia.org
454. ps.wikipedia.org
455. ps.wiktionary.org
456. pt.wikipedia.org
457. pt.wikinews.org
458. pt.wikiquote.org
459. pt.wikisource.org
460. pt.wikiversity.org
461. pt.wikivoyage.org
462. qu.wikipedia.org
463. qu.wiktionary.org
464. rm.wikipedia.org
465. rmy.wikipedia.org
466. rn.wikipedia.org
467. roa-rup.wikipedia.org
468. roa-rup.wiktionary.org
469. roa-tara.wikipedia.org
470. ro.wikibooks.org
471. ro.wikinews.org
472. ro.wikiquote.org
473. ro.wikisource.org
474. ro.wikivoyage.org
475. rue.wikipedia.org
476. ru.wikipedia.org
477. ru.wikibooks.org
478. ru.wikimedia.org
479. ru.wikinews.org
480. ru.wikiquote.org
481. ru.wikisource.org
482. ru.wikiversity.org
483. ru.wikivoyage.org
484. ru.wiktionary.org
485. rw.wikipedia.org
486. rw.wiktionary.org
487. sah.wikisource.org
488. sa.wikipedia.org
489. sa.wikibooks.org
490. sa.wikiquote.org
491. sa.wikisource.org
492. sa.wiktionary.org
493. scn.wiktionary.org
494. sco.wikipedia.org
495. sc.wikipedia.org
496. sd.wikipedia.org
497. sd.wiktionary.org
498. se.wikimedia.org
499. sg.wikipedia.org
500. sg.wiktionary.org
501. sh.wiktionary.org
502. simple.wikipedia.org
503. si.wikipedia.org
504. si.wikibooks.org
505. si.wiktionary.org
506. sk.wikibooks.org
507. sk.wikiquote.org
508. sk.wikisource.org
509. sk.wiktionary.org
510. sl.wikipedia.org
511. sl.wikibooks.org
512. sl.wikiquote.org
513. sl.wikisource.org
514. sl.wikiversity.org
515. sl.wiktionary.org
516. sm.wikipedia.org
517. sm.wiktionary.org
518. sn.wikipedia.org
519. wikisource.org
520. so.wikipedia.org
521. so.wiktionary.org
522. species.wikimedia.org
523. sq.wikipedia.org
524. sq.wikibooks.org
525. sq.wikinews.org
526. sq.wikiquote.org
527. sq.wiktionary.org
528. srn.wikipedia.org
529. sr.wikibooks.org
530. sr.wikinews.org
531. sr.wikiquote.org
532. sr.wikisource.org
533. sr.wiktionary.org
534. ss.wikipedia.org
535. ss.wiktionary.org
536. stq.wikipedia.org
537. st.wikipedia.org
538. st.wiktionary.org
539. su.wikiquote.org
540. su.wiktionary.org
541. sv.wikipedia.org
542. sv.wikibooks.org
543. sv.wikinews.org
544. sv.wikiquote.org
545. sv.wikiversity.org
546. sv.wikivoyage.org
547. sv.wiktionary.org
548. sw.wikipedia.org
549. sw.wiktionary.org
550. szl.wikipedia.org
551. ta.wikipedia.org
552. ta.wikibooks.org
553. ta.wikinews.org
554. ta.wikiquote.org
555. ta.wikisource.org
556. ta.wiktionary.org
557. test2.wikipedia.org
558. test.wikipedia.org
559. test.wikidata.org
560. tet.wikipedia.org
561. te.wikipedia.org
562. te.wikibooks.org
563. te.wikiquote.org
564. te.wikisource.org
565. te.wiktionary.org
566. tg.wikipedia.org
567. tg.wikibooks.org
568. tg.wiktionary.org
569. th.wikibooks.org
570. th.wikiquote.org
571. th.wikisource.org
572. th.wiktionary.org
573. ti.wikipedia.org
574. ti.wiktionary.org
575. tk.wikipedia.org
576. tk.wiktionary.org
577. tl.wikibooks.org
578. tl.wiktionary.org
579. tn.wikipedia.org
580. tn.wiktionary.org
581. to.wikipedia.org
582. tpi.wikipedia.org
583. tpi.wiktionary.org
584. tr.wikibooks.org
585. tr.wikimedia.org
586. tr.wikinews.org
587. tr.wikiquote.org
588. tr.wikisource.org
589. tr.wiktionary.org
590. ts.wikipedia.org
591. ts.wiktionary.org
592. tt.wikipedia.org
593. tt.wikibooks.org
594. tt.wiktionary.org
595. tum.wikipedia.org
596. tw.wikipedia.org
597. tyv.wikipedia.org
598. ty.wikipedia.org
599. ua.wikimedia.org
600. udm.wikipedia.org
601. ug.wikipedia.org
602. ug.wiktionary.org
603. uk.wikipedia.org
604. uk.wikibooks.org
605. uk.wikimedia.org
606. uk.wikinews.org
607. uk.wikiquote.org
608. uk.wikisource.org
609. uk.wikivoyage.org
610. uk.wiktionary.org
611. ur.wikipedia.org
612. ur.wikibooks.org
613. ur.wikiquote.org
614. ur.wiktionary.org
615. uz.wikiquote.org
616. uz.wiktionary.org
617. vec.wikipedia.org
618. vec.wikisource.org
619. vec.wiktionary.org
620. vep.wikipedia.org
621. ve.wikipedia.org
622. vi.wikibooks.org
623. vi.wikiquote.org
624. vi.wikisource.org
625. vi.wikivoyage.org
626. vi.wiktionary.org
627. vls.wikipedia.org
628. vo.wikipedia.org
629. vo.wiktionary.org
630. war.wikipedia.org
631. wa.wikipedia.org
632. wa.wiktionary.org
633. wo.wikipedia.org
634. wo.wikiquote.org
635. wo.wiktionary.org
636. xal.wikipedia.org
637. xh.wikipedia.org
638. xmf.wikipedia.org
639. yi.wikipedia.org
640. yi.wikisource.org
641. yi.wiktionary.org
642. yo.wikipedia.org
643. za.wikipedia.org
644. zea.wikipedia.org
645. zh-classical.wikipedia.org
646. zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org
647. zh-min-nan.wikisource.org
648. zh-min-nan.wiktionary.org
649. zh.wikipedia.org
650. zh.wikinews.org
651. zh.wikiquote.org
652. zh.wikisource.org
653. zh.wiktionary.org
654. zu.wikipedia.org
655. zu.wiktionary.org

And Thanks.--A.Latreche (talk) 8:57, 1 march 2014 (UTC)

Request

The following discussion is marked as answered (matter seems resolved now, with the thread closure). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

can you please speak to 82.149.127.22 to stop calling me "abusive" and keep fussing on a closed case? I'm sick and tired reading this false things about me. My contributions all over the project speak another language. Alternatively, how can i report this IP? Thanks in advance --Saviour1981 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A ctrl+f on Steward Requests shows no use of those words. In any case the matter seems closed to me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

They didn't stop arguing. Did you check the revision immediately prior to my attempt to archive the thread? The anon wished to continue the argument. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I had not notice that, thank you for pointing that out. I have stuck and archive top and bottom on the request now. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for understanding and helping. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I'm glad we had this conversation :) --Saviour1981 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that i can report this IP? It's not just bullying me for being "abusive" (i never was and never will), it calls two stewards as "disqualified" due to the fact that the IP can't accept the final decision. This IP wasn't active in some Wikimedia projects but is foul mouthed on a discussion that's nothing to it. See here, here, and there. The behaviour of this IP is not acceptable --Saviour1981 (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: IRC cloak request (enwikisource)

The following discussion is marked as answered (cloak request processed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi, Snowolf. Here is the diff: [1]

Thanks! Clockery Fairfeld (talk • enWS) 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Block of Glaisher

The following discussion is marked as answered (replied, matter solved). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Of course it was the really stupid mistake of mine. Made by copy-paste user name (but not that what should be copied). I'm really sorry. Regards. Elfhelm (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It happens to all of us :) I've locked even myself on occasion :D Thank you for the quick reply and handling of the issue :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-02#bingj.com

The following discussion is marked as answered (user pointed to the appropriate venue). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

… so why didn't you remove it? Would be great if you could do that now, the Bing cache might be usefull for several Wikimedia projects.

Remove urwiki from gs list

The following discussion is marked as answered (user advised on how to proceed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi Snowolf :) We would like to remove urdu wikipedia from that list of wikis where Global sysops can use their rights, So how it will be done? :) --Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Muhammad. First of all, with only two currently active admins on the project, I think it would be most unwise to remove the wiki from the global sysop set as global sysops can provide valuable help with vandal and spam attacks at time where local admins might be otherwise unavailable. From a quick peak at the logs, I also see only one GS action this year, so I'm curious as to why you feel like this is required. Anyway, the procedure would involve community discussion and vote on the local village pump. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia IRC Cloak

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

I am requesting a Wikipedia IRC Cloak. I have already filled out the Google Docs Form. I meet the requirements. I am very active on IRC, helping users out both on Wikipedia and IRC. I understand if you are busy. Note: Please ping me or leave a talkback on my page in case I forget to check back on this talk page; thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Zerabat#IRC cloak request

The following discussion is marked as answered (request processed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Yes, that was a typo. The account is Zerabat, and the IRC nickname is zerabat. Thanks. --Zerabat (discusión) 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Monthly stats

The following discussion is marked as answered (fixed and replied). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hey, thanks for updating them! I think the problem is with centralauth actions again; that seems to be where the deficit is for my actions anyhow. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: And so it is, I should really run these updates when I'm more awake. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RD personal wars on #wikimedia

The following discussion is marked as answered (resolved). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Copy of message sent on IRC: FYI [2]. Please restore functioning of #wikimedia. --Nemo 13:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

reply

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Thanks for your notes, Snowolf. Very diplomatic. Tony (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

on !ops & IRC

The following discussion is marked as answered (the requested message was already moved to a more appropriate page). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

To reply to your edit summary, I personally wasn't aware of how to get operators' attention when needed, and would like for that information to be more discoverable; perhaps that page isn't the right place, though. Best, Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed :)). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hola, gracias por tu interés, sí ese era yo intentando registrarme debido a que el contraseña que me enviaron el 2 de junio no funciona, saludos, gracias!.--Sergio Andres Segovia (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions

The following discussion is marked as answered (not really directed at me). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

• Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
• Letter on change.org

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

The following discussion is marked as answered (cloak set). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi Snowolf,

When I submitted the cloak request on 8/22, I included the following diff:

IRC cloak request

Sorry if it wasn't received. Philg88 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Snowolf: Hi there. Is there still I problem with this? Please let me know if there is. Thanks, Philg88 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

The following discussion is marked as answered (cloak set). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hello. This is my IRC Cloak's request: [3] --Jsmura (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

messup

The following discussion is marked as answered (resolved). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Aaegh, this is an unfortunate careless mistake indeed! Combinations of characters are tricky, but you're right that a prior diligent check would save rhe conundrum :( Pundit (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Access #wikimedia-admin

The following discussion is marked as answered (cloak set, access granted). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Excuse me, I come here to request for an invite to join IRC #wikimedia-admin. I'm a sysop on Vietnamese Wikipedia and Vietnamese Wiktionary. I have a "trusted" history which can be see here. Thanks in advance. Sincerely. --minhhuy ^(talk) 14:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I just sent a request follow the guideline here IRC/Cloaks#Obtaining a cloak. I hope that there not be anything wrong with this request :) --minhhuy ^(talk) 17:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: IRC Cloak Request

The following discussion is marked as answered (cloak will be set with the next batch). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n%3AEdjoerv&diff=77026662&oldid=76751123

Hello. According to your message, here I post a link to the diff for the cloak request. Hope this is okay now! --Edjoerv (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship

The following discussion is marked as answered (commented on the removal page). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hello Snowolf. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2014. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 08, 2014. Kind regards, Barras talk 14:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-unblock by a custodian

The following discussion is marked as answered (matter was referred at the time to the local community). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Thanks for your prompt action on my request for emergency desysop. Yes, ordinarily, there is a strong tradition that a sysop may not unblock themselves. We do have some possible exceptions.

• If a block is an emergency measure to stop abusive sysop actions, and is accompanied by an agreement to be made in order to remove the need for the block, we will sometimes allow self-unblock. It is superior, of course, if the sysop agrees to the restriction and is then unblocked by the blocking admin. On Wikipedia, with a huge number of active administrators, an unblock template would be far more appropriate. But on a very small wiki, it can be necessary to cut corners. In this case, there was self-unblock, showing notice of the complaint, and then continued recusal failure with no emergency.

• If the continued activity of a sysop is crucial to the wiki, self-unblock may be allowed. On large wikis, this is much less important, but, again, on a small wiki, it can loom large.

• If a probationary custodian blocks a permanent custodian, in a retaliatory way, self-unblock may be allowed, but, again, with referral to the community as described below. In this case, the permanent custodian blocked the probationary one, clearly for violation of block policy. Then the probationary custodian unblocked himself and blocked the permanent one, without asserting any violation of policy, only that the actions were "bad."

• Self-unblock should *always* be referred to the community. It's an emergency action, where what is ordinarily inadvisable or even prohibited, is done out of concern for the welfare of the wiki. Just as with a police action that, say, results in injury to a person, there should be a review if there is any possible suspicion of impropriety.

• The permanent custodian in this case was acting in full consultation with the community, both on and off-wiki. There is a bureaucrat involved, and he was clearly becoming aware of the situation, and had started to address it, but was possibly not realizing the depth of the problem, he was assuming ordinary, reasonably cooperative behavior. He was aware of the problems, and was giving the probationary custodian an opportunity to explain himself.

• The probationary custodian was not consulting the community at all, and was actively rejecting community input, which he took personally, calling it "harassment." He was violating policy routinely, giving excuses of hazard to the community, which can legitimate drastic action, but which would always, with one exception, require community consultation. Does the community want to be protected in this way? (The exception has to do with child protection. There was no present child protection issue in this case, as to anything recent, nothing that would require revision deletion, for example. Child protection issues are reviewed on private mailing lists or the like. -- globally, stewards-l.)

I've seen many emergency desysop actions over the years. Your action was not outside the envelope, except for one thing: normally, this will be requested by a bureaucrat. Normally, if there is no available bureaucrat, there will be a community discussion. As can be seen in this case, the probationary custodian was attempting to prevent community discussion. That's untenable. If that is seen, and even if the sysop is the last local one available, the tools should be yanked. Global sysops may help, stewards may help, and temporary sysop tools can be given to trusted users, committed to facilitating local process to resolve the conflict. The removal of tools is without prejudice. It is not a finding that the sysop was bad or wrong. It is simply that a community review cannot take place if the community is being suppressed. It's like an injunction, with teeth.

(An alternative would have been to warn the sysop and prohibit him from taking certain actions, and only desysop if he violates the prohibitions. That is something that would make sense if the sysop was actively maintaining the community. Here, the loss of this sysop will have very little effect, from his history.)

This user will not be abused here. His mentor will decide how to proceed. The only major problem, so far, was in his arbitrary and often clueless use of sysop tools, and his refusal to learn. So, thanks. There are processes open that can, if needed, continue examination of this, but there is no longer any emergency that cannot be handled locally. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New Mail

The following discussion is marked as answered (user has been replied to in other venues). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Eurodyne (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've also made this confirmation diff for my IRC cloak request. Eurodyne (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

I just wanted to stop by and say that I think the whole situation with Colton got out of hand. I have a problem with instant blocks of infinite duration of editors who are doing good edits without so much as a warning. It would have been much better and probably would have resolved the problem if you would have just dropped them a note telling them not to leave messages like that on folks talk pages here. Now an editor that had the potential for useful contributions to this project has been banned simply because they were banned from ENWP and you didn't want to hear it. Reguyla (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to the CentralNotice-admins list

The following discussion is marked as answered (subscribed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi! This bulk email is to let you know about a mailing list used to communicate bug reports and new features in CentralNotice, and to facilitate conversations between the admins. This message is being sent to you because you have the privileges to use the CentralNotice admin interface.

If you use CentralNotice to post or modify notices, please consider joining the list by visiting this page and subscribing yourself:

   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/centralnotice-admins
   

Thanks,

Adam Wight (talk)

00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising Tech,

Wikimedia Foundation

OS

The following discussion is marked as answered (rights removed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

You have OS on kowiki, which should be removed. — revi_msg 09:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@-revi:: thank you for noticing this and informing me of it, it looks like I forgot to remove it after the last OS performed there. I have done so now :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the correct venue?

The following discussion is marked as answered (User was advised to appeal their block, and that no action was possible unless that was done). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Where? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stho002 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: I was in the process of moving it to the Steward noticeboard when I was called away. I have completed the move, it's not an ideal venue, but I have not had the time to read the complaint fully so I cannot direct you to the appropriate venue, if any. However, SRP is for right changes request, not that sort of threads. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely there must be a venue for stewards to be alerted to blocks which are made without good reason (fairly blatantly so, in this case)? Stho002 (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a matter of principle. Local admins and crats surely cannot be allowed to block editors for inadequate reasons? Surely, in such cases, stewards have a responsibility to act??Stho002 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: Stewards have nothing to do with this matter. It is a local matters, and it is for the local community to solve. Inappropriate blocks are a textbook case of what is solved by a community thru its block appeal procedures and noticeboard discussions. Stewards are not an appeal venue, a global arbcom or in charge of policing local projects and/or their administrators. We might try and help where we can, with advice and comments but we cannot help those who refuse to help themselves, i.e. those who refuse to avail themselves of the proper local procedures. As I have advised you multiple times, you should appeal the block thru the local channels, not just out of respect for your project, its community, its processes and its administrators but because it is unacceptable to claim that the project's administrators are "ducking for cover" when you've flat out refused to contact them. Personally, I think that as a former administrator of that project and as an active community member the, you should pay the project you clearly care very much about at least the courtesy of attempting to resolve this specific dispute there. Meta-Wiki has a very, very limited dispute resolution system, which consists of its RfCs, which quite frankly hardly ever are all that helpful. Projects are pretty independent and their rules and decisions are determined by the local communities thru consensus. If you really think that a block appeal on your talk page would not be reviewed, you can easily email any admin on the project and ask them to notify the local administrator's noticeboard or village pump so that other admins may see it. If really nobody is reviewing the matter after these avenues have been attempted, I'm sure that a meta user (like myself) could drop a friendly notice on the appropriate noticeboard so that the local admins are aware of the request. The block is due to expire in less than 24h, so in the worst case scenario where no admin is able to review the matter timely, you can always raise the matter at an administrative noticeboard after the block's expiration. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, after 7 years and >500K edits on WS, I know how the site works well enough to know what isn't going to work. We effectively have no local dispute resolution system. Inappropriate blocks are effectively blocking people from access to a WMF site, which I thought, evidently wrongly, should be of grave concern to you. Although this block is only 24hrs, it will no doubt be followed by incremental blocks, unless I keep well away from other editor's "territory" (which they have no right to lay claim to). This undermines the entire WMF philosophy. I am disappointed that you are not taking this matter more seriously ... Stho002 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this: even if you don't want to enforce anything, there is nothing to stop you commenting on the WS VP about the current situation (which is much more serious than just my 24 hr block) and try to mediate a discussion that is actually based on rational reasons - something which they just don't consider (all they do is grunt disapproval at everything). There was no justifiable reason given for my block, and that needs to be pointed out. I can't point it out, because I won't be seen as impartial. You should try to engage crat Dan Koehl is a reasoned discusion (though good luck with that!) Stho002 (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bye, now!

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Snowolf, it's Allen!

I give up already, because I was addressed by another user that I refrain to contact them over there. So I better go now. Good-bye and brohoof! --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Testwiki

The following discussion is marked as answered (rights granted by MZMcBride). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi dear Snowolf,i request admis right on test.wp since 3 week, but i don't see any bureaucrat to close this RFA .I know you are one of active bureaucrat on test.wp and it why i write you.I also understand that im not a sysop in any wiki, but i thinks this right will be useful for me.Can you please do something? Regards --Grind24talk ??Contribs 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

delete this edit plz

The following discussion is marked as answered (matter had already been handled by others). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

hi snowolf plz delete this edit thanks --Florence (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@فلورانس: I don't think that was the edit you wanted deleted, as the diff points to a complete innocent edit. It looks like the edit that you wanted deleted was the one after it, and it looks like it's already been taken care of :) Thank you for pointing it out :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dear @Snowolf:, i,m Florence Sysop of fa.wikivoyage . Have orgent requests in CU , thanks --Florence (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nome utente

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Grazie per la spiegazione, per me non c'erano problemi neanche prima, magari l'utente non ci aveva pensato--Pierpao (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new years 2015

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Happy new year to you Dear "Snowolf" --Grind24 (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Denied request

The following discussion is marked as answered (matter was discussed more extensively on IRC). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi Snowolf,

Our community (ca.wikibooks) does not agree with your negative regarding the denied request to become a bureaucrat (here). We asked you about your decision and the requirements in which is based, and a bot has archived the conversation without being responded (which I think is something unpleasant). Could you do a second review with other stewards analyzing further our community? Thank you very much and a Happy New Year. --Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier Dengra: Hi! I haven't been able to reply earlier due to the holidays :) Generally speaking, a project will need 5-10 administrators as well as a significantly sized community before any bureaucrat rights can be granted. Cawikibooks has only 2 administrators, one of which has not even done 5 actions in 6 months. That is definitively too small of a community for the requested right, sorry. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I know that we have only one active administrator, but the community has now 3-6 active users (depends of the moment). Besides, there isn't a global policy for bureaucrats, only an inactive discussion, and we have the consensus of the local community and his sister projects. Well, that's my opinion. Happy 2015!--Unapersona (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of this "unwritten rule", but the truth is that I don't find much sense of needing a minimum of administrators when the real purpose of our wiki is to provide a faster solution to Wikipedia users who are interested in activating their bots to Wikibooks to help improve the quality or ortography of the pages, and especially monitoring the projects in collaboration with other organizations. Now, accepting a bot status request through Meta needs about two weeks, while with a local bureaucrat we would talking about less than a week. And the same for the issue of granting the interface editor and abuse filter editor status that we are talking to implement in our wiki. Sorry for the insistence. Regards, --Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 11:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to underline this comprehensible low pace in resolving petitions here at meta, it's quite logical that local bureaucrats who know better the community can balance faster and better the community requests. We are a little community that works fast (because consensus is reached easily) and requests like these take far too long. Besides, at the moment we are running this petition at phabricator asking for a interface_editor user flag and they don't like the idea of an admin permitting other users to manage Mediawiki namespace. Again we run into the same problem. What is your advice? --Gerardduenas (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

The following discussion is marked as answered (no reply needed). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Muitas gracias por a tuya intervención y bloqueyo d'a IP 74.245.51.233 en a biquipedia en aragonés.

Thank you for your intervention and blockade of the IP 74.245.51.233 in the biquipedia in Aragonese.--85.58.127.107 19:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia IRC Cloak

The following discussion is marked as answered (I believe the user discussed the matter with another contact). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hello, I would like to know why they have not responded my cloak request?, I made it almost a month ago and I have not replied. What's going on?. I'm back to make another request.--McVeigh (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mistake

The following discussion is marked as answered (I have attempted to address the user concerns, even if I recognize that the user is not happy about how I've gone about it). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

I've asked you to correct your mistake, by making your comment more clearly seen, several times. It went ignored. Sidelight12 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sidelight12. I once again, can only offer my apologies to the English Wikiversity (and all those involved, yourself included) for, despite my best attempts to the contrary, missing a crucial bit of the logs that would have made the situation look in a different light. I publicly commented on this matter and apologized on the original request on SRP. Even before that comment, I asked the local community, and specifically the uninvolved administrators to review this matter. As a steward, in situations like these, our role is limited to triage the emergency and leave it for the local community to handle. Please note that any further actions you think are appropriate on this matter should be undertaken by the local community on the English Wikiversity and us stewards are powerless to act. I believe another steward advised you on this matter not long after my comment. You are free to refer or quote my comment anywhere you would like on Wikiversity or elsewhere, of course, if you think it may be helpful, however local users should be the ones reviewing the matter on their own really, I think they hardly need my input. I mean, anybody who looks at the logs and is not as dumb as me can see that self-unblocks took place on both sides. I have no especial expertise on how to interpret this matter, and if my actions have shown anything is that I am not very good at it :) I would suggest that if you think there is still something that needs to be reviewed, you direct that to Jtneill who initially reviewed this matter, or some of the other uninvolved admins. I am not sure of how you think I could still be of help in this matter, I am not a local community member and I have little to no expertise in local Wikiversity matters. However, I am obviously saddened to hear that this matter has not yet been resolved, I had hoped that once the emergency passed, all parts in this dispute could work together to but this unhappy incident behind them in the interest of the project :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, its understandable the actions, based on what was told to you. But if you can act on another wiki project, you should also be able to comment there. It's important the comment you make on meta is also at the wikiproject where the action was taken. I've asked you to comment there, so people can't pretend they didn't see it, which they conveniently do. What was done was done, but don't shift blame around for failing to comment on the appropriate project afterward. Those were gross abuses that took place there, and not by me. And I do realize who did what, and I'm not planning on ignoring it. I'm not asking you to do anything, I'm just saying that you should have responded. Sidelight12 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've made my comment as Snowolf has asked me, it's been there a while. BTW, someone manipulated the outcome, and there was no consensus, it was people reinforcing each other, and manipulation, as well as people who were afraid to speak or get involved in abd's abuses. Sidelight12 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• This matter is resolved for everyone except Sidelight. Yes, there were self-unblocks on both sides. However, the other administrator was a permanent custodian; Sidelight was probationary, long past the period, with nobody willing to recommend him for permanent custodian. If you are interested, I could explain much more. Sidelight had no local support at all, he was blocking completely outside of policy, while highly involved. This is beating a dead horse. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That blocking was outside of policy? You mean how I blocked someone who later got globally banned? And this outcome is only because you go out of your way to protect such user. If you really cared about the person, you'd be outreaching, instead of using that to troll and control what happens at the wiki projects. So go ahead send out your manipulative emails to everyone about me, with your bent up logic, and let the next fools fall for it. Sidelight12 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what Sidelight means by "manipulative emails." Sidelight blocked a user later globally banned, yes. The user had violated no policy on Wikiversity, and was not warned before being blocked. He had created an arguably controversial page, though the same page was later created on Wikibooks, by him, without incident except for Sidelight's attempt to interfere there, which failed. The user had asked me about the page,[4] and I requested deletion of it pending development of ethical guidelines, which was done. (October 12) Sidelight *then* blocked the user October 13. When I objected, providing notice of a Custodian feedback filing (standard WV process where direct discussion is not likely to work),[5] he removed the notice with a summary that showed no understanding of feedback procedure (which is not a court, but a dispute resolution process),[6] and blocked me for (Not given permission to post on my userpage). Dave waited two days for Sidelight to respond to the obvious query, then unblocked me and the other user. I did have email with Dave Braunschweig at this time and consented to the wait, so that full careful procedure could be followed. Sidelight then wheel-warred with Dave Braunschweig, reblocking myself and the other user, so Dave now blocked Sidelight for clear and stated cause. Sidelight then unblocked himself, and blocked Dave, myself, and the other user. It was then that Dave unblocked himself, because he was the only other active custodian at that point, and Sidelight was causing harm. Dave was fully following policy, Sidelight was radically breaking it.

Sidelight's deletion/block log for the period.

Dave Braunschweig's logged actions for the period.

So, now, Snowolf, Sidelight has the gall to come here and demand that you apologize and explain. Sure, you failed to notice something, i.e., Dave's later unblock of himself. But that was damage downstream from what Sidelight had done and was insisting upon. Sidelight had been relatively inactive on Wikiversity. There was no support for his becoming a permanent custodian, but process had not begun to terminate it. Dave had been approved for permanent custodian with the only opposition being from Sidelight12. Since this incident in October, Sidelight's participation on Wikiversity has been entirely disruptive, belaboring those events. Had he not been disruptive, his mentor could easily have renewed the custodianship, and, just before the wheel-warring, the mentor had asked Sidelight to review and explain his actions. The removal of rights requested was an emergency move, for obvious reasons (I believe I used the word "without prejudice.") It was not a community-based removal, only an emergency action, and very unusual, (I have never seen wheel-warring like that on Wikiversity before, even with major disruptions) but the withdrawal of mentor support meant that it would not be renewed. It became completely moot.

Sidelight remains welcome to work on educational resources at Wikiversity, the only one keeping him from doing that is himself.

I have had my sysop rights removed three times by a steward, twice as an "emergency," and I never raised a fuss about it because all it would take is a local crat to fix the problem, if it was a problem. Snowolf, your action was correct, and would have been taken by many other stewards looking at the situation. Normally, a 'crat would request removal, not an ordinary user as myself, but our 'crats were AWOL. (One of them was Sidelight's mentor, which is part of why Sidelight was effectively without supervision.) We will, out of this incident, I expect, improve probationary custodianship policy. Measures were already proposed, years ago, by me, to handle this kind of situation. It is not difficult. With that in place, an emergency sysop request would become very easy to investigate and action or reject. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an apology. I'm telling someone if they make a mistake correct it, within their capacity by leaving a comment where it is relevant, which is where they acted. Like I said, I take responsibility for my actions, so why does everyone else get away with gross abuses, which is besides the point, since I'm not asking for anything here. As for who is disruptive, I'm not the one who goes cross-wiki, irritating people. Again, I'm not asking for anything by posting here, the only purpose of me posting here was to say your actions are irresponsible. So there goes an excuse by abd, for why he acted in his self interest, and not in the interest of improving any wikiproject. btw, I did object to unblocking abd, even though failing to object to leucostites unblock, if we want to go by what are proposed rules which are not policy. Sidelight12 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm only posting this to counter false information by abd. I've explained my actions, and it should have been obvious. No one bothered to look at meta to see it, or at least they conveniently ignored it. So where's the diff, where you say he gave me a chance explain my actions? I've done that anyways. Look, I don't want to be a sysop on a project that runs itself like a zoo. All projects should have decent, rational sysops, which versity does not have at all. I don't respect that project. Until it's cleaned up, there's no point in contributing to it, except for countering vandalism and gross abuses. Sidelight12 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Snowolf, if you have any questions or requests, please feel to ask, publicly or privately. Best wishes. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert

The following discussion is marked as answered (replied). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Good morning !
Why did you have reverted my text ! Il really don't understand. Can you explain ? Thank you and best regards ! Mike Coppolano (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I haven't see the stop in the page. Sorry. Had a good day. Merci Mike Coppolano (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Coppolano: Hi Mike, sorry for not leaving you a message, I should have. Yeah I just reverted you as the elections weren't live yet, they're about to go live in less an an hour tho! Thank you for your understanding! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well ! well ! No, YOU, thanks for your understanding ! All's well that ends well ! Best regards from the old world, Mike Coppolano (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stewards elections

The following discussion is marked as answered (Handled by Aldnonymous). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi Snowolf, I voted in this election, ([7]) but I am not sure I am eligible to vote, could you please confirm if I am or not? Thanks DARIO SEVERI (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, Hi @DARIO SEVERI: You are eligible and may Vote on Steward election 2015 per this.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 12:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good I know that I didn't do nothing wrong ;) DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oversight on cs.wikt

The following discussion is marked as answered (oversight matter not to be handled publicily). If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

I have just noticed, that you oversighted one revision on cs.wiktionary assuming that Oversight policy was broken. Can you tell what was broken?--Juandev (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)