Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2010-01

Fundraising

Galician translations for core messages are done... And they're supposed to be published according to this. But this is not true. Some of the central notices still show quotes in English. Could you fix this, please? Thanks. --Toliño^{Fala aquí comigo} 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flaw in central notice template

Many of the 2009_NoticeXX central notices are showing a display glitch on German wikipedia: The text for the "notice-button" (“Spenden Sie jetzt”) is so long, that the right button cap "notice-button-end" is displayed below the left cap "notice-button-start". This behaviour can be seen for example here. I have tested Firefox 3 and Opera 9, both do this on my XGA screen. Also, it is expected behaviour and should not depend on the display resolution, and probably not on the implementation either; but I think there is an easy way to fix this: the "notice-button" cell should be “<td nowrap …”. This probably affects other languages as well, at least Danish. Hopefully there is a way to change all those templates for all those notices and all languages in one place …? If that is not possible or not an option, you might want to consider changing MediaWiki:Centralnotice-shared-red-button-label/de to “Jetzt spenden”. Cheers —Quilbert 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to our tech team. Thanks. Rand Montoya 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thekohser re-blocked

I've re-blocked Thekohser for continued incivility, and logging out to avoid legitimate scrutiny of some of that incivility. I expect a new request to be unblocked to be posted at any moment. I will be away for most of the day - if it needs to be done quickly, another admin should feel free to decline or grant the request. However, I doubt it will need to be done quickly, in which case I'd appreciate simply letting it sit for a while and I'll get to it later. Thank you — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to point out any incivility, and the only way that you know that it's him is because he used his name while being so avoiding. I would call this block frivolous and strongly suggest that you withdraw from this user's case. He gets harassed enough without you adding to it. Guido den Broeder 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horsefeathers. I know it's him because a CU check tells me it is. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you have trouble reading, and also abused your privileges? I hope that you meant an older CU. Guido den Broeder 10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Block-and-run isn't justified here. If there are legitimate issues, list them and be around to defend the block (esp. as you knew it was going to be controversial). --MZMcBride 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be controversial in the least. Lar asked on my talk page for an enumeration of edits - surprising, since he's one of several who have pointed these out over the past several months. I hope unblock and run is as unacceptable as block and run (if that's what it was). — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editing thing is a side issue, really, so let's set it aside (Thekohser has said it was accidental, said he will try better in future not to do it and has taken responsibility for all of the edits made from the IP you and I know is him) If I tell someone their approach could stand improving, that's not exactly the same thing as saying the person is so incivil/disruptive that an immediate indefinite block is required. It is reasonable to ask for some supporting diffs. If you can't supply them, then I don't think your block should stand. MZM's unblock is not an "unblock and run" I don't think, and it's not fair to call it that. There was a fair amount of discussion about this prior to and after the unblock. Look. I don't like Thekohser's tactics. He pushes the envelope and he consumes a fair bit of volunteer resource that could be better used elsewhere. But if we want to maintain a perception that meta is administered by reasonable people you can't just go around blocking people on an apparent whim. This is especially true of any admin who's been in conflict with him in the past, which you have been, whether you see it or not. Thekohser needs a firm hand keeping him in check. He can author good content when he wants to. Require that, and require a lot less messing about. Use short blocks if needed, and don't unblock till there's a sign he gets the point. But indef blocks that aren't substantiated are counterproductive. Perhaps you should let ME block him next time. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a bad idea, Larry, as you are equally involved. Let's leave it to others, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of admins just yet. Guido den Broeder 10:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You again? The point being that if one of his defenders thinks he's went over the line, he has. That's better than some random admin with no context trying to figure out what's going on. But sure, have it your way... a random admin is more likely to block. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez... I really really wish Thekohser would just try to edit here in a less troll-like manner. The rest of us manage perfectly well it seems, but all too often he seems to be trying to push the boundary. We tend to be more tolerant of such antics on Meta, compared to enwiki, but even I as somebody who couldn't really care less about Kohs' childish battles with Wikipedia am beginning to tire of what he's doing. I shouldn't need to explain either; Kohs is perfectly intelligent enough to know what he is doing isn't reasonable behaviour. Things don't help when his friend Guido shows up each and every time he gets into trouble and sticks to Kohs regardless of the problems. Kohs, please start acting more maturely or you will find yourself indef-blocked and no admin to turn to. I have been extremely tolerant and on your side for quite a lot of the time, and I agree that you have been unfairly treated occasionally, but please take the moral highground. Majorly talk 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"even I as somebody who couldn't really care less about Kohs' childish battles with Wikipedia am beginning to tire of what he's doing... you [Kohs] will find yourself indef-blocked and no admin to turn to. I have been extremely tolerant and on your side for quite a lot of the time, and I agree that you have been unfairly treated occasionally, but please take the moral highground." is exactly right. I regret unblocking Thekosher. I regret not re-blocking him sooner. It used to be the case that we would ask someone who was behaving contrary to community norms to please leave the community. I'll be glad when Meta returns to that, instead of being a proxy for the petty politics of the English Wikipedia. Perhaps Thekohser isn't the only person who should be asked to leave. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the threshold for disruption at Meta to be pretty high, much higher than at most other Wikimedia wikis. The simple reality is that there's really not too much to disrupt here. There's no content creation, there's nothing of real substance being produced, and all of the important pages are locked. This place is a swarm of bureaucracy, to the brim with clutter that should be moved elsewhere or outright deleted. It takes quite a feat to disrupt chaos in any meaningful way. I agree that Mr. Kohs skirts the boundaries of what is acceptable behavior here and he may end up being blocked (perhaps even indefinitely) for pushing those boundaries too far at some point, but in this particular case, the block wasn't justified. --MZMcBride 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer resource

I'm curious about the statement that I "consume a fair bit of volunteer resource that could be better used elsewhere". I've felt that my primary ambition in working with Meta is to encourage the Wikimedia Foundation and its volunteers to adopt a higher measure of ethical accountability. I would love to hear where resources could be better used than that! Additionally, I am contemplating taking WikiVices to another venue where it will not be met with such hostility. Are there any objections to my removing that project from the Meta community? -- Thekohser 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests made in good faith for "author deletion" are accepted on nearly any Wikimedia wiki. Just tag the page with {{speedy|author request}}. --MZMcBride 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

(I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this. If this is not the correct location, please tell me.) Could someone please semi-protect Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally1 and Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally2? These pages will be used as vote tallies for the second round of the Wiktionary logo vote and will need to be semi-protected before the start of the vote (January 1) to prevent IP voting. Thanks. --Yair rand 02:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NW (Talk) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Yair rand 02:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]