Open main menu

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2010-03



-->ping. Pmlineditor  16:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed. vvvt 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sysop toolsEdit

  Removed Hi all. It seems that I am using my administrator tools at meta very little these days. Could a bureaucrat or a steward please remove my admin access? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for all the work you have done. If you ever decide to come back, I believe you may request you flag here, since there were no controversial circumstances. vvvt 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for adminship/Aphaia tempEdit


How long do temp adminship requests last? This one is a few days old, and consensus seems more than clear... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to policy we don't even need a discussion if they are going to use it for specific reasons. Definitely can be closed. James (T C) 02:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry/votestacking on Steward requests/Global permissions#Global sysop for putnikEdit

The group of users who were formerly banned on Russian Wikipedia organized a flashmob.

I blocked SkyBon since he was one who were votestacking and his contributions on meta are several votes and accusing Bastique of trolling. I have no ideas what to do with others. Any ideas? vvvt 17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think stewards already know how much weight to give these opinions.  — mikelifeguard@meta:~$  17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Meta does not seem to have overt policies regarding meatpuppetry. On EnWiki, EnWiki ArbCom has ruled that meatpuppets may be treated as sockpuppets (see here and here. I would think that if it can be shown that a concerted effort was made to target specific users who were partial to one side of a discussion to affect the outcome of said discussion, then that would be considered disruption and should be treated as any disruptive activity to protect the integrity of the project(s). Again, speaking as a steward, I believe that we were aware of the issues and did not let it affect our decision, but I concur that disruption needs to be acted upon to continue to maintain the integrity of the process. -- Avi 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Specifically to Mike, I agree, but I still maintain that it maintains integrity and transparency to do as much as possible to keep the process pure, even though we may be experts in not letting it affect us. -- Avi 17:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What Meta does allow is for its administrators, absence an arbitration committee or volunteer advisory board, to be more thoughtful in their blocks and Meta permits its administrators to issue blocks more easily based on disruption. bastique demandez! 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I need input on whom of users specified above should be blocked. What I intend to do:

  • Block Deutscher Friedensstifter — was warned on Meta, was banned on 2 projects, continued disruption by engaging in the flash mob.
  • Block SA ru — wikilawyering, engagement in flash mob.
  • Block Stoljaroff, Ole Førsten, Медиа — for acting as meatpuppets of SkyBon by responding to his votestacking announcement.

I'm still not sure whether three latter users need to be blocked. I should also note that I am not going to block Ole Førsten due to fact that I was engaged in several disputes with him. vvvt 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ole Førsten done. Per reasons above. --WizardOfOz talk 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Done the rest. vvvt 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually it was so nice not to let any of the blocked users to know about this discussion. Discussing the blocks behind their backs. Wonderful.
  • If the user is blocked at one wiki it doesn't mean anything on Meta. Everyone is free to express his own opinion.
  • In the mean time that notice was just a friendly notice which is clearly permitted (it is neutral, non-partisan etc). If somebody wants to clarify he or she may use Google Translate.
  • Finally, just the same thread was posted by User:Wind in another LJ community [2] so in that case he and many supporters should be banned as well. 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    Block on any local project doesn't imply block on Meta, but it tells that user most probably had caused disruption in other projects. That's useful to determine whether user was acting in good faith.
    Votestacking is defined not by text of the message, but by the audience to which it is delivered: in SkyBon's case it's a spam-blacklisted LJ community watched by users banned on ruwiki and containing a lot of attacks on Wikipedia users; in Wind's case it's genuine LJ community replicated to Planet Wikimedia. vvvt 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    Orly? That very community can't be called genuine because of two reasons: it is not free (only approved sysops & friends can post there) and even Russian ArbCom ruled that no LJ-community can be called genuine. 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think these blocks are not correct and useful, users are free to express their opinions in discussions in this project. Аурелиано Буэндиа 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. But not on this way. That is called mobbing and wikistalk. Canvassing behind the scenes is also not a gent´s way to do it. Otherway, i tought KGB is renamed some 7 years ago? It is done, and it is over. Discussion should be maked without personal attacks. Thank you for your comment. --WizardOfOz talk 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Что за ерунда тут вообще происходит. Я прошу сначала обсудить справедливость блокировок ряда участников Русской Википедии, которые ранее были наложены в самой русской Википедии без достаточных оснований. Это сделала компания администраторов, которые друг за друга голосуют. Они не видят бревна у себя в глазу. Меня заблокировали, к примеру, за запросы источников в статьях, Smartass-а неизвестно за что, Serebr-а - за поддержку Smartass-а, Skybon-а - за поддержку меня и т.д. Касательно текущего шоу - или отменяйте голосование против Putnik-а как несправедливое, или снимайте блокировки. X-romix 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi X-romix. Those users who are blocked should for first make a deblock request on ruwiki and if that doesn´t work a RfC. Otherwise the same users are posting nonsense at the moment on the forum and calling vvv member of Hitlerjugend. Such postings are not the best if someone want to be deblocked. Once more it´s just a stalk as it was done by putnik. But if they think they should deliver such things to the WWW, they can do it somewhere else, but not here and not on other wiki projects. That is what a rule: no personal attacks is talking about. Kind regards --WizardOfOz talk 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand you. This is bad practice with blocking for phantom violations (without any diffs) in ru-wiki and NOW in Meta. Situation with many unfair blocks in ru-wiki is not resolved, Jimbo is silent. Members of "party of administrators" must resolve old conflicts in ru-wiki, an THEN go to global sysop flags. X-romix 21:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." That's true for both sides of the conflict. Alas. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why blocking Skybon in ru-wiki? X-romix 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure it's the most appropriate place to discuss ruwiki blocks? vvvt 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Some ru-wiki blocks is unfair (blocking for requesting sources in articles, etc.). Please provide diff why SkyBon was blocked in ru-wiki? X-romix 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, nobody will provide diffs for blocks on ruwiki here, this is a page for the Metawiki and not for ruwiki or any other wiki. Thanks for your cooperation. --თოგო (D) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocking of SkyBon in ru-wiki is incorrect (it is for source requesting in article was written by administrator), "nobody will provide" a truth. 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that any user discussing RuWiki sysop abuses there is persecuted very quickly. For example SkyBon was indefblocked in several days after RfC concerning Yaroslav Blanter's constant personal attacks was posted by him. 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, I'm not happy with the oppressive "Border Watch" phylosophy, and particularly with the SkyBon blocking details. I'm not happy with the blocked users' revenge either. And finally, I don't think that anybody here is interested in this endless fight... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It is NOT a revenge - it is a VOTING. If this voting (against Putnik) is not correct, admins MUST cancel (revert) it. If this voting is correct, WHY users was blocked in Meta by Meta admin vvv? X-romix 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually that was just expressing

Looks like the best solution here would be to unblock blocked editors unless a broad consensus to block them is reached. Otherwise this is a sysop abuse. 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there was a need to block these users. Some forms of agitation do exist in Russian Wikipedia. For example, here Amdf posted a notice about his elections in the talk section of the Wikiproject about small languages of Russia, and he got 4 support votes within 3 hours from the participants of that project. Concerning the discussion about Putnik, the post in ru_wikipedia block caused 10 oppose votes, the post in wikipedia_blog resulted in 4 support votes. I agree that such forms of agitation are inappropriate, but I don't know why it's a reason for blocking. Block in Russian Wikipedia can't be the only reason, for example, SkyBon is an active contributor to English Wikipedia. In my opinion, these users should be unblock under conditions like in Медиа's unblocking — NickK 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • +1. Erittäin kohtuulliset ajatukset. Odotamme reaktioita. --Stoljaroff 20:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)