Open main menu

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-01

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Guidance around Requests for Comments

Would someone be able to point me towards the guidance information about the running and implementation of requests for comment at Meta? From what I can see there is no structure available for their opening premise, judging the legitimacy, or suitable running of such a request. At this point in time, I see that a disenchanted person is able to start a fight on another wiki, and then drag that fight over here, make outrageous and unsubstantiated comments, insult people, disagree with any statement (maybe every statement that is made), seemingly without supporting evidence, commentary or corroboration, and that all seems okay. Have I missed something? billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating, we usually close unproductive RfC because general rules apply (e.g. AGF). It's true that there's no real process, but this can't be fixed because the stewards' role is not clear, see Requests for comment/Dispute resolution committee and related discussions. --Nemo 07:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Vapmachado (talkcontribs) - ban request

I request inmediate & indef block to Vapmachado (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which after being blocked for 3 months for harassment he's just returned to do the same thing that lead him to be blocked in the first instance. Examples: [1], [2].

His continued hostile behaviour should not be allowed & this user has a interesting history of cross-wiki issues that demonstrates that this user has no intentions of amendment.

--dferg ☎ talk 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Done -- Wutsje 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See foundation-l thread, as expected. --dferg ☎ talk 19:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's the best to just ignore that thread...? -Barras
I just do not want to get accused now of hidding that. As the user has complained that what I quoted from his blocklog on ptwiki may turn out for being difamatory I have removed it from this thread & I excuse. It was probably not a good idea.
As for the thread at foundation-l: I'm not suscribed to foundation-l and I won't reply nor follow the discussion there. If the user wants to appeal his ban it is his talk page the proper venue I think.
--dferg ☎ talk 20:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect

There was a premature and unnecessary protection to Don't be a dick which has short-circuited a productive discussion and set of proposals for improvement and compromise. All parties to the editing are calm, and there was not and continues to not be any disruption. I am confident that plenty of good people are looking at the situation and that we will be better off without protection in this and all similar cases.--Jimbo Wales 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reduced protection level to semi. no change in protection time --Jyothis 05:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm very disappointed that a steward who is not a local admin changed the protection done by a local admin. Also, I like to point to this earlier discussion. Just for consideration. -Barras 06:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. Didnt have the background discussions that you liked earlier and was not intending to over rule a local admin. I have reverted my action and will leave it to the Admins to manage it. Barras, thanks for pointing it out. --Jyothis 06:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Could a local admin comment, then? There was no serious edit war, no inflamed passions, a group of editors who know each other well and were working towards a positive resolution of a longstanding dispute, and this unnecessary protection has brought the process to a complete halt.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now lowered the protection level in the hope that it was protected long enough to let the people who were involved in the edit war calmed down and are able to find the talk page now. Further I'm watching it now to protect it again if necessary - Hoo man (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary importer right

I need temporary importer rights to easily import outreach:Category:Best practices documentation (a day will be enough). Those pages were started on Meta and copied there without history (and leaving duplicates here) and are now more actively edited on Meta; I'll merge histories, check page status, add soft redirects on outreachwiki and fix links. I've notified the best practises team mailing list. --Nemo 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This right can´t be given by an meta crat. Ask a steward please. --WizardOfOz talk 19:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Use Steward requests/Permissions for that. --WizardOfOz talk 19:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, thank you. Nemo 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please protect or mediate

Hi all. We are having some problems with Wikimedia España/Trobada de viquimedistes a Barcelona/ca, the coordination page and chronicle of a wikimeeting in catalan language and organized by Wikimedia España. Other users, who do not participate in the meeting or even take part in WM-ES, are changing the information, with no right. Can any meta admin protect the page or mediate? Thanks in advance, --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected for the next month. Please put new input on the talk page and inform an sysop to insert it on the page. Longer than a month is to much in my opinion. --WizardOfOz talk 11:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, WizardOfOz. I think it will be enough. --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 11:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
NP --WizardOfOz talk 12:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not true at all. I was not changing information but adding useful details. I'm sorry if you don't like it. Cheers. --Joanot 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Steward election page

As much thinking aloud as anything else - I've deleted two pages today from folk who have no SUL and virtually no edits and pointed them to the guidelines. Would I be right in thinking that I am not being too harsh here? Seems pointless to allow such pages. I just wonder if we need a template/speedy delete reason too? I guess it depends how many we get...:) --Herby talk thyme 12:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, if it's technically possible, it would be better if the central notice isn't shown to users who don't meet the guidelines (I feel it would be more fair to them that way, too). -- Mentifisto 10:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, people who apply should know the guidelines, even thus one. I've also deleted one or two such requests. -Barras 12:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)