Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-02

Problens with User:Bitmapped on several projects

I had a problem with Bitmapped since 2010, he has been involved in several instances of attacking me and user:patheochid. he has also been involed in multiple cases of vandalism which resulted in the revocation of my commons talk page.

Is it possible to restore my access to the said talk page, and is it possible to grant temporary synops to me to prevent this from happening again? SchoolcraftT 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

edit: Said user has also attacked me on en wikki and on commons.4.249.180.11 18:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You are blocked on Commons for ignoring copyright laws not that it is an issue that should be dealt with on here. As such accusations against the user in the heading seem wrong and an attack in themselves. You are blocked on en wp for abusing multiple accounts. There is no way anyone will grant you any other rights anywhere and if you repeat these accusations I imagine you may well be blocked here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Schoolcraft, meta is not the correct venue to address this issue. You need to address them on the wiki you are blocked on. That said, you have already exhausted your appeals on both en.wiki and commons as far as I am aware. Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@Herbytime Tose aren't accusations, there the truth. My talk page here on meta was used for vandalism and PAs by said user and others.

YOur statement isn't quite accurate, trust me blocking the users is the right thing to do and leave me out of it (i'm the innocent victum here.) It has slowed down, but I don't know for how long. As far as the copyright issue, see my talk page. Just leave my blocks out of this. 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no vandalism on your talk page. You have a poor history of editing on WMF projects. Please do not make any further accusations - you talk page is largely nonsense as you are not globally blocked (yet). Please do not continue with this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason that thre isn't because I had took care of it as it happened.4.249.180.85 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

User:Guido den Broeder has been blocked for a month and 10 days now. I would like him unblocked as his block has lasted far longer than can be considered proper. Meta does not hand out blocks like other projects as this is the place people are to feel safe about bringing up their concerns. Their block log does not warrant such major blocks, and those who have blocked are connected to the group at nl that Guido has constantly complained about. He was blocked by WizardOfOz for making this comment that was deemed "trolling" even though the concern is very legitimate.

It looks like a clear case of silencing someone, waging war against a perceived "enemy", and goes against the spirit of what Meta is about. If WizardOfOz thought the vote was illegitimate then they could have responded. Labeling the only oppose as "trollng" and pushing a user into a corner isn't fair in any definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This will probably come as a surprise to Ottava but I am inclined to agree with him. I actually thought Guido's unblock request (which he withdrew) was quite sensible in which he apologised for his behaviour. I would not be against unblocking at this stage. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm never surprised by you. :P We are just on opposite ends of debates because we hold two opposite philosophies on projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Catching up with a few pages and seeing how this is being "used" on the stewards questions I am something less than happy and so for me this can wait a while. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support unblock. Given how much Ottava has been allowed to get away with, see Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, the indef block of Guido seems seriously excessive. I suggest "time served," which is more than would have been appropriate. His offense was, by the amazing standards of the Ottavan Empire, minor. I do agree with civility enforcement, and with the block itself, but not the length.

Guido's previous block record shows repeated blocks by a single administrator. That's quite a matter of concern, for it creates an appearance, if nothing else, of bias. I understand that "bias" may simply mean that the admin understands the situation better than others, but see v:Wikiversity:Recusal for a proposed recusal policy that requires avoiding even the appearance of bias, but allows "emergency" blocks, thus covering the situation that a particular administrator has special knowledge. To be permissible, such blocks must invite immediate review, so that it becomes clear whether or not a block has community support. I have not investigated Ottava's claim of specific involvement, other than having noticed a possible problem like that with Abigor. --Abd 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. There was comment on v:User talk:Guido by Ottava Rima, and I noted my comment above. From Guido's gratuitously hostile response, I've concluded that further disruption is likely, and have accordingly reversed my opinion. That there may have been process problems in the blocking does not mean that it was incorrect. Any process problems can be noted here, and any admins who have acted in such a way as to create an appearance of bias can be advised to avoid that in the future, but a disruptive user can and should remain blocked until there are adequate assurances that disruption will not repeat. Guido did not request this unblock. --Abd 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't consider your comment constructive but I guess that is solely an en wv matter and not something to do with a block on Meta. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Herbythyme. Indeed it is a WV matter, but his WV behavior influenced me as to his intentions and, indeed, as to Ottava's intentions here. There is a long story at Wikiversity behind those comments, and my original comment here was quite sincere, giving what I thought appropriate. When the user responded with hostility (and the hostility later became more apparent, calling my comment above "stalking"), I realized that I was seeing the user carrying grudges and resentments, and playing a political game, in spite of my effort to support him. That's a bad sign, so I changed my comment. I do not expect this user's participation to be valuable at meta. However, if he gains probationary custodianship at Wikiversity, which he has requested, he might have a need to come to meta, and that could then be considered, normally, though an unblock template. --Abd 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

o.O Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ottava has attempted to coerce the blocking administrator, who is standing for election as a steward, with tendentious argument, apparently to try to coerce that admin to lift the block, and it would be a shame if this improperly influences the election. I assume that any admin considering unblock here would consult with WizardOfOz, and it would probably be a good idea to also check with Abigor to see if there is something that should be known before proceeding.
• And while you are at it, Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima is ancient. There should be a close, some determination, even if it's just to archive it. But I believe there is plenty there, especially the latest stuff, to conclude that enough is enough, and this piece of business with WizardOfOz isn't even mentioned. --Abd 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Note that my account was unblocked a couple of days ago. Regards, Guido den Broeder 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Thekohser - user talk access

Resolved.

The subject request for comment has been open since the middle of September. The RfC should, if possible, be closed with a result. Thanks. --Abd 02:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Nemo 09:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this. While I disagree with your conclusion, this settles the matter for the time being. --Abd 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unresolving for further discussion. Nemo, that close seems wrong to me. I'm not familiar with any procedural history involved with previous attempts, but regardless THIS attempt for talk access showed consensus leaning towards restore (Three users disagreed, two of which were inexplicably talking about unblocking Thekohser as opposed to simply restoring talk page access. Four users supported by count -- presumably Thekohser would be a fifth.) and if I had seen it before it closed, I'd have supported as well. Furthermore, email access has been restored, with no reports of abuse to my knowledge since April 2010. So why not restore the talk page access? I'd ask you to reconsider your decision. Remember, if he abuses it, we can always disable talk page access and be done with the discussion. It's not like this is the last and final holy wiki-stone sealing the great Kohs demon, whose return will unleash devastation and bring an end to the Fourth Wiki-age. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO closes should be discussed with the initiator, in this case me. I agree with SWATjester that this close was wrong and the case is therefore still unresolved. There is in fact rather a clear consensus for the opposite conclusion, as comments on the block itself carry no weight here, and a close with the result 'access to be granted' seems prudent to me.

Nemo, you have not responded to the above comment, even while you have been active on-wiki. If you remain silent, I will take that as permission to undo your close. Regards, Guido den Broeder 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice about this; I didn't see it (the talk page would be more appropriate, by the way).

With regard to «closes should be discussed with the initiator», I disagree; I'd rather say the opposite, i.e. that it's better if the closure is decided by uninvolved users (as I was), and it would be extremely strange if the initiator reverted the closure. You can open a discussion on Talk:Requests for comment to see if people agree.

Swatjester, you can't just count, it's not a vote; In the conclusion I've explained why I have "discounted" some !votes, the respective arguments being offtopic. Anyway, I could add that even without this I see a clear consensus among Meta administrators who commented on the page, and that I'm not sure that a "consensus leaning towards" something is enough to override a previous admin action and possibly start a wheel war.

I agree, this is not «the last and final holy wiki-stone» etc.; one more reason to stay calm and avoid yet another discussion and let the block expire naturally (it's just one more month). --Nemo 20:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemo, you haven't explained anything, and there are three users here that entirely disagree with you. And by the way, all opinions are of equal value in an RfC. Adminship is irrelevant, we are all experienced users. This is not en:Wikipedia. We also do not look up someone like this the moment they disagree with you on something. That's very bad manners. Guido den Broeder 22:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to mix up different types of points and messages: the reasoning of the closure; additional possible points which don't belong to the ratio decidendi; completely unrelated accidental personal messages/suggestions. I suggest you to re-read everything carefully and then, if you want, write relevant objections to the closure and propose a different conclusion. --Nemo 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My objections and proposal have been presented above. There is no need for more bureaucracy. What we need is for you to make the changes. Guido den Broeder 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What "you" need. I'm certainly not included in that "we". DarkoNeko 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic: ad hominem and personal attacks

Note that DarkoNeko has attempted to add defaming information to Thekohser's entry on a living-persons page, thereby also revealing private information (diff available by mail). DarkoNeko has not participated in the RfC. Guido den Broeder 14:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Note that has Guido den Broeder just attempted en:ad hominem. Oh, and since you want to play like this, you might want to check your block log on meta, and the fact you're also currently blocked on nlwiki and nlwikipedia before trying that sort of things on other people. DarkoNeko 14:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC) This is not en:Wikipedia. If you think it relates to the RfC at hand, by all means bring it up. You are on the right page to do so. One caveat though: I do not have a SUL account, so you might want to be more careful in linking logs. Guido den Broeder 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Why am I supposed to relate to the english wikipedia in any way ? Are you somehow assuming it is my home wiki ? DarkoNeko 17:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC) It's very simple, DN. Guido is the There is a class of user who, when he has a conclusion he's pushing, will make up any argument he can find about why you are a jerk for daring to have a different opinion, and who will search for any dirt or apparent dirt to toss from the past. Guido could ask for any administrator to re-open that RfC. If none will, it's dead, and ranting and raving about DarkoNeko won't change that at all. It's attempted bullying, very similar to Ottava Rima -- who bullied WizardOfOz into unblocking Guido --, but without the connections and skill and former constructive history of Ottava. Note: I disagree with the DN Nemo close, but that doesn't mean I favor attacking everyone in sight, including him. --Abd 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Note: Abd has been desysopped at en:Wikiversity on my initiative, among other things for abusing his rights v Ottava Rima. Guido den Broeder 19:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Great way to get Thekohser unblocked, Guido, attack people who support it! I hadn't been thinking that Guido started the desysop process, but it's true that Ottava used his comment as an excuse to convert Ottava's proposed topic ban -- which was preposterous -- into an "emergency desysop," no reason given. Long story. Bottom line, what can be seen then, as well as recently on meta, is close cooperation between Ottava and Guido, in what amounted to massive disruption by Ottava. --Abd 21:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC) DarkoNeko: read my reply again, that's not what I said. Regards, Guido den Broeder 19:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC) I read your reply, several times, and DarkoNeko's question was cogent and on-point. You wrote "this is not en:wikipedia," as if that were relevant, and now you have declined to explain your comment, just claiming error on the part of DarkoNeko. Classic tactic of tendentious argument. What's your point, Guido? Similarly, how is my desysop at Wikiversity relevant to anything here? I'm an unblocked user on all WMF wikis. So? Would that make my arguments more or less cogent? DarkoNeko appears to be reasonably neutral, and made a decision. So? You don't like it, there are ways to appeal it. But, instead, you are trying to bully him into complying with what you want. I ain't going to work, the mud you are tossing will fall back on your face. --Abd 21:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC) I've blocked Guido den Broeder for this. I encourage other users to express their opinion on this request without fear of being personally attacked. Nemo 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• On the substance, here: we unblocked Thekohser -- completely -- on Wikiversity, by a 75% !vote, with some predicting dire consequences. Nothing bad happened. He's an occasional contributor. It's true that only a little time is involved, but allowing Talk page access would be more of a gesture of attempted reconciliation, which is better for the project in the long run. Indeed, if he abuses Talk page access, there it goes! I'd assume he'd be reblocked for a longer term. Treat him with respect, though, my experience, he will respond with respect. Treat him as a troll, and allow people -- anyone! -- to call him a troll with no advice about incivility, he'll be that! He will always, probably, make a few provocative statements, but the wikis can handle that, easily. --Abd 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-marked as resolved now that two weeks of "further discussion" after "unresolving" have passed: I don't see any request which lasted so long in the recent archives; still, there's no sysop willing to address the request differently (and anyway, if someone pops up he can do so). Nemo 08:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why am I not logged in? 86.178.205.206 14:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please visit Special:UserLogin and see if there's any error message. Please also make sure that you're visiting meta in the same server you logged-in elsewhere, in case you logged-in in a different site than meta. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima

The following discussion is closed: In the meanwhile this has implicitly received plenty of administrative attention, see Talk:Requests_for_comment/User:Ottava_Rima#Update.3B_closure where further, updated comments should be placed. 10:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Originally opened October 12, 2010. Needs administrative attention, please, already requested above under #Guido den Broeder. --Abd 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome messages

What's up with Special:Contributions/Meta-Wiki Welcome? The welcome message seems to be broken somehow. Jafeluv 13:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MW 1.17 upgrading is responsible for this. Blocking nor locking helped stopping it so it has been dissabled to prevent further problems. I have submitted bug for this issue. Leave the account blocked for now. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 15:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.js breaks Talk:Spam blacklist

... and other pages that use class=attable. See w:WP:VPT#Cannot view m:Talk:Spam blacklist: empty page. MER-C 05:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this fixed it. --MZMcBride 07:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Expired RfC

Requests for comment/fi.wikipedia and community action missing in problem solving has been silent since December, and I don't think further comments are expected. Could someone uninvolved review and close the RfC, please? Jafeluv 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Protect List of Wikipedias

It seems there is a lot of vandalism on the page List of Wikipedias (see history). Maybe it is a good idea to semi-protect this page? Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, that page has been vandalized quite often in the past, so I changed it to autconfirmed - Hoo man (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Automatic welcome signatures

See Meta:Babel#Welcoming users. In case there's consensus for automatic random signatures to welcome, we need to know if sysops agree to be added to the initial list. Thank you, Nemo 08:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Meta desysop: where and how?

I wish to know where and how one can initiate a desysop procedure against a Meta administrator and bureaucrat, thanks. Guido den Broeder 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd want to place it at Meta:Administrators/Removal, using the same format as admin nominations. Show, don't tell, about improper actions using diffs and log entries. It would seem reasonable to expect the same criteria for removal of adminship as there is to grant it, that is, a 75% support in favor of removal. It may be wise to retain as much clinical detachment as possible, to avoid giving anyone an excuse to block for "personal attacks" or "trolling" also. If any of this is factually incorrect, corrections (and of course links to examples to the contrary) are encouraged. Kylu 21:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The only removal criteria listed there are about inactivity. Nothing is mentioned about abuse. Have there been such cases? Guido den Broeder 21:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just fill a subpage like an RfA with sufficient name and transclude it as deadminship on RfA. I think this just works. Please also notify people if you are going to do this. I think there was one case with a deadminship. It was handled the same way. -Barras 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Barras, I suppose that will work. Guido den Broeder 01:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CentralNotice is jumbled on RTL wikis

CentralNotice about steward elections appeared as LTR on RTL wikis until recently. Catrope corrected it partly, but now the main text and the little links are on the right side, overlapping. The main text should be on the right and the little links should be on the left. Can anyone fix it, please?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming here to make the same request. Please change the banner css from:

.rtl #stew2011-vote-notice-wrapper #toggle-box {
  left: 15px;
  text-align: right;
}

to

.rtl #stew2011-vote-notice-wrapper #toggle-box {
  left: 15px;
  text-align: left;
}

Thanks. Aude 21:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, though I'm not sure it'll fix it. Cbrown1023 talk 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. Though think it takes a minute or so with how css is cached. Thanks for doing the fix. Aude 01:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)