Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-10

Libel on RfA


I wish to report continued, long-time disruptive and harassment behaviour by this user towards me and several other stablished meta community members. In several occasions Abd has made direct or veiled criminal indictments and personal attacks towards myself and other community members:

  • [3] Following Law is preposterous. I am a liar, no privacy law exist, I'm protecting a lawbreaker.
  • Criminal indictment towards myself (bottom) According to Abd then my clarifications on the RfC were done because I knowlingly commited a crime and wanted to fix it soon. Actually the person being defamed is me.
  • Claims of false policy violations [4] (bottom)
  • More diffs on demand, if needed.

Theo10011 issued a warning ("I'm really beginning to find your tone questionable when you start schooling every other admin here on how meta works. I am not happy with your general lack of good faith and your accusative tones towards several long-standing community members here) and I issued another but doing so converts me in a "seriously unqualified" person to be anything. In that diff you'll also see a threat to exploit steward reconfirmation process for non-steward-related things.

To finish I think it is worth noting that this user is community banned on enwiki for disruption (before that several blocks and a 3 months ArbCom ban), block that he proudly admits evading and holds several blocks in his homewiki, enwikiversity. Proof that other communities (included his own community) had problems with his behaviour. Per those blocks Abd should know better that this kind of project disruption is not allowed. Abd, as I've told above, has been requested and warned in this project yet he's not changed.

For the above exposed I demand administrative actions on this user, inmediatelly. More specifically, an infinite block. This, the excesive wikilawyering, the harassment, etc... needs to stop, and per diffs above it's not me the only one complaining.

—  Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  •   Support I have been personally involved in this issue, so I think I should avoid direct action in the matter. But I completely agree with MarcoAurelio and support a ban on Meta for Abd. He has been issued multiple warnings, and managed to insult several admins and users on Meta. I do not like his tone or conduct on Meta, and find his general lack of good faith with others, problematic. Theo10011 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support In addition to what has already been said: the user is all over the place, producing walls and walls of text, thus prohibiting any normal conversation with them as well as between other users. Guido den Broeder 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    •   Done User is blocked per 4th Pillar, legal threats, personal attacks, harassement, disturbing behavior in discussions, not assuming of good faith. This don´t need a discussion in such case, its a block of an disruptive user per se. --WizardOfOz talk 16:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree with admin action. From the diffs, I'd agree that Abd has gone too far on too many occasions, and perhaps that does warrant a block. However, he is not an obviously disruptive user, and I would really like to see some actual consensus developed here before the blocking starts. In my opinion, if the user isn't an outright vandal, consensus should be obtained before an indefinite block. Beyond that, I'm neutral on this - another occasion of someone crossing boundaries in discussions. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry but the facts are talking for it self. It´s just a standard block because of his behavior. But if there are more people who disagree, any sysop can review my action. --WizardOfOz talk 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I sound harsh here, Ajr. Not my intention. But you've said above that Abd has gone far on too many occasions, but on your support vote for Abd's full custodianship at Wikiversity you've said totally the contrary IMHO. —  Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I did, and actually I thought that I had struck that !vote yesterday. From what I remembered of Abd's interactions with other users here he seemed to have improved over the last little while, but obviously looking at the evidence above I was rather mistaken. Thanks for reminding me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the first time the behaviour has been such. I agree. --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Herby.--Mbz1 18:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Full disclosure, I closed the community ban discussion on enwp. The pattern of disruption here, locally, has been fairly consistent for months now, and the rule against legal threats is sacrosanct. This doesn't have to be infinite, but for the time being, good call. Courcelles 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose – Abd is one of our most honest users. Abd knows how to spot mistakes and problems, and he doesn't hesitate in calling them out. Abd shouldn't be blocked for honesty. We shouldn't use sysop tools to enforce political correctness and kindness. From what I can judge from the diff's present, I don't see Abd's comments as disruptive. --Michaeldsuarez 20:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    This is not a cross-wiki issue, it is a local one. His standing on a different project has no bearing here. The issue is his conduct on Meta, as such, I dont see how you can comment on his interaction with the community here. Theo10011 20:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    I didn't mention or refer any of Abd's non-Meta activities; I commented only on his activities on Meta. I've interacted with Abd on Meta, and I participated in community discussions here; I consider myself active and informed enough to comment on his activities here. --Michaeldsuarez 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support - Keep him blocked indefinitely, preferably on all WMF wikis. Where Abd goes, disruption follows. Raul654 04:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per Michaeldsuarez. --N KOziTalk 05:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have always thought that a ban discussion should run for at least a week, not 4 hours. I checked all diffs and found no legal threats, accusations of libel, criminal indictments, etc. The behavior of Abd can be characterized as naughty and his habit of writing walls of text may be irritating, but this is not a kind of behavior a user would be expected to be indefinitely blocked in just four hours. And as I noticed this is just his first block on meta. Ruslik 07:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    Ruslik, this is a local block on Meta asked on Request for Help from Admin page. I thought these required swiftest action of all, like a random IP vandalizing. Keeping this open and voting on it seems counter-productive. I was expressing my support as a Meta admin, and I thought given its location, the discussion/vote should be within admins and not the larger community. This is not a lock or an action on another wiki but strictly a local issue. Theo10011 10:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    Why are you so fixated on mentioning other wikis and using the word "local"? Meta isn't a secret clubhouse. Being from another wiki doesn't validate the ideas expressed. You should welcome and appreciate outside ideas and the insight they bring in. American criticism against North Korea is valid even though most Americans never set foot inside North Korea. It was outside pressure from the international community that changed South Africa for the better. Comments from outsiders shouldn't be labeled as weightless. --Michaeldsuarez 12:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    Theo, Abd's actions are very different from a "random IP vandalizing", and the fact that there are people here opposing pretty much shows why indefinite blocks of users who are not obviously disruptive should have consensus before the block is made. Also, if this page is an admins-only club, perhaps we should move discussions like these to another page, because I see no reason why non-admins should be unable to share their opinions on these. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    Michaeldsuarez, I am not fixated on mentioning other wiki, if I remotely was fixated, I would have mentioned his indef. block on en.wp first. On to the point, I never said Meta is a secret clubhouse, and your characterization of my comments as such is offensive, you removed the substantive part about Meta being its own project. Regardless of what you believe, stewards and other people here, do believe Meta has its own community, while it might not be a "secret clubhouse", it does deserve its own weight and respect. Steward ask for rights locally within the community on Meta to take admin actions, this is not some point you can infer however you like. The point about I should welcome criticism applies to you and abd too, he has engaged in a campaign to argue with anyone who disagrees with him, see the diffs. I never argued comments from outsiders should be weightless, I said the "larger community", again Meta has its own community hence why I called it local. Aj, I don't know why you need to quote "random IP vandalizing", but this page is indeed used to report ongoing vandalism. Yes, there is opposition but there is also support since there is no internal deliberation body, any admin action is good as another. And Yes, ideally this conversation should be moved to the talk page or an RfC if this continues. Regards. Theo10011 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I said that you were fixated because when I left my comment, you said,

"This is not a cross-wiki issue, it is a local one. His standing on a different project has no bearing here. The issue is his conduct on Meta, as such, I dont see how you can comment on his interaction with the community here."

You left this comment even though my comment didn't have anything to do with "cross-wiki" issues. I never mentioned Abd's standing on outside project.

Then after Ruslik0 made his comment, you did it again:

Ruslik, this is a local block on Meta asked on Request for Help from Admin page. I thought these required swiftest action of all, like a random IP vandalizing. Keeping this open and voting on it seems counter-productive. I was expressing my support as a Meta admin, and I thought given its location, the discussion/vote should be within admins and not the larger community. This is not a lock or an action on another wiki but strictly a local issue.

As with my comment, Ruslik0's comment didn't have anything to do with actions done outside of Meta. My feeling is that you're arguing against who the !voters are (not a part of the community in your eyes) rather than arguing against what the !voters are saying. The only time you argued against what a !voter was saying instead of who that !voter was your reply to Ajraddatz, who is a "trusted" member of the Meta community. Sorry, but I don't believe you're giving equal weight to comments made by non-community members. --Michaeldsuarez 17:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read back and see where I have disputed that it is not a local issue. I stand by my statements, I disputed your characterization of my comments as a fixation ("fixated on"), I am assuming you know the meaning and the implication of that word. You were generalizing my comments as you are doing again, I did not discount a single vote above or tell a single person there vote matters less than other - read it again if you are unsure. When you stated your vote for the first time, you started "Abd is one of our most honest users." I assumed you were referring to your interaction on another project or place all together, that might not have been the case. Second, my comments to Ruslik were intended to point about the use of this page for yes, you guessed it right "local" issues and not cross-wiki as these matters are becoming more and more inter-project. Since they are and in the interest of fairness, your word should be on equal footing with enwp users and admins who were responsible for Abd's ban there. Theo10011 17:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Although I made a bid to perverse Abd's enwiki legacy, I never interacted with Abd on any Wikimedia project besides Meta. I've also interacted with Abd on the Wikipedia Review, but I wouldn't use the word "our" here to describe the WR community. I respect your community's independence. Sorry for misinterpreting some of your comments. --Michaeldsuarez 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your candor. Regards. Theo10011 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe any user should be indefinitely blocked for "engag[ing] in a campaign to argue with anyone who disagrees with him." He has the right to disagree and voice out that disagreement, even if it leads to an argument. I also wish to see a reply to Abd's concerns about the block. We shouldn't block him and then forget about him. --Michaeldsuarez 13:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like someone to take some responsibility for the block and address Abd's concerns on his talk page. I've already asked WizardOfOz to assume responsibility and fulfill his or her obligations to a member of the Meta he or she had chosen to disenfranchise via a block. If this is truly the place to request speedy action from sysops, then I expect some action and results. I'm losing my confidence in the sysops here. Sysops have a duty to their community, but I'm witnessing community members' concerns (both mine and Abd's) being ignored. --Michaeldsuarez 20:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I endorse the block. To much disruption. Tired of this. -Barras 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some of the people endorsing this block are people I've "seen in action" before as being very patient people, and I've also had more than my fair share of encounters with Mr. Abd. I'm not exactly supporting the block because I really can't be bothered to look into the details it's based upon, but I would certainly regard both a local block and a global block to be perfectly sensible and rational actions to take given the history of the person in question. --SB_Johnny talk 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support after reviewing the issue and the comments of the colleagues --Neozoon 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Reviewed and agree. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing of ´crat flag

Could someone remove my flag please, at the moment there are enough helpful hands. If needed I can reactivate. Thanks --WizardOfOz talk 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Let us know when you want it back :) Jafeluv 14:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, WizardOfOz. Hope to see you back! Best, -- Marco Aurelio 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Aww, I hope you're not taking a wiki-break? Thanks for being an awesome crat and a great community member. Hope to see you around. Theo10011 22:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please grant the flag again? As it looks, I will have much free time probably until the end of the year, so wuld be glad to help out. --WizardOfOz talk 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Quentinv57. --WizardOfOz talk 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No problems. Welcome back ! ;-) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC))
  Comment Frankly, I think it is a very, VERY, poor misuse of the tools to get them and then ask the to be removed for small period. Such actions often seem pointy/whiningly. Flags are not playthings. I have to take time off (Afghanistan and Libya), and with bombs and bullets firing shot at me, yet I've still manage act as a steward for WMF (even perma-banning; using IRC and via emails. The problem, as I (and many others) see it is one if childishness. He said, She said. 99% of issues are stupid and based on. Remember, Wikipedia is JUST a website. Not, a warning People that can not converse in neutral and civil will find themselves banned for the discussion. (I bind other stewards to do likelise) fr33kman 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Answer to Fr33kman: We have spoke enough about my health constellation on IRC. Therefore, I wanted to retire at all, because in case of cancer I wouldn´t be able to do nothing and removing of crat flag was the second step (already removed admin bit on bswiki). But as it looks things are going better, and the worst case has not occured. So I´m feeling psychically better now and can look forward to be more active. Thats why asked for the flag back. But if you think that such requests shouldn´t be done, feel free to remove the flag (even if meta is not that beaurocratic in this case) and i can run for it again. --WizardOfOz talk 10:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
YES, well, don't I feel a heel now. :( Sorry! fr33kman 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist exemption

Apologies if the wrong place to ask, but I'm trying to use the url http://www.newsonnews dot net/radio/12048-bbc-condemns-umbroy-usmonov-verdict.html in citing a source on Wikinews. It's being caught by the spam blacklist. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The right place to ask would be Talk:Spam blacklist. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, someone else has pointed out this is a copyvio of a BBC presser anyway. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


Our this respected user has created many pages in Tibetan language but all of them were deleted because rest of us failed to understand the contents and purposes of them. Both administrators and other users asked him many times to explain a) what were those, and b) why they should be on Meta, but unfortunately he never talks. He also modified comments of other users (translating the signature) and he was warned for that. In 18 August 2011, I blocked him for 1 day because he was continuing with creating those off-topic pages (as it seemed). Today I have deleted another newly created pages (that one was also in Tibetan). Now, I cannot decide what to do exactly. We can block him indefinitely, but maybe he wants to be useful by translating something in Tibetan which we do not understand. On the other hand it is his duty to explain his edits. Please help by sharing your thoughts. Thank you. — Tanvir | Talk ] 03:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree we can't block if we're not sure if it's vandalism/disruptive. Nobody else that can check the Tibetan? Savhñ 09:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadly I see no one here. :/ — Tanvir | Talk ] 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Would be worth a try to ask at bo:Wikipedia:Community Portal. Sadly, no online translator I've found can make the slightest headway with Tibetian. Courcelles 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems bo:User:Beaukarpo is very active --Bencmq 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request in own userspace

Seems the {{delete}} template doesn't work on a .js page. Can a sysop delete User:CharlieEchoTango/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js? Thank you. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 20:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks --[[CharlieEchoTango]] 20:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)   Done, deleted. Greetings, Savhñ 20:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
For your information, yes the template does work on .js pages as well. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Move of two move protected pages

The move protection should perhaps be removed. -- とある白い猫 chi? 21:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there any discussion or consensus regarding this? Tiptoety talk 06:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe such a thing is necessary on matters concerning the meta main page as there is little interest to the point where most of the main pages were outdated by several years before the unification efforts. You can observe this on Talk:Main Page where replies are scarce. A comment posted there typically gets ignored. This is part of the general unification of the main page. Only two pages listed above remain to be moved.
Do you have an actual objection because this is the first time on meta I have observed someone looking for discussion or consensus regarding page moves. The absence of a "requests for page move" is for a reason.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 07:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No there wasn't. I have asked the user not to proceed with these changes on IRC and was ignored, then I was told he couldn't stop anymore because everything was done, with a smiley. When asked if there was consensus for the move, he said he didn't bother to ask, as nobody "cared about the main page" (Text is mine, as I'm not publicly posting the logs of IRC). Later on, when asking any admin on IRC to move these pages, he didn't provide a reason for the move, and informed me he would ignore me permanently on IRC, when I asked him for a reason. In my opinion, this user tries to solve problems that don't exist, causing a mess in Recent Changes and IRC. Savhñ 08:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you posted something to my talk page? Have you posted something to the talk pages of any of the involved templates? In fact have you posted anything on the wiki regarding the changes? You are under the impression I have highlights turned on, when in fact they are turned off. I do not use highlights. Also, I will ignore people on IRC as I see fit. As I told you on IRC before ignoring you, if you have an objection raise it on the relevant wiki page. Don't demand a discussion or consensus for the sake of having one. -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming. When asked something on IRC, I consider it very unpolite to evade the answer and ignore me, what you are doing here again. Savhñ 08:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see your question. You are saying that the pages shouldn't be moved because it "isn't necessary". Do you have a strong objection or are you objecting for the sake of objecting? -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I am asking you a reason for the move, and objecting because there isn't one at the moment, as far as I've understood. Savhñ 08:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The move is part of the main page unification. It will simplify the explanation to translators as to which pages and subpages they need to edit as well as making it easier to establish which templates relate to the main page. Furthermore it will simplify the code of the templates increasing its readability. -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks to me like it was done yesterday? --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently [[Template:Main Page/Wikimedia Foundation/Code]] is unfortunately a copy paste of Template:Wikimedia Foundation. I would want it to preserve edit history. -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is quite subjective, and a discussion should have taken place. How can "simplifying the code of the templates increase its readability"? I don't think you need to be an expert in codes to read the main page, or even to find out how to translate it. Savhñ 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Right. Which is why now it is as simplified as clicking a few edit links rather than trying to figure out what an entire block of code supposed to mean. As you can see it is much easier to tell which part of the code relies on sub pages of the main page when they are all marked as such through their names.
Main page has been translated to about 50 languages already and are up to date with the information as they all will present the same information even if new information is added. If anything, translation is a lot easier now as changes to the English page shows up on all translations immediately prompting editors what exactly is new and in need of translation. Before the unification languages remained outdated by several years up to half a decade on few occasions.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 08:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
So templates that aren't sub pages of the main page shouldn't be translated? Savhñ 08:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not know how you reached that conclusion. I clarified my above post in the meanwhile. -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've completed the two requested page moves cause I can indeed see an improvement (though it's very small and it's questionable to spend so much time and to do so many changes for such a small improvement), furthermore he already did so many changes that reverting everything would be much more work and would have resulted in an even worse mess than just completing the two requested page moves. But I can agree that such things should be discussed first. - Hoo man (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotect request Template:EditUrl

Because Template:EditUrl generates an edit link it should perhaps be semi or full protected. -- とある白い猫 chi? 09:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not done, no reason for protection. Not even main page is recursively protected, by the way. Nemo 10:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem I I fear this may open people for phisihing or spam. The template is mass transcluded and appears like a regular "edit" link. Like main pages it should at least be semi protected but if you do not see a reason for it, that is fine too. -- とある白い猫 chi? 14:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Supporting the Translate extension on Meta

Hoi, the Translate extensionr has been enabled on Meta. As a consequence there is a new type of user, the Translation administrators. As it makes sense to provide help with both documentation and instruction, I request bureaucrat rights that will enable me to do so. Thanks, Gmeijssen 13:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm where is the need for those tools? Can you be more clear? Providing documentation and instructions doesn´t seem to be a good reason for me. --WizardOfOz talk 15:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: Next time use this account so i know who I´m talking to :D. How long would you need it and which account should be granted with this tools? --WizardOfOz talk 15:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Having good tooling for translators IS essential. The current toolset is not flexible. Does not support statistics and changes in documents.
  • Providing support for the Translate is something I will be doing as a Wikimedia Foundation employee. That is why I will do it as Gmeijssen and not GerardM. Gmeijssen 07:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PS it will still be me who is doing it :)

If you need bureaucrat access (as member of the foundation staff), you may make an informal RfB on m:RfA. -Barras 07:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Barras, request it please on m:RfA and add how long it will be needed. --WizardOfOz talk 16:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very nice that we have the Translate extension on Meta! I don't understand how it's going to be used. Are we still in a test period? We need to write down some guideline about it, in any case. Translation administrators should follow the usual request for access page with some (simple process). Moreover, we should probably give pagetranslation permission to all sysops and/or allow sysops to add the group. Nemo 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not done here now, while I might be a wrong person to conclude this thread, because I'm no b'crat here. As Nemo has indicated on the above, either permanent or temporal, either as volunteer or ex officio, all requests for bits are expected to go RfA on meta. Thanks for your understanding.

To be continued: Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/Gmeijssen --Aphaia 18:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Https security compromised by global message


The current and future global notice messages visible on all wikimedia project seems to compromise the HTTPS security because of some URL using the http: prefix (See bugzilla:31446).

Can anyone remove the http: prefix from all messages in order to use protocol relative URL ?

--DavidL 10:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understood it correctly, someone should remove every http: and https: occurrency from the MediaWiki namespace, and protocol-relative URLs would always work. If it's confirmed to work, someone should just run a bot for it. I thought Roan was going to do it? Nemo 09:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it should be removed from all messages ; I was thinking first about Special:NoticeTemplate where these messages are visibles on multiple projects, so HTTPS security is compromised everywhere.
It is OK to use protocol relative URL because now http and https Wikimedia servers are the same:
But http: prefix should be kept only for links to other servers if no https equivalent exist (links do not compromise HTTPS security) :
  • (https certificate has wrong site: *
--DavidL 11:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Using bot is not necessary for Special:NoticeTemplate. Removing http: can be done manually.
--DavidL 11:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done I've made all former http links in MediaWiki namespace protocol-relative (4957 edits...), this should fix it everywhere. Let us know if there's any problem. This is the pywikipediabot fix I used, basically copying Roan's regexes and making them even slower. ;-)

    'https': {
        'regex': True,
        'msg': {
               'it':u'Bot: [[WMFblog:2011/10/03/native-https-support-enabled-for-all-wikimedia-foundation-wikis/|Protocol-relative URLs]] per'
        'replacements': [
            (u"http://wik(ipedia|inews|isource|ibooks|iquote|iversity|tionary|imedia)\.org/",                  ur"//wik\"),
            (u"http://([^@:/]+\.)wik(ipedia|inews|isource|ibooks|iquote|iversity|tionary|imedia)\.org/",                  ur"//\1wik\"),
            (u"http://www\.mediawiki\.org/",                  ur"//"),
            (u"http://www\.wikimediafoundation\.org/",         ur"//"),
            (u"http://mediawiki\.org/",                  ur"//"),
            (u"http://wikimediafoundation\.org/",         ur"//"),
        'exceptions': {
			'inside': [

Nemo 17:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


You should consider blocking that account and perhaps inviting the user to choose another name. Striker talk 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  Blocked locally, and Bencmq locked it globally. — Tanvir | Talk ] 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation Administrators

I just saw this and as there is a ongoing discussion here, I would like to hear the opinion of other sysops and ´crats on meta. This shouldn´t be a discussion about Gerard and Siebrand as I would also grant them the same flag, but a discussion about the givig local flags behind the scenes without any information and without any discussion onwiki from a developer. We are the coordination wiki and the most translations are done here, but IMO we should discuss this first before giving the flags as there is near no information on meta:Translation administrators. --WizardOfOz talk 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a discussion about the flags which have been assigned, they were for test purposes as far as I can understand (the extension has just been implemented). It's true that it would have been nice to have more info about the deployment, but it was done so amazingly quickly by the new localisation team that this is something you can't complain about.
What I think we need, as I said, is some documentation about the feature and some discussion about how we're going to use it on Meta, to integrate it in our processes. By the way, there's some insight about future developments on betawiki:Issues_and_features#Page_translation. Nemo 09:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:LFI10

This user is an advertising account. πr2 (tc) 03:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  Blocked: we don't block on sight here, but given the username why not. Nemo 07:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)