Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2013-08

Close Wikivoyage logo election round 1 at 23:59 UTC, 1. August 2013

Please close the Wikivoyage logo election at 23:59 UTC. To do so, please add the following to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (to stay there just until vote tallying is finished):

Wikivoyage\/Logo\/2013\/R1\/v\/.* <noedit> # Wikivoyage Logo Election 2013. Voting ended.

Thanks a lot. Kind regards -- Rillke (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Thehelpfulone 23:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/Reports/Cross-wiki_hat_collectors

This list was recently brought to my attention as I've recently adopted User:WorldTraveller101. I find a list like this pretty objectionable as it serves no purpose other than to disparage these users. While their enthusiasm and eagerness are commendable, they're overeagerness to request these permissions are being persecuted. I find this particularly sad. These users aren't doing anything wrong - yes they're going cross wiki and are trying to "hat collect" or whatever you want to call it, but they're contributing cross wiki. They're becoming active on more than one project which is more than a lot of average en.wiki users can say. The fact that User:Rschen7754 even has a list like this is deplorable - as he, by the definition of some of these users, could be called a hat collector. Looking at his userpage one can see that he appears to be a cross wiki hat collector. The fact that the users on this list seem to be cherry picked not only comes off as cyberbullying but wikistalking. This list does nothing but embarrass these users, and the last I checked, that shouldn't be the goal of any user, let alone an administrator on six projects. Dusti^*poke* 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sure if this should be posted here or if there's a more appropriate board. Dusti^*poke* 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The lists are to protect other wikis against this disruptive sort of behavior and the wasting of the community's time. All of this information is public. Please note that User:Snowolf and User:Mathonius and User:LlamaAl host some of these lists, so I am notifying them with this post. Not responding to the comments regarding my character. --Rschen7754 20:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're a bad editor - please don't get me wrong. I'm saying that this type of list - ANY list like this - is objectionable. The information is public, yes - but why keep such a list? You're wikihouding these editors who have no bad intentions. It's not going to stop someone from making a request - and it's up to that local community whether to grant the right or not. "Protecting other wikis" is a crock - you're not protecting anything. It's harassment, plain and simple. There's better things to do than follow someone's edits and wikistalk them and criticize their actions and edits. Dusti^*poke* 20:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, by definition people who harass other editors are not good editors. In fact, that's the worst offense you can commit on Wikimedia, in my book. So...

Protecting other wikis means making them aware of these disruptive requests, and helps global users to track the problem in the event that global sanctions have to be applied. I know of two scenarios where this happened. --Rschen7754 20:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Hell, I would have been on that list back in 2008. This list doesn't have anything positive about it. The overall effect isn't meant to be positive - unless you want to consider protecting the wikis. I simply have to disagree. Dusti^*poke* 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Good-faith actions sometimes still result in disruption, and cross-wiki hat collectors are one example of that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The users that are on this list need someone to reach out to them and try to mentor them, which I don't see anyone to do. Granted it's much easier to sit back and say "Welp, you're going on my list" and attempt to give them a giant black eye. All I can say is shame on you - to anyone who thinks this list is a good list to have. It's based on ill faith, it makes no attempt to help the user, and it's simply disgusting - plain and simple. This is my last comment. Dusti^*poke* 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The sad thing is that I tried with at least one of the users, and the effort turned out to be wasted as they were bent on getting more hats, and nothing I said mattered. Also, if you were trying to prevent these users from receiving negative attention, you have failed to do so as posting here has drawn even more attention to their actions, especially since this is tracked on the #wikimedia-stewards stalkbot - see w:en:Streisand effect. (Not that I think it's entirely a bad thing, as I believe the WMF needs to be taking more action in the realm of protecting such users from posting personal information about themselves crosswiki, and currently only the English Wikipedia actually does anything about this.) --Rschen7754 20:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot one of the reports belongs to User:Chenzw, so pinging him too. --Rschen7754 22:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rschen7754, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see these lists such as yours asless of a "watch out for these ridiculous cross-wiki vandals and thugs and more of a "list of over enthusiastic editors that may need more specfic mentoring to assist them be great editors". Would you not say that is a fair assessment of the lists? Technical 13 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is how people get on these lists. Let's examine the typical scenario: usually mentorship on their home wiki has failed, and they are facing sanctions up to and including indefinite blocks on their home wiki. This is what makes them go on to other wikis and try and collect hats there. I don't see this as any different than say, User:MF-Warburg/Google9999. --Rschen7754 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As the user in question, I would like to advocate my POV of this: While I believe that perhaps it helped at first to know about it, I know feel humiliated and in terms of my AWB request, I asked Dusti, my adopter before I went, as I generally upload files at more than one at a time and there are various tedious tasks, including categorization that AWB would help upon, not to mention it got approved. I find that some of my earlier request were hat collector-like, but I only intend to make legit requests (ie finishing adoption, doing good work, and then ask my adopter and/or a trusted user if I should request), as you will find that soon, the list will do nobody any good. The addition of my new request to the "naughty list" is 100% deleterious and humiliating. And when I did rollback on simple Wikipedia, I felt mislead based on mixed comments, some said that rollback is impossible to get, and some said that everyone except vandals get it, and I don't recall there being Twinkle on Simple anyway, so I apologize for that, but I only intend to improve and Jasper Deng, is it true that you told Prabash/PBASH607 to add that? If it is true, then how sad. You care that much about adding a legit request to some abso-bloody-lootley humiliating list. I'll admit that I feel a lot more strongly about this list, and technically, I concur with most comments here. But this humiliates me about this. Hell, if this is what you're reports are, then I surely would expect there to be a lot more than just that set. I'm fairly appalled. I'm going to AGF here Rschen, but I hope you consider all of our thoughts. Best of wishes. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You can be removed from the list when we're convinced that rights are not your sole aim on Wikimedia projects (I still remember your request on testwiki). What I told Prabash specifically was the rollback request on simplewiki, not the AWB request he added to the list, which is legitimate, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The reports were started a few months ago, so naturally there aren't that many. --Rschen7754 22:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep these lists to yourself, Rschen7754. If users are allowed to make their own petty lists, on their userspace, then I'm going to create a list myself. It shall be called "The Most Abusive Wikipedia Admins", and sure enough, Rschen would be way high on that list. (Would you like that, Rschen?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom, while I don't like the list, that is also unkind. Jasper Deng that is beyond mean and false. Hats are cool, but if I wasn't here for content, then it would be obvious :) Best. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But you also admitted above that some of your requests were hat collection-like above, which is why the list came into existence. I talked with Rschen about removing you from the list but he declined (however, I stand by my dislike of your request for rollback on simplewiki).

I apologize if your intent is not rights. The inference I made from your testwiki adminship request was otherwise, however.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with test wiki adminship? If you want to test some technical thing, or a feature of MediaWiki, adminship there can be useful. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing was, though, he didn't provide a suitable rationale, and requested the rights while blocked on enwiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I do find it ironic that the user maintaining this list has himself been called a hat collector (note: as the user pointed out, this was a false claim). That said, I don't find calling someone a "hat collector" and listing every request they have ever made for permissions on a Wikimedia site very constructive, but I have no real problem with doing this if the community is fine with it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, I think WT101 deserves to be delisted here. I would encourage Rschen7754, in the future, to increase the standards for inclusion in there and delist users in cases where its detrimental effects exceed the benefit of being able to point to such a list at a rights request (which is already rather rude at times as well, especially for otherwise-legitimate requests).--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the purpose is to protect other wikis from rights abuse. I can think of several users who have a lot of rights, but they are trusted, know what the rights actually are (which some of the requesters didn't before they asked for them), and know how to use them properly. That is why there is a distinction. Any inquiries about specific listings can be made on my talk page. --Rschen7754 23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict.)Jasper Deng, people don't get removed from the list (at least that is what I gather from the statement that "ThineAntiquePen" is reformed although still on the list. Rschen7754, doesn't the English Wikipedia's en:WP:Standard offer suggest that these users that have had difficulties for whatever reason and are blocked attempt to demonstrate that they are good intentioned and competent by editing on these other projects per "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF-projects prior to requesting an en:return per this 'offer' as many unban-requests have been declined due to the banned user simply 'waiting' the six months out."? Then, you want to penalize them for making useful contributions and requesting rights based on that. Sounds fishy to me. Technical 13 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That has to be changed, in my opinion, actually. When a user is reformed, at least partially, the list begins to fail to serve its purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I hate discussing specific users on this page, but I have removed TAP from my page (after it was readded by another user), and I have asked Snowolf to courtesy blank the corresponding page. --Rschen7754 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's what the page does not say: Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to continue their disruptive behaviors on other wikis prior to requesting an en:return per this 'offer' as many unban-requests have been declined due to the banned user simply 'waiting' the six months out. --Rschen7754 23:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Rschen7754 for blanking my report and with that, I will make sure that it remains blanked. And BTW, I'm not banned either. That's how it was interpreted as. Anyway, thanks guys, let's end the episode and move forward. Best wishes Rschen7754 and maybe when I'm unblocked, I can help you in your highway stuff :) WorldTraveller101 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What really erred me is how I was mentioned and never notified of this discussion! Prabash (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I personally think the page should have stayed there, it provides information to the public about disruptive editors and their similar behavior across wiki-projects, but if the user changes after his unblock on the english wikipedia and starts good work on other projects the list can get very embarrassing. But WorldTraveller101 has shown the urge for hats off wiki to me personally over email and IRC, such as hoping to get reviewer and rollbacker after clean start, unblock etc. So this list would be a reliable information source for any admin that decides to reject or grant a user right for this user. Prabash (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

These lists simply should be deleted. Per What may I not have in my user pages—

• Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.
• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

I'm pretty sure I could play the argument that by making a list of the "most abusive admins" I'd just be protecting the wikis from abuse, but then again, I'm also pretty that sure such a list would be deleted quickly, or else I'd be blocked. Admins like User:Rschen who keep these petty lists should be blocked too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom, Rschen7754 was not being abusive. Some are users who are locked globally and your accusatons are quite troubling. But I requested it because I intend to change my way and PBASH607, my opinions about hats have actually changed. Plus, I'd much rather show off hair than cover it with hats ;) Anyway, shall we let it all go and move on to better things? WorldTraveller101 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom these lists are informative, for monitoring the progress of an editor that is clearly disruptive and badgers every editor to support him, including his emails on users to other editors regarding unblock support on the English Wikipedia. He has been blocked several times from meat puppetry (vandalism) to NPA's

How on earth is Rschen7754 an abusive admin? hes a prolific constructive editor in 4 different Wikipedia's I have never at once seen him do such deeds like that, he's only providing reliable information! Prabash (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lists such as his are extremely divisive. They are also, as quoted above, against policy. Not to mention that the criteria for Rschen7754's list is rather subjective (I, for one, have always seen Rschen as a hat collector, but he doesn't appear in his own list—I wonder why.) I also dislike lists of banned users—why do people even make those? To publicly shame them? What are we, in the Middle Ages? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom cut the crap with the accusations. With all due respect to you, I like Rschen7754. He knows a lot about highways. Please stop. Prabash, the off wiki accusations hurt, most are not true. Rschen is giving me a new chance and he has agreed to let it go and I hope the list remains empty. Good edits to all. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be happy that you are off the list (good for you), but there are 9 other users who are still on it. There is a good reason why these petty lists are not acceptable per policy. If you want the list to "remain empty", as I do, then you agree with me that it should be deleted. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that people who support the lists (not necessarily myself) could use the argument that the policy you linked was on enwiki, not Meta. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Meta have its own policies regarding user pages? ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Meta has very few policies of its own, for better or for worse. Most All of them are listed on WM:PAG#Meta-Wiki and Category:Meta-Wiki policies. If the Wikimedia Foundation has a policy about it, or there is a global policy, that may be applied. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The list should be speedy deleted per Meta:Inclusion policy#Not acceptable: Dedicated attack pages. If Rschen recreates it then he should be blocked for harassment. Admins are not should not be above policy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What a nonsense, listing rights requests of a user is not an attack. --MF-W 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You have made many rights requests yourself, MF-Warburg, yet you are not in that list. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I object to not being there. --MF-W 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take this more seriously, MF-W. Your flippant comment is unhelpful. These lists are not a joke to the people listed there. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But apparently you care enough about the list to continue this conversation. If you don't like the list, say what you have to say and move on with life. Sitting here stewing over it isn't going to make things better; it will only make them worse. Razorflame 23:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Your comment fails to add anything of value to this "conversation". I do care enough to see this list deleted, yes. I consider it against policy, divisive, and harassing. And isn't the suggestion that the people listed there have a "behavioral disorder" a personal attack? I find it disturbing that such an attack list hasn't been speedy deleted yet. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with keeping such lists. This one in particular doesn't appear to disparage the subjects; it just draws upon public information to list users whose apparently frivolous (but probably good-faith) rights-seeking behaviour has caused or is likely to cause problems across several projects. I'd call that a laudable purpose and entirely in keeping with the spirit and letter of w:Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have in my user pages.3F. (But does that guideline even apply here on Meta?) —Psychonaut (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Rules, guidelines, policies from other wikis do not necessarily apply here. Only our own local policies apply here and the global ones. Nothing else. (Otherwise we could also follow the rules of any other language and project...) -Barras talk 13:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I knew that was the general case. What I meant was, is there some local policy or guideline on Meta which duplicates or incorporates by reference the English Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of user pages? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not done this page is not the right place for RfDs. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754, don't you think that saying these users might have behavioral disorders, but do not mention them! is a performative contradiction? It kind of comes across as a "don't do as I do, do as I say." I might suggest removing mention of the supposed behavioral disorders (especially seeing as there is little evidence to even support such a claim) since it is not very relevant. Tiptoety ^talk 18:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but the idea is to avoid well-intentioned users mentioning that _ user is 12 years old and/or has x disorder, as that is generally oversighted on the English Wikipedia, and violates the users' privacy. I know for a fact that some of the users have had their parents claim that they have such disorders, but that is definitely not true for all the users. I also think that such an inquiry should have been directed to me by email or at least on my talk page as opposed to a public noticeboard, but now that it's here... --Rschen7754 19:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

All I know is how it reads now, you are basically saying exactly what you are asking others not to say. Tiptoety ^talk 22:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer any more inquiries about this on a public noticeboard where we will be drawing even more attention to such sensitive cases. If you have any further comments about the matter, please send them to me by email. This thread was already closed by Vituzzu, and rightfully so. --Rschen7754 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting to see Rschen pretending to care about the editors he is personally attacking ("behavioral disorder"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Hayswasherwash

Resolved.

Single purpose account, destructive edits on strategy pages of WMDE. Known troll. --Stepro (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 07:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Codybonnycoder

It's the same troll as User:Hayswasherwash above. --Stepro (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. -Barras talk 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Protection request: Template:Nmbox

Please set semi-protection access level for Template:Nmbox. This widely used template with high risk of vandalize it. --Kaganer (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Barras talk 12:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Protection request: Wikimania 2014 bids/London

Senseless content removal (history) "in order not to confuse our partners". See also discussion on talk page. --MF-W 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to protect, IMHO. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

They're continuing. I would continue to reinstate the content as well, but I want to avoid protection of The Wrong Version because someone screams sth. like "3RR kabooz". --MF-W 16:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah btw, this was solved. --MF-W 13:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Translate the link of Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/Genericmaintenancenotice

Is it possible to make translatable the target link of Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/Genericmaintenancenotice? By adding a message with default to HTTPS and translate it case-by-case? For now it is hardcoded to HTTPS, but some languages have a translated page (Italian, French for now, and I asked for more translations on the translators-l). ~ Seb35 [^_^] 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The target link? You mean you want it to Special:MyLanguage/HTTPS? --MF-W 13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, it would be great to use this, and it is easier than my (manual) proposition. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki is not paper

Hi. I have just been bold and moved Wiki is not paper to Wikipedia is not paper (some people on the talk page seem to think this is a good idea, me included). However, the corresponding talk page seems to be move-protected. Is there an admin who could move Talk:Wiki is not paper to Talk:Wikipedia is not paper? Thanks. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 14:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I was able to do the move. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Abuse filter prevented the move. --Glaisher [talk] 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How long would it take for me to regain my autoconfirmed status? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Until some lazy sysop tells the AbuseFilter to reassign it to your account. Vogone talk 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that is BS as the lazy sysop won't do it, so it is going to be an unlazy sysop, or unlazy and busy steward/sysop gets to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved.

Block of Thomas99

Could a sysop please block User:Thomas99? It’s a sock-puppet of a known dewp-troll who tries to disrupt the talk about the future of WMDE at Talk:Wikimedia Deutschland/Langfristige Ziele and insults other users and me. --DaB. (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Rschen7754 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-). --DaB. (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima

Cuurently opposition outnumbers support 7 to 1. Leaving this open any longer will only prolong/inflame the drama, so could some admin or other trusted user who has not commented there please just close it up. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have closed it. Tiptoety ^talk 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nemo bis

Can an admin close this and deal with Nemo bis for disruption? I was blocked without consensus, which is not a ban. Nemo bis knows this, and with his log combative history towards me and others (see his admin removal here). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

see his admin removal: Was von SarekOfVulcan, einem ähnlich verständnisvollem und fleißigem Mitarbeiter, wie Du einer bist, gestartet wurde. -- Rillke (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As there is ongoing discussion on that RfC, I am reluctant to close it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowolf, there is no meeting of the criteria so it cannot be justly opened. There have not been two bans. It was a set up done by IRC to try and cut through our processes. There is already foul cried over in Commons about the canvassing and attempts to quick close, and this just shows the extent that they are waging war across multiple projects. Nemo bis knows that he is not supposed to act this way, and a block is standard for such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not yet read the RfC page since I opened it, but the above allegation mentioning IRC is just a conspiracy theory and a personal attack. Please refrain from such a behaviour or I'll be forced to ask a local block. --Nemo 17:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple admin have seen the logs where Mattbuck was trying to drum up support for 3 days and then, after he got the voters to arrive there after it was open for one hour had another friend of his come in and block me. Then he was canvassing for my email and talk page to be blocked too. Multiple admin complained publicly that procedures were not being followed and reopened the matter which you then came out over here in desperation to continue your harassment and opened up a global ban even though I clearly did not qualify for such. Mass canvassing, abuse of process, and harassment are blockable offenses. You were desysopped for your harassment of those like myself and it is obvious that you have a really long, negative history at the WMF. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

ROTFLOL, your vittimismo is lovely. Thanks for the laugh. --Nemo 18:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowolf, if you need to see the logs to see evidence of the canvassing to help in getting those like Nemo and Mattbuck removed, I will be happy to send them over. The sooner they are gone the better it will be for everyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The proposer has the right to make an RFC proposal, and it will be dealt with upon its merits. If there are inaccuracies in the statements made, then they can be addressed on the RFC, if you so choose. As you have indicated at previous RfC, they should be allowed to run their course. I do not see that there should be any punitive measures taken against a person for launching a proposal to which I see that they have a truly earnest and honest belief. I know that you had no issue launching one against the vast bulk of the enWS admins in early 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "right" to make a global ban proposal, so your statement is factually wrong (you recognize this over at the global delivery page after all :) ). This was clearly done in bad faith, part of canvassing, and clearly did not meet the criteria. It was an excuse to ping my talk pages on many Wikis and harass me. Oh, and the proposal I launched against Wikisource admin was knowingly allowing Poetlister, a person who has stalked people, used many sock puppets across Wiki, etc., to become an admin there under a new sock. I think everyone will agree with me that such was really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am amazed that you consider that others don't have rights, but you do. Your statements are like cutout ransom notes. It is my opinion that you will mis-state and misrepresent to build your delusion of self-perfection and righteousness, with this range of behaviours seen around the wikis. And you are one of the experts of inappropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hunter mariner blacklist entry

I have added this blacklist entry since I had no other way of stopping a crosswiki spammer (see Vandalism reports/Archive 5#Hunter Mariner crosswiki vandal and Special:CentralAuth/Hunter Mariner XIV among other accounts). However, I do not know what the usual procedure is, and invite review of this. --Rschen7754 04:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am presuming that it is username stuff, so I have added <newaccountonly>, though it is generally not that significant. All it generally means is that they make a variation or change in account name, and continue their disruption. To me the list has had the best value in its use around significant words of concern, or harassment of people by imitation or mockery. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also creating similarly named pages across several wikis. I'm generally not a fan of using the blacklist for this purpose, but was unable to flag down a steward to respond at the time. --Rschen7754 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it's normally not useful to blacklist such pattern account names (if the abuser is already so nice to make himself easily recognizable, why should we stop him from that), but the usage for preventing spam pages seems entirely reasonable. --MF-W 03:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Should the <newaccountonly> be removed, then? --Rschen7754 06:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it; we'll see if he moves to a new pattern as he did (partially) with his user names. --MF-W 00:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Centralnotice request : Review of WMNL draft annual plan

Could a meta sysop please help in launching a centralnotice? Sample visible at Review of WMNL draft annual plan. Campaign proposed at centralnotice calendar]. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Done - Romaine (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

When to review the "Global bans" policy

See Talk:Global_bans#When_to_review_the_policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that posting that here is entirely relevant, there is no help required. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

d:User:Ricordisamoa/Rollback.js

I made that tool at Wikidata, but now I'm moving my non-wiki-specific scripts to Meta-Wiki and would mind to lose the whole history. Could that be actually imported into User:Ricordisamoa/Rollback.js? (I will delete that on Wikidata later) --Ricordisamoa 08:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata is not in the list of wikis from which it is possible to import (on Meta). The page cannot be imported with all history but only copied and pasted to the title you want./Wikidata non è nella lista delle wiki da cui è possibile importare (su Meta). La pagina non potrà essere importata con tutta la cronologia ma solo copiata ed incollata al titolo che si desidera.

Choose an option/Scegli un'opzione:

1. (bugzilla:) File a request on Bugzilla to add d: as an import source for Meta./Aprire un bug su Bugzilla.
2. Copy and paste/Copiare e incollare

PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, stewards and these users can importupload if necessary. --MF-W 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any real chance to get the script imported? --Ricordisamoa 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Any updates? --Ricordisamoa 06:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you need a copy of the history, do a copy and paste to the talk page. Just blank it or overwrite the WD version, and you will maintain the history fine. Not something that local sysops can do. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A steward can do it, but we local admins can't currently. See above. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)