Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2013-09

This isnt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
So how's the weather where you guys live? WorldTraveller101 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

exactly what I was looking for: "For the purposes of putting out the fire, Angel54 5 is not welcome here. You only seem to desire enflaming things and I can't have that. Ottava Rima went through a lot, so stop acting like a big fat arsehole and trying to get someone mad. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)" Please inform that user, that this isnt any style requested on meta.--Angel54 5 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I kicked you from my talk page because it was only making fellow users upset. From what I can tell, his comments were only going to make Ottava Rima, who has significantly cooled off, pissed off. I surely don't have official power to kick you from my talk page, albeit quite frankly, that's about as courteous one would likely tell you to leave a page IMHO, considering the scenario. In case you misinterpreted the arsehole sentence, I basically was telling you to f**k off in a polite manner while getting the point across, since you did not seem to get that it was only going to piss people off. All you came to my talk page for was to complain about A. Savin, which IMHO seemed to me an attempt at intentionally trying to rile up Ottava and get him kicked out globally. Also, would you please notify me of this discussion next time you post here regarding me. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 (talkcontribs) 22:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not notify so. who is - without any reason - this impolite. I didnt write anything on ur talkpage after this massive insult. I tried to explain my view, cause Ottava asked about. It was u not him but u calling me a "big fat arsehole". I dont think ur in the right position to state a massive assault against my person. Behave urself.--Angel54 5 (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC) And btw.: Who - the hell - gives u the right to struck my vote in that case. That was the reason I originally wrote sth., not to talk to Ottava. U have done sth u arent entitled to. Ur changing subjects.--Angel54 5 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
A few things come to mind here: First of all, you always notify someone, whether or not you are happy with them. And no, Ottava Rima did not ask for your opinion. I was not impolite either. I didn't call you an arsehole/asshole, I told you to stop acting like one, because it was only making people angry. Also, the ban proposal was already closed, so what is with all the fuss about it? Let's move on to better things. WorldTraveller101 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I did and do not ask u to comment ur actions. An admin should do that: Ur insulting me again in ur comment here. Above u wrote what? "to f**k off in a polite manner". When will u learn sth? The ban proposal was closed, but u struck my voice before it was. U have NO right to act like all this, an admin should decide that. U r not appropriate in ur utterings.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To the two of you, please disengage. This is not the English Wikipedia and we do not do talk page bans, but you should not attempt to anger someone who clearly does not want to interact with you, either. --Rschen7754 18:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just means what? He/she can go on like that?--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it means the both of you need to drop your w:en:WP:STICK and move on. --Rschen7754 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Means, no action, not even asking that user why he did? Im not accepting that. He/she began, not me. And when I asked him why, he/she was not in the mood to give me an answer but was bullying me...Protesting against this. Each impertinent action should at least be named as one.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Btw. What does that mean (from ur talk page):
You've got mail Rschen7754. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
YGM again. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)?"

One hand doesnt wash the other one dirty? or what? Think this admin is partial.--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I bet these mails were on a totally unrelated and boring matter. However, I received no e-mails from that user and also think that it would be the best if you would de-escalate this your conflict with WorldTraveller101 by stopping to discuss with him in this section. --MF-W 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok. And on the task at hand u say nothing either. He is entitled to bully other people. Im stopping here each discussion. But that was no honorable page for adminship here at meta. Thx.--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, those emails to Rschen7754 were about a completely unrelated matter. It had zero to do with Meta. I was not bullying, in fact I was trying to make sure you didn't pick a fight with a user, which it looked like you did. I agree with Rschen7754 that this is pointless. As I said, the Wikimedia Foundation created hundreds of sites for a reason, so why not we cool it, eh? I have nothing against you Angel54 5, so let's drop it. Thanks and happy editing. WorldTraveller101 (talkcontribs) 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I informed user:sj about that case.--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The substantive concern here was the vote Angel54 made on an RfC which was improperly struck. I restored the vote; no outcomes change. Angel and WT, I know you were both editing in good faith. SJ talk  18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

not logged in edit

Could soemone please remove a edit I did while not logged in? Side question: Why is the session from enwiki not valid here, forcing me to log in? - Nabla (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done. The session is valid here, but sometimes it doesn't work. The system might be a little bit slow sometimes. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tegel (talk • contribs) LlamaAl (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC).
  • Just oversighted it, for the next time please mail the oversighters instead of posting on a publicboard. -Barras talk 10:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

close a RFA


Hi could someone please close Meta:Requests for CentralNotice adminship/Mono? Mono 15:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Barras talk 16:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


One of my friend and I proposed a wiki, "Wikikulture" (this is the English version and this is the Italian version), but I don't succeed to make you see the button "Add a signature" in the section "People interested" (a section for the supporters).

Furthermore I don't succeed to make you see this section ("People interested" aka "Persone interessate") in the Italian version of this proposal.

Finally I don't succeed to make you see the various language version (now only two, English and Italian) in the upper part of the screen both in the English version and in the Italian one.

Thank you in advance for the help!

--Mikelo Gulhi (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment request

As member of the international team who organizes Wiki Loves Monuments, I am responsible for the technical infrastructure on the wikis, including the upload campaigns and CentralNotices that are needed for all of the 52 countries that participate. At the beginning of this month I accidental came across this request in the recent changes. This appeared strange to me, no communication whatsoever had been on the mailinglist, talk page or elsewhere that would have enabled us to discuss this prior to this request. At the request page I wrote that it is unneeded to have another central notice admin, but above all that it is not a good idea to act without any communication, as that would only cause driving in each others wheels. Yesterday I accidental noticed he started editing the campaigns, without any communication, even while he was requested to communicate. He messed up the campaigns, but lucky I was able to fix that fast after. While he was editing I wrote him on IRC, but no response given, also in my edit summary I asked for communication first. Today again he changed campaigns with again no communication. There is no need for those edits which look more like playing with the tool. The CentralNotice is shown on millions of pages, things have to be done there with care and above all with communication and coordination. Even while he is aware of that, he does not do that and is not acting responsible. This is not the behaviour we require for this tool with massive impact. I regret that two days ago the access was given, please remove it to avoid further problems. Romaine (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please implement a centralnotice banner campaign

For Preregistration for conference (WCN) of Wikimedia Netherlands it would be nice to have a centralnotice targeted to the Netherlands in the period October 4 to October 10, 2013. An example banner text is provided in Preregistration for conference (WCN) of Wikimedia Netherlands. A line has been added to CentralNotice/Calendar. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I will do that. Romaine (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Template error in protected page

A Talk:Spam blacklist archive does not display the discussion text (at the bottom of the page). A closed template is not processed properly.

The discussion displayed correctly when on the Talk page itself.[1] It displayed correctly in the sandbox.[2] I did some work with the page text and did not find the problem, but it seemed to have something to do with the wikitext above the section.

Please identify the problem and fix it. Were it not under protection, I'd do more. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it has too many expensive parser calls. I don't really know how to fix it. Maybe subst'ing the closed template will fix it, but I'd rather let someone else do this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to edit the page would present the following warning to editors:

Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls.

It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 1,869 calls.

Subst'ing "Template:Closed" alone doesn't fix the problem, since "Template:Not done", "Template:LinkSummary", "Template:Collapse top", "Template:Collapse bottom", etc. become the new templates that must subst'd. The page is simply too large, and it would be easier just to split the page in two than to subst everything. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I tried and I got the standard "technical error" page (like this). I'll leave this for another admin. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It may need to be split into more than two pages. The archive index would be updated. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives. That is also protected, and hasn't been updated since early 2011. --Abd (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Heh! You can see where it breaks: it's at the bottom of this section. Spam spam breaks spam blacklist. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I broke the page into three pieces. I had to nowiki a link in the third section so that the spam filter wouldn't stop it, otherwise, no changes, just splitting. The pages are at User:Abd/Test, User:Abd/Test2, and User:Abd/Test3. I did get the technical error page a few times, but the page save still went ahead. I will move them into place and check them, as 2011-07a, 2011-07b, and 2011-7c, and then someone can check my work and, if it's okay, delete the larger archive.
  • Moved to Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-07a, Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-07b, and Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-07c. I will add a speedy deletion tag to the temp files I created. The original archive should *not* be deleted, it should be replaced as to content with a note pointing to the three new substitute pages, for transparency, because one of the ways of finding archive pages is to look through history and see the archiving. The new pages should be protected, then, once verified to be accurate. However, I'm worried that a lot more archive pages are broken. --Abd (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked back into 2010, even found another archive that was over 90K, but the one here had an extraordinary number of templates, truly huge, one per line practically, and it was also over 90K. I didn't look at every archive, but found no other than was broken, and looked at a number of fairly large pages in terms of byte count. I don't think any more will pop up. Archiving is now done by bot, and archive pages tend to be smaller. --Abd (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    Nice work. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Consider this   Done. Thank you both for your suggestions, especially Abd. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Admins enforcing basic decency?

  • Example one - calling names, hate speech
  • Example two - more hate speech
  • Example three - false accusations against user identified to Wikimedia Foundation (checkuser) and other users, hate speech, slander

It is understandable that on RfC pages blocked vandals will vent some steam, but admins here should provide some level of decent conversation and remove edits which obviously violate common Wikipedia/Wikimedia rules. TIA. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like that page badly needs semi-protection. Does anyone else agree or disagree with me? vvvt 13:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
SpeedyGonsales this needs to be resolved. A person who is an admin should not behave in such a manner. Decency is what we need not some politically motivated hate speech. This needs to be sanctioned ! Ljubuski79 (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement of Ljubuski79. The whole page is sort of harassment of community of led by contributors from SH:WP project. Harassment includes repeated personal attacks and intimidation of contributos from, (especially sysops) using slanders and offensive etiquettes. The goal seems to be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the targets or to discourage them from editing entirely. We already have after effects of sysop hr:User:Kubura contribution gap because of the harassment and sysop hr:User:Vodomar, who was involved in the conversation on the mentioned page, who left entirely because of harassing attacks. The page has lots of tolerated incivility examples. I'm posting some of them here:

Ivan Štambuk, who started that harassment page, is repeatedly accusing me to be the same user as Kubura, without proof, (he may check it is nonsense accuasation because he can read my discusion page on and he is offensing at the end with the words: You're brainwashed beyond help. Not only me and Kubura brainwashed but the millions of people who don't share the same agenda as Ivan Štambuk.
  • Here, incivility, harassment
  • Some examples of offensive slanders he posted on September 15 and 16 already deleted, as we can see on history page.
  • Here he says: There should be further sinking of If nothing else, at least is now pulblicly humiliated. I have big plans for
And here he is asking the project to be disrupted by removing all sysops. Slanders included as many times in the discussion, without any reasonable proof.
After that, when someone points out that there is incivility problem in Ivan Štambuk's behavior in the discussion, because of hate issue towards, he removes that. Acting as some moderator of that slanders page he created, whose aim is to make humiliated so his big plans with could be realised. Chvrka (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for desysop.

A sysop in MSWIKI have requested to desysop. Where should he put up his request? His original request at (Bahasa Melayu) CTMakerbot (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

On SRP#Removal_of_access. --MF-W 14:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)