Open main menu

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2016-10

Vandalism

Many IPs try to vandalize this page Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0-- Ibrahim (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this page has a lot of traffic these days so it's normal to see this level of vandalism there; we will keep an eye on that page. Thanks for informing.--Syum90 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Amgauna requests unblock

Please see her unblock request. @Teles: What do you think? —MarcoAurelio 17:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Amgauna unfortunately lacks competence to make translations from English to Portuguese or vice-versa, but insisted mistranslating with automatic translators like Google/Bing/BabelFish until blocked and does not appear to acknowledge the wrongdoing as suggested by the rationale of the unblock request «reason Please, unblock, I am translator english - portuguese». Defender (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Marco. I follow Defender on that. She doesn't seem to understand the problems that lead to the block. There was a similar request in the past and I even invited other sysops to answer and not only me. I think Beria also answered with same opinion. I can't see what has changed since then.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
There should be a way to prevent users from translating if they are doing it bad. At least that seems the only issue of Amgauna's block. Thanks for your comments so far. Unless some others think otherwise, I'll decline her unblock request because of no consensus. I'd like to ask @Nikerabbit: if the TranslationSandbox would be of any help on cases like this. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 08:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
TranslationSandbox would not be of help in this case. --Nikerabbit (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have declined her unblock request. —MarcoAurelio 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Centralnotice-shared-help-translate/sh

Hello!

Can someone change MediaWiki:Centralnotice-shared-help-translate/sh so it would read Pomozite s prevođenjem! instead of Pomozite nam s pr(ij)evodima! because I don't have permission to edit the page? Thank you. --Conquistador (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 23:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Adjust the altered banner:CNBanner:Wmf tou cc 4-ToUCC4Text2/ja

A user (perhaps a beginner) altered a japanese translation of the CN banner CNBanner:Wmf tou cc 4-ToUCC4Text2/ja and put down his/her own opinion into the translation field Special:Diff/15979067 instead of a discussion page. I reverted it but the banner still shows the users opinion instead of a translation: for these 3 days the CN banner is saying "記述内容に責任のない記事、または掲載するサイトが責任をとらないのであれば、ライセンスの取得を強制すべきではないと考えます。" [1]. Would you please adjust/update the banner back to "10月5日から11月8日まで開催中の議論へ是非ご参加下さい"? Thanks.--miya (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it looks good now? @Miya:MarcoAurelio 10:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Now it looks good :[2]. Thank you, Marco.--miya (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Block needed?

This user [3] does not appear to be here to contribute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  •   Done----Stemoc 00:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for Reguyla to be unblocked on Meta

Greetings all. I am requesting my account on Meta be unblocked so that I can update my global userpage and participate in discussions here again. Previous to being blocked I did some good edits to this site such as updating the CVN bots page and starting the RFC to globally ban WayneRay and I believe I could be of benefit again if allowed too. Aside from requesting to be unblocked I have not attempted to evade my block here. I am submitting here based on a discussion at Ajraddatz talk page who felt this venue was my best chance of appeal. I don't really intend to edit here that much but my Meta userpage shows up on multiple wiki's as a default and I cannot change anything on it due to being blocked. I would have requested using my account rather than this IP but due to the block in place I couldn't. So please try not to hold that against your decision. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:B92D:29C7:46A4:7A37 22:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Any comments would be appreciated. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:B80A:A33:9C16:2A3A 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey Reguyla o/, yeah i agree with Ajraddatz and this is the best avenue for an unblock. AlexZ blocked you and I know him and you have an issue so he is unlikely to unblock you, but since you were blocked on 19th July, I'd happily remove your block on 19th October (3 month ban) if you promise to stop using metawiki to fuel your hatred towards enwiki (lol)..I understand your situation but I also think that no long standing editors should ever be blocked 'indefinitely'..so in 3 days, I will lift your block (if AlexZ does not do it before me :P ) but if you continue with your 'ramblings' and get blocked again by Alex, I won't be overturning AlexZ's block on you :) ...--Stemoc 02:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you and that's fair, I can certainly wait three days. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:A588:B9C2:7FAB:6A26 15:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, block lifted, behave now...--Stemoc 00:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation requests

Vandalisms on this above mentioned page. IMO, not need to edit by anonymous. So, can someone semi-protect this page? Regards — TBhagat (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We have had discussions about protecting translation pages, but the idea didn't get enough support. Stryn (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think he refered to the page linked in the title. I have semiprotected it. —MarcoAurelio 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Muishadi4

I came across Muishadi4 on MediaWiki making destructive edits. I asked about it on IRC but didn't seem to get an answer. I'm stupidly new and low on the wiki totem pole and clicked around on random links after reverting their edits, discovering that they are making destructive edits elsewhere. The only edits I can't revert are [4] and [5]. I posted on the talk page of the user that banned them from Wikipedia and he suggested I post here.Jkmartindale (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  Blocked, thanks for informing.--Syum90 (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You can also report it at SRG in order to request a global lock. Thanks and regards.--Syum90 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for translation adminship/Tulsi Bhagat

Could it be closed? Matiia (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If no one does, I can; but since I've voted I'd prefer Barras or MF-W to do so. —MarcoAurelio 14:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  DoneMarcoAurelio 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Mailing list

Hello. I sometimes find it difficult to find a fellow admin or bureaucrat these days. Posts on this board go unattended for days, sometimes even archived without resolution. That's not okay. Taking into account the positive experience of some projects where I used to work or do currently work, and where an identical system which is now proposed is in place, I propose that a mailing list for administrators be created for Meta-Wiki, so we could reach each other in case of backlogs, discussions and so on. This will help increase the awareness of important issues to the whole administration team on this wiki which is not a home for many of them. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 17:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  Support I also think It could be useful for Meta as it is on other projects.--Syum90 (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  Support this could be useful. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
(Obviously I am not an eligible subscriber as I am no longer an admin here, and do not wish to reapply). Would the list be publicly or privately archived? What would the rules of confidentiality be? --Rschen7754 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that the list should be private and maybe it shouldn't be archived (although that can be addressed later and adjusted as appropriate, and of course, if the list is private, its archives should be private as well). I personally would prefer a private list so we can have an expectation of privacy when dealing with sensitive matters, and to protect subscribers email addresses as well (some might also be using their real names on its email headers which is not something that should be disclosed to avoid doxing or harassment). With regards to confidentiality, I'd expect the standard that content shouldn't be disclosable but with the permission of the involved users, and if so, with emails and real names removed. Hope that this answers your question. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in particular against the idea, but I suspect it would not be any more effective than setting up a mass message for particularly important events (should not occur too often and an opt-in system could be established). With mailing lists, I fear too many things which should happen here in public will move to our mailing inboxes. --Vogone (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought about that. Yes, that might be a problem. Notwithstanding, decision making should happen on-wiki where at all possible. That does not barr that sysops can discuss things among ourselves, or asking questions, etc. I also like the idea of a mass message list. I feel both can be useful, and since massmessage lists support content model handling, adding and removing folks from those lists are very easy and handy. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 10:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be OK with a massmessage list as well. I agree that lists can tend towards private decisions being made when they don't need to be. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Mailing lists work perfectly in other projects, but a massmessage list is also ok for me.--Syum90 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has just begun to use a massmessage list for administrators, say for policy announcements. Aside from not inviting the overuse of private venues, it also accounts better for the fact that not all admins there are on IRC or on mailing lists (for example, I am not). JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I have created a list of Meta-Wiki regular administrators at Meta:Administrators/Mass-message list. —MarcoAurelio 13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd assume at meta some admins have their role for special purposes and are not available for general admin tasks. It could be an idea to appoint additional users if there is a shortage. --Krd 09:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we need more "generalist" administrators not just focused on one or two issues. The process is, however, not closed for anyone so people feeling that it could do a good job can just nominate themselves or be nominated. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 15:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm still hoping that there are suitable candidates who may not be aware of the need and could be pointed to. If the thing is that there are no more people and every part of the rest will stick to those who are already in charge anywhere, we'll be lost. --Krd 17:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

@Peteforsyth replied to User_talk:James_Salsman#Unblock_request saying that he has no time to fully investigate this. Maybe some has. Block background at Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information/Archives/2012#James_Salsman. Not saying that we should approve or deny the unblock. —MarcoAurelio 16:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd very much like some other eyes on this. To summarize a bit: James Salsman has a multi-year history of socking and evading blocks and bans, on English Wikipedia and Meta Wiki. He has also demonstrated a clear desire to maximize Wikimedia's impact in areas related to the most recent strategic plan, through a variety of email list posts etc. He was recently approved as a mentor for an IdeaLab project, by Wikimedia Foundation employee Qgil-WMF, who was aware of James' accounts' history. James may be ready to engage in better faith with our rules and social norms than he has in the past, or he may be simply trying to work his way back in through a legitimate project, without any substantial change in his views. I don't really know how to evaluate it and make a determination. Part of me wants to give him another chance; another part wants to save the Wikimedia community from the drama and distraction that will likely result if he behaves if he has, repeatedly, in the past. I don't think his current efforts require him to be unblocked. I will note that his user page on Commons, where he is not blocked, continues to carry a message that openly declares his view that the quality of Wikipedia is more important to him than an ArbCom ruling, in a rather confrontational manner. (He has agreed, however, to change that language here on Meta Wiki.) More eyes and views on this decision would be most welcome. -Pete F (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a correction: as the Foundation's main contact for Google Summer of Code, I posed no objection to Jsalsman proposing a project idea for this program, and eventually becoming a GSoC mentor, operating basically in Wikimedia Phabricator. This had nothing to do with IdeaLab, a space in Meta in which I have no special role.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for the error, and thanks for the correction Qgil-WMF. -Pete F (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I have dearchived this thread. I'd appreciate further input in here. —MarcoAurelio 09:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Given that there are no comments and no one is willing to unblock, I'd say that this is now a ban and the unblock request is denied. —MarcoAurelio 14:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking through the details here on meta, I am not seeing concern regarding unblocking at this point in time if the user in question agrees to only us a single account going forwards. Appears the extra accounts used were a misunderstanding of policy rather than with malicious intent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
And the other accounts Tiptoety checked later, which were the reason for the indef block? --Vogone (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You mean their was socking after the block? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't look too deep into this, but the Checkuser request linked has shown evidence for socking after which weak consensus seemed to be not to block. But eventually (last 3 comments) Tiptoety decided to block indefinitely after even more socks were found. I wonder if this still falls under "misunderstanding of policy" then. --Vogone (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
They have agreed not to use other accounts again. I think the risk of further issues is low at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion on this request, but I am also not inclined to unblock. However I wonder about your statement that therefore "this is now a ban". Do we actually have such a policy on Meta which says that people whose unblock request is denied are therefore "banned" (whatever then the definition of that is)? --MF-W 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No, no such policy exist here. In fact, I don't think we distinguish between indefblocks and a ban; and the only banning policy we've got is the global ban policy and the WMF global ban policy. You can disregard that statement that is, certainly, enwiki practice only. —MarcoAurelio 13:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Re-dearchive. —MarcoAurelio 16:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed closure

I suggest closing this as no consensus for unblock. This can't stay open forever. —MarcoAurelio 13:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request declined No consensus to unblock and no oppose here for about a week.--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)